I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate on such an important subject. I am interested in films, but I do not claim to have any expertise in such matters. I know the films that I like, but I shall not engage in a subjective examination of various films or the artistic merits of the British film industry compared with others. When we debate the film industry we usually discuss the artistic merits of respective talents in the industry, rather than concentrate on the character of the industry, which I want to do today.

I come to the debate not so much as someone who is interested in films, but as someone who is interested in the industry and how public policy supports it. I am a member of the Trade and Industry Select Committee and the film industry is not part of our remit. However, we have been examining biotechnology and the way in which British industry is changing and adapting. This country trades not on the basis of historical patterns of industrial activity, but on new patterns that are based on comparative advantages, especially creative and innovative talents. It is desirable to study the film industry in that context.

The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee is now discussing the film industry, which it has not done for some considerable time. A few weeks ago, Sir Alan Parker set out the Film Council's changed strategy, which is why it is appropriate to focus now on how the film industry is supported. When talking about the film industry, there is a temptation to refer to current events. For example, we could wax lyrical about the British Academy of Film and Television Arts nominations, the extent to which "The Hours" did well at the Golden Globe awards or the prospects for British films or talents to do well at the Oscars.

I turn now to the creative business supplement to the Financial Times in which Alistair Owen quoted Bruce Robinson, the writer-director of "Withnail and I", who helpfully set matters in context when he said:

"The British film industry is like the British weather… You get one hot day and papers say, 'Phew! What a scorcher! Hottest day on record!' Then next day it's raining again."

That must be what if feels like to the film industry. Only a few weeks ago there was doom and gloom and talk of how difficult it was for the film industry, after which there were newspaper reports saying what a good year 2002 was and what a big increase there had been in the number of films doing well at the box office as well as in attendances at cinemas. There was also talk of new talents in production and so on. However, they are not necessarily long-term issues, and public policy has to avoid being subject to short-term enthusiasms, however great they may be. We must set up a framework within which the film industry in Britain can succeed. I do not want to engage in a romantic revisiting of Ealing Studios—however desirable it may be for Ealing Studios to be reborn—but to think about the structure of the industry and how public policy should relate to it.

Sir Alan Parker's speech on behalf of the Film Council last November was a substantial and positive step forward. He was arguing that the renewed strategy for the film industry should be built around three objectives: the first was that the industry should be distribution-led, rather than production-driven; secondly, that support for the industry should be orientated towards skills; and thirdly. that we should have the right infrastructure, particularly for studios and technical facilities. I do not disagree with those objectives. He made a powerful and persuasive point when he said:

"Now is the time to recognise that our industry's obsession with public funding for production is taking us nowhere."

Sir Alan Parker was criticising, and rightly so, what had previously been a tendency, particularly of the Arts Council—prior to the establishment of the Film Council—to put money into films, not least through the premier fund, on the basis of subjective judgments about their merits rather than with any market-led anticipation that they would be successful films that would gain release and reach a substantial audience. We have to think again about the way in which we structure public policy; it should not be designed around a concept of what is a British film. The Culture, Media and Sports Select Committee is asking, "Is there a British film industry?" The proper question to ask is to what extent there is a film industry in Britain and how we can help it to grow.

I am not being pedantic, but if we are not careful we will once again be trying to define the nature of a British film, as distinct from anything else. We should not do that. The recent film "Cold Mountain" is a good example of my argument. It is an American-funded film; it had a British cast and crew of 150, who conducted their work in Romania. Is that a British film or is it not? To me, in public policy terms, that is not the main question; the question is to what extent there is British content. When Nissan came to the United Kingdom, we did not say that the cars must be British; the market was concerned not with whether they were British, but with their quality. We were more bothered at the time with their British content than we would be now. It was content that mattered.

A year or so ago, the first Harry Potter film, "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone", was a tremendous showcase for British talent, but it was an American film. We need to be concerned not with matters as set out by the Select Committee, but about stimulating British content. I do not want the British film industry to be put into a secret garden, where others do not enter and where we engage in positive artistic activity for our own benefit but find that the rest of the world simply ignores us and moves on. The British film industry will not profit by such action.

We must distinguish between public policy purposes. There is a risk that because we are dealing with something that has substantial artistic content, we treat that artistic content as if it were indistinguishable from our approach to industrial policy, but we can clearly separate the two. The separation partly involves public funding streams. For example, the Film Council has access to funding streams intended to support the artistic elements of the industry, such as the reconfiguration of the national film and television school, and the first light scheme which offers initial funding for first-time directors. Those are important and desirable developments.

I hope we will soon hear more from the Film Council about the proposals that were the subject of consultation last year. The proposals related to support for British cinema education for the specialised distribution of British films with an artistic and creative character, as well as support for those in exhibition. The number of screens in the United Kingdom has increased by approximately 50 per cent. in the past five or six years. Cinema attendance has also increased by more than 50 per cent. There are a substantial number of art-house theatres, and with the opportunities offered by multiplexes there can be a significant place for films with an art-house character. That is important for the development of United Kingdom creative activity.

The Film Council is right to contemplate using part of the capital fund to try to secure the physical presence—through the purchase or lease of screens—to establish places where art-house pictures can be seen. Some of the print and advertising that supports the distribution and awareness of those films is valuable. All of that is part of a context of support for the industry as an artistic activity. It would be no different if we sought to support music in its creative activity and the contribution that the music industry can make. They are simply two different types of artistic activity.

We must consider the nature of the industry as a whole, as Sir Alan Parker is doing. What is the role of the public sector in the industry? It is not to try to second-guess the market. Over recent years, we have seen comprehensive efforts put into trying to guess what type of films people want to see and to get the British film industry into the marketplace through subsidisation. Subsidy has not worked any more effectively in this case than it has for any other industry. We need something different, something market-led, something that recognises that the role of the public sector is to try to deal with what would otherwise be market failures.

Public policy should respond to competitive pressures. For example, although countries throughout the world offer tax concessions that are designed—I suspect Canada is the classic example—to secure a physical presence for their film industry, the same competitive situation applies as for the trade support or export promotion of any other industry. The same contest applies to inward investment as would apply to Nissan—bringing a large film to this country can have the same beneficial consequences as bringing in a large manufacturing plant or service industry. The economic spread-out is equally important.

Let us look at where we need to act to sustain relative competitiveness. We must understand where our comparative advantages take us. In the context of public policy, we must consider where there are externalities that will not be re-appropriated by those in the commercial sector who would spend their own money. There is, therefore, an underlying rationale for investment by the public sector, because it would create the correct context for the whole industry. Let me start with one or two examples regarding training and skills.

I have already mentioned the National Film and Television School and the role of the Film Council in working with Skillset to bring forward a strategy to promote training and skills for the film industry and the audiovisual industries. That is important. We cannot expect there to be spontaneous training activity by commercial organisations to the extent that is necessary in the whole industry. It is a normal expectation that some organisations will train, to the extent that they need trainees, and that others will have a wider training role, but we need some degree of public sector support for the industry, especially as it comprises many small operators and firms. We need to get behind the industry. I hope we shall see a substantial push from the Film Council in redirecting some of its resources to get behind Skillset—I hope that that was its intention—and ensuring that there is substantial training activity in the film industry.

I raised the question of script development with the Minister's colleagues about a year ago. It could be said, in terms of the return for the money that is spent by the public sector, that script development should also be considered to be commercial. This country does not have the distribution-led companies—the majors—that exist internationally and in the United States. Those companies expect to have a couple of hundred scripts in development at any one time and they know that only a small fraction of those will come to fruition. Such companies have the resources and they put them into script development. However, the resources involved are not very dramatic. As companies would usually work only with individuals who are trying to develop scripts, £1 million spent on script development would go a long way.

A small sum of public money could also go a long way in generating much United Kingdom content. For example, let us consider UK writers, such as David Hare in relation to "The Hours", Julian Fellowes in respect of "Gosford Park" last year, or Ronald Harwood's scriptwriting in relation to "The Pianist". The quality of script development and the screenplays that are produced by UK writers are exceptionally good. We must trade on that and ensure that the US majors do not overlook much of the positive writing in the UK simply because there is so much scriptwriting activity in and around Hollywood. As we can see in respect of, for example, the Harry Potter series, which is set in Britain, writing can make Britain a desirable location in which to undertake a film. Many benefits have flowed from that series in terms of UK marketing, tourism promotion and so forth.

Training and skills are the first part of the strategy, and script development is the second. Sir Alan Parker was right to focus on the key issue of understanding the nature and structure of the industry. If we are going to influence the industry, we must work with it rather than contrary to it and in conflict with it. I do not dispute what Sir Alan Parker said—I am sure that he is right—which is that the industry is essentially distribution-led. If we were to ask the major companies what business they are in, they would say, "The business of distributing films and responding to markets." The key factor is that distribution is the linchpin of the market. Even large production operations with large portfolios are burning money in order to produce films. They are taking substantial risks at the production end, and even if they produce a portfolio there is a risk that companies will not produce enough successful films to make an overall profit. Companies have to do two things: generate cash to support production activity, and spread their risk. One way for a company to spread risk in distribution is to distribute not only its own films but everyone else's. That way, even a vertically integrated company would have the risk associated with production, but also the certainty of gaining from distribution activity when the industry is prospering. Distribution is the linchpin and is absolutely critical to the industry, so how do we deal with that?

In his speech, Sir Alan Parker said that we needed to reflect on the character of the tax relief offered. Some form of tax relief is essential for the long-term competitiveness of the British film industry. Certainly, that is the course that other countries are taking. International competition will get tougher now that New Zealand is on the scene and central eastern European countries are getting stronger. What is the character of the incentive that we want to give? When I read the speech, I was interested in—and thought I understood—the argument about the importance of distribution in the industry. It was argued that a tax concession should be related to distribution, because the incentive for the industry should be pulled by distribution, rather than pushed by production, which has simply failed to meet the market. What would the result be? We do not know; we have had no suggestion, and one of my purposes in securing this debate was to allow us to think about that.

I suggest that we take a step back and ask, "What is the character of distribution?" Distribution stands between two activities. The first is cash-generative activity, such as the distribution of films, their exhibition and cinema attendances. There is $1.2 billion dollars' worth of such activity in the UK. We have a big cinema audience—I read in the newspapers that it is now the largest in Europe—and have bigger box office takings than Germany. We are a big market, and a lot of cash is being generated. There is also production activity. The latest figures suggest that UK production has picked up again after a difficult period—difficult not so much for the British element, although it had its consequences for us, but because of the actors' strike in America and the reduction in American activity. There are also quite a lot of co-productions, as they, too, have picked up in the UK.

At the centre of the argument for being distribution-led is the ability to mesh cash generation with the burning of cash because of vertical integration in the industry. Should any tax concession not relate directly to that key element of the industry? Instead of focusing tax relief on writing off costs of production until 2005, would it not be better to be specific about promoting the UK as a place with strong cinema audiences? There is a powerful incentive to come to the UK for creative and technical reasons associated with the quality of our film industry and activities.

I am not a tax expert, and some might be able to give reasons why my argument is flawed, but as a starting point for discussion I believe we should consider not tax concessions that are ring-fenced for British films but tax relief incentives designed for film production activity in the United Kingdom. We should relate that directly to the cash being generated in the UK. Vertically integrated companies are the ones that matter most.

If I remember rightly, the five largest cinema exhibitors consume something like 75 per cent. of the box office. Those five exhibitors are all directly related to major US production companies. They generate a lot of cash in the UK and they pay tax on it; they have various reliefs and concessions, but they pay tax. The companies are not British but international, probably US, companies. Should we not say that in the UK those companies should be able to offset the tax that they would otherwise pay on their cinema-related receipts against the costs that they pay in the UK in relation to film production? Should we not offer a tax concession that is directly related to that connection? We should say: "Come to the UK, where you will generate cash in cinemas. You need cash and you want a cash flow. The extent to which we relieve you of tax affects your cash flow. Let us enhance your cash flow through tax concessions so that you can fund films better in the UK. Come to the UK, where your qualifying expenditure will be matched with tax concessions." That qualifying expenditure would be film production expenditure in the UK, and it would be the basis on which tax relief could be offered on cash generated by film distribution. Technically, it would not be a tax concession for distribution; it would be a tax concession for the underlying economic rationale of being a distribution-led industry.

I freely confess that one of the advantages of being an Opposition Back Bencher is that one can fly kites and it does not do one too much harm if one is not successful. One can think about public policy and try to stimulate debate and a response from Government. In that respect, I have had some entertainment over the past few months with the Communications Bill. I have also had some fun with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Happily, it has been sporting about it; the Minister for Sport is here and 1 am happy to pay tribute to his Department. I do not know whether this sort of debate is his sport or not.

I should be attending Standing Committee E at the moment talking about the Communications Bill, but instead I am here talking about it, making two points that I feel are relevant. First, a provision in the early part of that Bill gives Ofcom a power to support training in the broadcasting industry. Skillset is the training organisation in the sector: it would be sensible for Ofcom to have a power to support Skillset training that is relevant to the audio-visual industries. There is substantial read-across between the technical requirements of broadcasting and film, although there are differences. The film industry would benefit from Ofcom having that power and being able to consider wider issues than the requirements of the broadcasting industry.

Secondly, clause 256 of the Communications Bill contains a provision that some hon. Members will recall. It relates to Ofcom's regular, probably five-yearly, review of the public service broadcasting remits—the ecology of public service broadcasting. As we know, public service broadcasting potentially has a significant role to play in the film industry. FilmFour is an instructive case. It was a brave attempt to create, off the back of the resources of a public service broadcaster, something akin to a UK integrated film production and distribution company. It was not on the scale of Polygram, although, as it turned out, even Polygram was not large enough to survive as an international company. FilmFour is a similar example: the volume was not there, and the range and size of activities were not great enough. One could argue about the relative merits of "Charlotte Gray". I am told that it did not lose money, but that is not the point. One should never reach, and one cannot survive in, a situation such as this when everything hangs on the success of one film.

The demise of FilmFour, in its previous form, shows that we cannot achieve a UK distribution activity on our own; we need to be part of an international context. About 80 per cent. of the revenue from a successful film will be derived from overseas box offices rather than from the UK's.

That is not to say that FilmFour will not carry on. Channel 4 may continue to put money into 10 or a dozen UK films a year, and the BBC puts money into films—after "Mrs Brown" we have "The Lost Prince". The BBC is quite well funded at the moment, all things considered. Things have moved on since the Edwardian era, and in the 21st century the BBC is the only organisation in Britain that can afford to put red carpets on a beach. If the BBC can afford to engage in the production of quality drama, which it does well—I did not mean to be disparaging; I thought "The Lost Prince" was very good—I hope that it does so not only for UK broadcast but for distribution to broadcast companies and channels overseas, and perhaps for wider distribution to cinemas and exhibitions, having regard to associated and ancillary rights.

Under clause 256 of the Communications Bill, when Ofcom considers public service broadcasters and the way in which their remits are fulfilled, it will have no regard to Channel 4's film making, except the part that is directly related to broadcasting in the United Kingdom. Ofcom will have only the same regard to the BBC's film production. That is wrong, and our experience of industry regulators tells us that if something is not mentioned in statute—as film is not mentioned in the Communications Bill—the regulator will not have regard to it. A regulator will not extend beyond its powers in legislation because of the risk of challenge and matters being ultra vires. In any case, Ofcom will have a great deal of work to do.

I do not suggest that Ofcom should become the film industry regulator, and I suspect that the film industries would hate that to happen. However, as Ofcom will examine public service broadcasters and their activities, I have no doubt that it should examine the way in which broadcasters interact with film industries because the broadcasters could be a substantial source of activity for the film industry.

I shall draw the threads of my arguments together. The Film Council has performed a great service by starting to redefine the public policy response to the film industry. It is important to distinguish between where and how support is given, although perhaps Sir Alan Parker's speech did not do that sufficiently. The support given to the art-house and creative side, per se, of the industry is similar to lottery-funded support given to artistic and sporting activity on its own merits. Good ideas relate to getting such productions into multiplexes and giving more support for subtitling, advertising and print promotion, all of which is excellent. However, that should be distinguished from the strategy for the industry as a whole, which is more about tax concessions, training and the development of the underlying industry.

I have proposed an idea about the way in which tax concessions could be implemented, but time is pressing. We are reaching a point when films that might benefit from existing tax concessions before they conclude in 2005 are going through production. Anybody who is presently contemplating making new films is probably not anticipating tax concessions from the UK Government. Decisions will be made quickly, which is why time is pressing. I hope that the Government will examine the form that tax concessions should take when they consider how to support the industry. I hope that they will also consider that public service broadcasters and Ofcom, through the Communications Bill, should be encouraged to work with the film industry as a joint venture to stimulate the UK audio-visual sector as a whole.

I hope that I have made some contribution to thinking about film policy, if from a somewhat amateurish standpoint. I hope also that people in the film industry will recognise that we understand that we have a role to play in helping them. The industry will rest not just on the creative talents of such people but on the public policy framework that we put in place. It has been nearly four years since the House of Commons held a debate on the film industry. The time is absolutely right not just for a debate but, through the Government's initiatives, for a substantive debate about film policy, perhaps in the context of the Budget.

Order. Perhaps it would be helpful if I were to remind the Chamber that it is the established practice in these 90-minute Adjournment debates to commence the first of the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before conclusion, which means that we now have 25 minutes left for general debate. I ask right hon. and hon. Members who seek to contribute to bear those conditions in mind.

I begin by reminding the Chamber of my declaration of interests in the Register of Members' Interests and by recording my honorary life membership of BAFTA. In that context, I am extremely pleased that the three films that have received the most nominations for BAFTA awards this year—"Gangs of New York", "Chicago" and "The Hours"—all contain significant elements of British talent.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on raising this very important subject. I agree with much of what he said, particularly his final remarks about the necessity of ensuring that Ofcom, in its overall role in the communications world, considers the relevance of film in the broadcasting environment and in other respects, too. I shall return to that in a moment.

My first point is about the tax incentive regime. The hon. Gentleman described an intriguing scheme for developing Sir Alan Parker's comments on the way in which the tax regime could support distribution rather than just production. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's scheme would work, but it certainly merits some attention.

However, I hope that in accepting Sir Alan Parker's absolutely sensible analysis that it is not just production but distribution and scriptwriting—the two ends of the film-making process—that matter, we do not throw the baby out with the bath water and remove entirely the measures in the tax regime to encourage investment in UK production. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor introduced the tax incentive regime in his first Budget in 1997. Its term has since been extended on a couple of occasions, but its effects were restricted in the most recent Budget because considerable abuse was occurring, particularly in the television sector. The regime is still in place, however, and I very much hope that it will remain. It has been instrumental in ensuring substantial investment in the UK film industry from British and other companies. Such investment would not have been made without the tax incentives.

Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor should go further. At the moment, the tax incentive is limited to movies that have an overall budget of £15 million or less. It might be sensible to change the provision to bring larger budget movies into the tax incentive regime, which could cover the first £15 million of expenditure. Instead of saying that only movies with a budget of £15 million or less should qualify for the incentive on production, the first £15 million of expenditure on any movie made in the UK, which has significant British content, should be eligible for the relief.

If we made that change, it would have one very significant effect: it would become even more attractive for big-budget movies, particularly those generated by American studios, to be made in Britain. As the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire rightly observed, we are in a competitive market, particularly across the English-speaking world. Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are attractive locations for film making. They all have tax regimes, some of which are more attractive than ours. We have an advantage given the quality of the skills, personnel and technical expertise based in the UK, but that is not enough to make the UK the premier location for making large American movies. If we can put in place a tax incentive of the kind that I have suggested, it would have a positive economic effect. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport can take that idea to his discussions with the Chancellor over the next few months.

The second issue I want to touch on is the looming problem of the piracy of moving image material. It particularly concerns film but it applies also to television. The issue of piracy—the counterfeiting of material, particularly in a digital format—has bedevilled the music industry for many years. The music industry loses millions of pounds every week because of the unauthorised, illegal digital transmission of musical material, and the issue is beginning to affect the film and television industries in a major way. We know, for example, that there are already 40,000 illegally copied editions of "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" in circulation around the world. We also know that many movies get pirated before they have been released in any location and are transmitted from computer to computer across the world well before they are issued for general release. It does not take a genius to understand that if that sort of illegal copying and distribution of pirated material expands, it will strike at the heart of the economics of the movie and television industries, in which case we will all be poorer because movies will not get made.

There are ways in which we can try to combat piracy. Technical solutions such as digital watermarking and signature systems can be included in material. Pirate copies can be traced back to the person who is doing the copying, but one can take action against them only if all parts of not only the content production industry, which includes the film industry, but the transmission industry, which includes servers and telecoms companies, cooperate in trying to stamp out such illegal activity.

Two things are necessary for that to happen. First, there has to be proper copyright protection in law. The European copyright directive, which was agreed in principle about a year or so ago, has recently completed its consultation process for inclusion in United Kingdom law. Something is expected from the Department of Trade and Industry on that, possibly in about a month's time. It is important that that is done, and that it is done quickly and in the right way.

Secondly, all parts of the relevant industries need to be encouraged to come together and agree common procedures and standards in order to combat the problem of piracy. Ofcom is ideally placed to carry out such a ring-holding exercise. Specific statutory powers are not required for Ofcom to do that, but I hope that Ofcom can be encouraged to do it. When the Communications Bill is on Report, perhaps the Government might view with some sympathy an amendment to give Ofcom the authority to engage in combating piracy. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take that suggestion back to his ministerial colleagues and that that is something that can be done.

We have a film industry of considerable strength and importance in this country. It has made a very important contribution to our economy and our culture over a number of years. We need to play to that strength and to nurture it and I have described two ways in which we might be able to do so.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing this debate. If it has indeed been four years since the previous debate on the film industry, that debate took place approximately three years before I was elected to Parliament. I declare my interest, which is mentioned in the Register of Members' Interests. I am proud to have supported the film industry in the past through my membership of the board of Edinburgh international film festival and the Lothian and Borders screen industries office. Like many others, I have also enjoyed many evenings at the cinema and I am glad that we have had a wide-ranging debate on the importance of the industry.

The industry is important for several reasons. To most people in this country, the film industry means a good night out. Once a year they see a lot of glitz and glam at the Oscar ceremony or the Cannes film festival. However, the fact that there are many more column inches in the press about the lives of celebrities than about the industry itself means it is not surprising that often the industry feels left out in the cold. The film industry is important, both in the UK and worldwide. Earnings not only provide jobs and income, but add a diverse cultural dimension to life. We all benefit from cultural diversity and from enjoying the talents of others. Film allows us to see around the world and into the lives of some and the imagination of others. One of the most memorable descriptions of cinema and film television that I have heard was from Bernardo Bertolucci talking about his work in Edinburgh. He said:

"In the cinema we dream with our eyes open."

Many individuals and organisations are doing good work on behalf of the industry, and cries for a level playing field with other countries are often heard. The tax regime has already been well explored this morning and I hope that the Minister will take on board what has been said. We must support the industry to stop jobs going elsewhere and being lost to this country. Certain films belong in this country. I hope that the Minister will explore not only the alterations to the tax regime raised this morning, but any other options raised by experts in the industry. Sir Alan Parker has already been mentioned and there are also a number of experts and people working in the industry worldwide who would like to film in this country. However, for financial reasons, films are sometimes made elsewhere, or made partly here and partly elsewhere. It was ironic that, as a Scot, I should watch a film called "Braveheart", knowing that part was filmed in Scotland and part in Ireland.

There are many jobs in the industry, and Britain has a reputation for world-class skills, both traditional and high tech, in film making. Those skills have not only resulted in productions being brought to this country but have provided jobs abroad for people from Britain, who have gone on to perfect their skills with top international companies, such as Industrial Light and Magic.

Although the names of those in the spotlight are the ones that come to mind, there are many workers behind the scenes. Names like Sean Connery and Ewan McGregor, both from Scotland, trip off the tongue, but possibly more important than the few with a high profile are the many writers, directors, producers, camera operators, lighting and sound technicians, wardrobe and set designers and those involved in the finance, right down to those who provide the catering on sets. They all contribute to an industry from which we all benefit, if it thrives.

Schoolchildren ask me who is the most famous person I have met. I tell them that it is not the Queen or Tony Blair but that some time ago I met the current James Bond, Pierce Brosnan. Films and television make a big impact on their lives. Although I have had the pleasure of meeting some of the celebrities in the industry, what has stuck most in my mind was a documentary called "This Mine is Ours", which I worked on some years ago with the miners of Monktonhall colliery outside Edinburgh, 3,500ft underground. I was a minor part of the crew, but the film won a BAFTA award for best documentary of the year. It was a privilege to gain an insight into that workers' co-operative, which struggled to regenerate a mine closed by the National Coal Board, and to see the story shown on a television screen and shared with an audience throughout the UK and possibly the world. We must not undervalue the importance of the documentary in the film industry.

Some years ago Michael Winner was asked by a budding young film maker for advice on how to progress in the industry. The answer was stark. He was told to leave the country and go to the United States: British films did not make money, there was little or nothing left of the industry and the future was not here. We must ensure that what is left of the industry is encouraged to grow.

One way to realise the full potential of film is to acknowledge the impact that the right film can have on tourism. Tourism is accepted as a major employer, with thousands of jobs depending on the promotion of a quality service, yet advertising budgets for tourism authorities often cannot provide the profile that would bring financial rewards and result in more jobs.

I have no doubt that there will be a huge spin-off for New Zealand following the production of "The Lord of the Rings". Not only did tourist attractions in Scotland record significant increases in visitor numbers when "Braveheart" was released in the cinemas, but the numbers increased again when it was released on video and when it was shown on television. There is widespread acceptance of the importance of tourism, and there is much evidence of the importance of the publicity generated by a television programme or film in that connection: film maps of regions where productions were made are now common, as are tours of film and television locations.

Whenever public money is linked to the film industry, there are stories of financial disaster waiting in the wings. As I said, I shall not go into the problems caused by the changes in the tax regime or into those of films funded through the lottery, except to say that the successes of most film studios are based on a large slate of productions and that disasters are the norm. Usually, one blockbuster will not only pay its way but will cover the cost of the turkeys. In this country the volume of production does not enable that to happen. Therefore, large-scale productions such as those made by the Hollywood studios are not the way forward.

There has been discussion about whether we should support only British films, but it is difficult to say what constitutes a British film. There have been many memorable ones—the Bond series, the Harry Potter films, "Bridget Jones's Diary" and "Trainspotting", part of which was based and filmed in my constituency. One might not have thought that that kind of film would produce tourists for Edinburgh, but I am assured that Japanese tourists want to see what happened where.

The industry has a long and proud track record of participation in world film festivals. I have been involved in the Edinburgh international film festival, which is the longest continually running festival in the world. Film festivals provide shop windows for important but less glamorous aspects of the industry. Apart from feature films, there are documentaries, short films and animation, which often provide a good introduction to the industry. Recently, many films have been produced using high-tech special effects, but we saw what Wallace and Gromit could do with plasticine alone when they came to life on the screen. Even pop videos can be at the cutting edge of film production.

Some of the most dynamic and creative people in the world work in the industry. We have made a significant contribution to it in the past; I hope that the Minister will assure us that we shall do so again.

Order. The two previous speakers quite properly drew attention to their entries in the Register of Members' Interests, and I am grateful to them. As approved moderator of our proceedings, I have the benefit of having a register before me to which I can refer, but other Members do not have that privilege, unless they have had prior notice. In the most polite way, I must point out that it would have been helpful to other Members if those two Members had spelled out the range and nature of their interests.

On a point of order, Mr. Cook. I apologise for having been too brief in my introduction. The register records that I have a position as an adviser to the Walt Disney company.

I am sure that no apology is necessary.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing the debate and on introducing the subject in a non-partisan and extremely helpful way. The quality of debate has been high—although it will go downhill from here.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Sir Alan Parker. who effectively drew three conclusions in his recent speech—the industry should be distribution-led, there should be an emphasis on skills, and more needs to be done about the infrastructure. I took the hon. Gentleman to agree with Sir Alan, and so do I. The hon. Gentleman posed the old question of what is a British film. The debate has shown that we cannot define it, but we can say that Britain needs to be involved in the industry in any way it can.

The right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) suggested a change to the tax regime, giving concessions on the first £15 million of production costs rather than a concession for productions that cost under £15 million. That sounds like a bright idea and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response. The right hon. Gentleman also raised concerns about piracy, a global problem that requires a global solution. Will the Minister say what has been done at European Union level to help tackle that problem?

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) referred to the people behind the media spotlight—those who earn their living in the industry and are important to it. He also mentioned the importance of documentaries. He probably does not know that I have visited Monktonhall colliery, and I shall talk to him about it after the debate. Not many people will remember the struggle of the Monktonhall miners' co-operative but I had some involvement in it in my previous life.

The film industry's impact on tourism is vital. Harry Potter has done a marvellous job in creating a map of places around the United Kingdom. Indeed, King's Cross station has visitors looking for platform nine and three quarters. My constituency has a connection with Agatha Christie, but we may not have exploited that enough. The films have not been made there, but the scripts for many movies originated in the work of Agatha Christie and that gives us a movie connection. I am sure that all of us can find some such connections in our constituencies.

The Film Council takes the lead in enhancing Britain's film-making credentials. Britain markets itself as a highly skilled place for film making with lots of people in production, location work, special effects and technical aspects. Many US companies use Britain to make films, bringing in American money. However, the success of those Hollywood films often means that profits leave the United Kingdom. Sadly, Britain cannot compete with Hollywood.

Sir Alan Parker, as chairman of the Film Council, recommended in his speech in November that Britain should focus on improving infrastructure, developing a highly skilled and flexible work force, developing ways to counter the effects of studios moving shoots to cheaper locations, and revising the definition of what constitutes a British production so that more money may remain in the UK economy.

Given high British costs, the danger is that our film industry will suffer unless what we can offer is "value added". That point is echoed in the Relph report, which suggests that British bargain budget production facilities are not bargain enough. There is a risk that if the UK trades on high-quality facilities, it will lose business elsewhere.

In 2001, the British film industry suffered as a result of many films not gaining a high return on production costs. That was exacerbated by the strike in the US film industry, which reduced work opportunities, and by the decision of many Hollywood studios not to locate productions outside the US after 11 September 2001. However, recent figures suggest an upturn in the industry's fortunes. Although only 43 films were made—many co-financed rather than solely British—the Americans are back. In 2001, American studios spent about £230 million in the UK; last year, they spent about £270 million.

Other areas of concern cited in the past include the amount spent on films in Britain through lottery funding. The criticism has been that those films have not seen a return on the £100 million spent on them over the past five years or so. More generally, the Film Council shows that in 2001 the average solo British production cost £3.5 million but netted £755,000 at the box office. In 2002, Film Four was closed by its parent company, Channel 4, for not being viable.

My party, like all parties, wants a strong and comprehensive film industry that uses all the skills, trades and talents that go into film making. Policies could be developed to ensure that existing talent is used and that the available money goes further. We still produce great film makers. Our technicians and actors still feature in successful major films made here and overseas. What is lacking is a comprehensive long-term plan for the UK film industry. We can attract new money. For example, we could build on the great support that exists among the public for British film making. Have the Government considered how many members of the public might be prepared to invest small amounts in the film industry, knowing full well that they are not likely to see a return, but hoping that their investment would mean that films were made and that there might be a small percentage chance of one of those films turning out to be a blockbuster?

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire had the interesting idea of having tax concessions on cinema seat receipts to help UK production. We have talked a great deal about distribution problems, but it was not clear from the hon. Gentleman's comments how those tax concessions would relate to those problems. However, in terms of providing extra revenue to help production, his idea seemed a good one.

I hope that the Minister will explain what more the Government can do to attract investment into film. I would like to know his long-term vision, and that of the Government, for the UK film industry.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on his success in securing this debate. It was mentioned earlier that we had not had such a debate for some four years, so this one is long overdue.

As many contributors have said, there is some perplexity over what actually constitutes the British film industry. Sir Alan Parker, in the well-documented speech that has been referred to this morning, said that we should not be thinking about a British film industry but about British film industries, in the plural.

The right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) established the Film Council and a great deal of credit must go to him for having had the foresight to make that move. It is now easier to focus on the areas in the British film industry that need to be focused on. If it considers Sir Alan Parker's speech, and the aspirations behind it, the Film Council will offer extremely good leadership. Speaking as an outsider, I think that it will carry the industry kicking and screaming into the realities of the 21st century.

The UK has a successful film industry, as can be measured by the number of people who visit cinemas to watch films—films made here and films made elsewhere in the world. The latest figures show a 13 per cent. increase in cinema admissions last year and a 10 per cent. increase in box office takings for the exhibitors. If cinemas are to grow and develop, we need them to show American mega-movies and blockbusters, but we still need them to show films that are made in the UK and reflect our culture in stories about us.

In the past 40 years, we have been obsessed with public funding for our film industry. That funding has been concentrated on production. Many people contend that the funding has not taken us very far. Over the past seven years, we have had lottery subsidies, and over the past five years we have had production-focused tax breaks, which the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury introduced when he was Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Those subsidies and tax breaks have been successful in some ways, but it is questionable whether either of those sources of funding has delivered the fundamental structural changes that will be needed if the film industry is not to continue to suffer recurrent crises every five years or so.

If the present structure has not worked, what solutions will sustain a successful film industry in the future? The debate has recently been opened up within the industry. As we all know, the industry needs to embrace significant change, but the debate has also covered the future role and influence of Government. The Government have an important input into a large range of issues. As has been mentioned many times this morning, perhaps the most important input is in fiscal policy. The existing tax breaks have been extremely helpful. The 100 per cent. first-year write-offs were introduced under section 48 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1997. That has certainly generated employment and delivered successful films. It is due to end in July 2005, which seems to be some time away, but in terms of film production it provides a window of opportunity of only another 18 months. It is important that, when the Minister responds, he informs us how the Department for Culture, Media and Sport regards the matter. If only 18 months of active space is left within which the film industry must operate, some consideration must be given to how to extend that period. Section 42 of the 1997 Act continues to attract the big American productions to our shores and keeps both Shepperton and Pinewood studios open.

However, although tax breaks have been useful and helpful, they are considered in some quarters to be inefficient. There is a view that the underlying philosophy of sale and leaseback is not helpful, and is rather flawed as regards the film industry. In his winding-up speech, will the Minister explain the Government's thinking on tax breaks? The way forward, as envisaged in a recent speech by the chairman of the Film Council, is on three fronts, which were well covered by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire.

Sir Alan Parker believes that distribution, not production. should be the leading force. In his words, there should be a pull factor, not a push factor—which means that the industry should be market-led. That is how most businesses and industries operate throughout this country and the world: they look at the market and they produce things that people want to use or to see.

On the creation of a market, particularly a greater market for UK-based films, what value does the hon. Gentleman place on festivals? For example, yesterday was Wales cinema day; three quarters of cinemas in Wales took part in it. Since it was introduced two years ago, the numbers attending have doubled year on year. Surely there is a role for festivals to play in creating the market, but can there be that pull factor for the industry as a whole?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He more or less answered his own question by saying that Wales cinema day has been a tremendous success, and I have no reason to doubt that. I think that it was a point well made and the Minister will no doubt take it on board.

The other two matters listed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire were skills and infrastructure. The film industry needs to examine how it does things and its internal structure. There is a particular problem with low-budget films, particularly low-budget British films, whose principal, or only, market is the United Kingdom. The Relph report, commissioned by the Film Council last year, concluded that, unless there were fundamental changes, British film making at that level could cease to exist in a few years' time. The report showed that film makers in France, Denmark and Germany all made films more cheaply than we can in this country and that the essential need is to make films whose budgets reflect their market value.

As for skills and training, the film industry—as we all accept—is a people business. In this country, we have a good record of producing people with great talent, but there is now a dearth of skilled people. The Film Council admits that there are not enough good writers, new editors, cinematographers and production designers. Training is now a critical consideration and the Film Council needs to work more closely with the Government to develop a strategy for the future. Perhaps more lottery money should be diverted into training, as well as contributions from the industry itself. It is a surprise to learn that until now the film industry itself has not invested in training as a way forward. Training should be developed across the board, and that includes script development, production, distribution and exhibition.

On infrastructure, it is obvious from the comments we have heard this morning that film production is extremely mobile—New Zealand was mentioned in that context. Many Governments are dreaming up tax incentives to attract big-budget Hollywood film productions. Investment is pouring into new film studios in countries as diverse as South Korea, Thailand and Australia as well as New Zealand. We must establish working partnerships with those countries as well as develop critical financial incentives for the home-based infrastructure. The trend will not be reversed. As traditional trade barriers come down and digital technology frees up film production, it will go, literally, anywhere in the world.

Serious challenges face the film industry. However, we have a good record and immense talent. Working in partnership with the Government and the DCMS in particular, the British film industry should have an exciting future ahead.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on initiating this morning's debate, which has been constructive and excellent. I will make sure that comments are conveyed to the powers that be in the Treasury and other Departments. I convey the apologies of my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, who would normally be present for such a debate. He is in a Standing Committee this morning. I have drawn the long straw while he has drawn the short one.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) for his contribution. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire tried to highlight how the sector is a major contributor to wealth creation that has a strong industrial base, and how it should be evaluated against those criteria. My right hon. Friend took that on board some years ago when I served under his leadership on the creative industries task force, which brought together several Government Departments. The Film Council and other initiatives came out of that task force, which was driven by two factors: new technologies—information technology and computerisation—were converging with the arts in ways that needed to be managed, and a tremendous amount of talent was domiciled in this country. My right hon. Friend also understood that globalisation was on the agenda in ways that we had never envisaged because of the ability to move information at the drop of a switch. The technologies interfacing with the arts and creative industries needed to be directed in new ways.

The comments of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire about the film sector were of particular relevance to the way in which we should develop future public policy. If we do not proceed in the way in which he described, which the Film Council supports, we will not be able to capitalise on this major industry. I must admit that I checked my notes when he mentioned the extent of the film industry. The global market for film is worth approximately $50 billion, of which we have approximately $4 billion. More importantly, some 44,500 people are employed in film and video production in this country. Those are quality, skilled jobs, and that underlines their importance to the economy and to wealth creation.

To home in particularly on the UK film industry, it is quite successful. If we consider how far we have come, such success is pretty impressive. For example, last year British productions were nominated for no fewer than 20 academy awards. Three of those nominations—best supporting actor, best original screenplay and best make-up—show how the industry is coming on. In 2002, 175 million cinema tickets were sold. That is the highest number since 1971, which shows how much growth there has been. Total spend on film production in the UK in 2002 was up by £22 million on the previous year, rising from £410 million to £433 million. That represents an increase by a factor of four since 1992, when total spend was at just less than £98 million. The Government believe that a successful film industry is good for Britain in various ways. That has been clearly outlined in this debate.

The impact of film on tourism and related developments, which was picked up by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett), is an important consideration, but what have we done to encourage the industry? Sustainability is a word that has not been used this morning, but it encapsulates much of what has been said. Sustainability is important, particularly in respect of the recent history of the film industry. We are trying to ensure that the industry is sustainable in respect of intellectual property and that it is focused. We introduced tax incentives in 1997, which to date have provided the industry with more than £100 million-worth of direct benefits to film production. That tax relief was due to end in 2002, but it was extended until 2005 by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Section 48 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1997 allows producers of films that cost less than £15 million to claim relief in one year of 100 per cent. of the production costs. That relief is used primarily by UK producers who make lower-budget films, and it will remain in place until July 2005 for films that are intended for cinema release. Section 42 of the Act allows producers of films with budgets of any size to claim relief over three years on 100 per cent. of the production costs. That relief is often claimed by the larger US production teams. It is not unlimited, but it remains in place for films that are intended for cinema release.

The tax regime has been central to this debate. The issue was sparked, to some extent, by Sir Alan Parker's speech in November 2002. Where are we taking tax and how can it be used more creatively to become a pull-through factor in distribution? The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury made some valid points about that.

This year, Film Council officials are planning to discuss such issues with my Department, the Inland Revenue, and possibly the Treasury, with a view to firming up their thinking and developing it into hard proposals. I will ensure that this morning's contributions are fed into the early stages of that discussion along with Parker's suggestions on strengthening distribution rather than focusing on the production side. A balance must be achieved. I am far from expert in this area, but Parker's speech last year opened up the debate and we want to move it forward.

The question of skills has also been covered. People will know that the Film Council has established a programme to improve skills throughout the industry and to deliver training on film business skills. The council has co-financed new development agencies in each of the English regions in order to improve the coordination and growth of the film industry across the country. I speak from experience of my city of Sheffield, which now has a strong cultural industries quarter.

We have not yet mentioned, and should factor in, the role of our higher education structure. Sheffield Hallam university, which has a major faculty on the subject, is now linked to the creative industries quarter. There are more than 2,000 quality jobs in that area, and that number is growing. Together with the regional development agencies, we are trying to increase access to venture capital, as that was another of our major problems in developing the industry.

The Film Council has taken the issue of training seriously. To ensure that the younger generation is enthusiastic about film making, it has set up the first light scheme, which encourages young people to learn the practical skills of film making. Children from across the country have benefited from what is proving to be an extremely popular scheme. The Film Council funds the British Film Institute, which provides education about, and access to, the moving image; it, too, is quite successful. The BFI promotes greater understanding and appreciation of, and access to, film and television culture and is renowned worldwide for its work. The BFI also operates the world's most extensive film and television archive with the National Film Theatre. There is also the Regus London film festival.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) referred to what happened in Wales yesterday; such events about the promotion of films are to be welcomed, wherever they take place. The subject of film studies is now on the national curriculum, and there are special programmes for the further understanding of films. With the aim of providing a focus for encouraging foreign production companies to come to the UK, and to build relationships abroad, the Film Council funds the British Film Commission and the British Film Office in Los Angeles. When I was Minister for Trade, I met several people from that office, which has been extremely helpful in stimulating inward investment into the UK. That in turn feeds into the UK production infrastructure and nurtures a more richly skilled work force. Such cross-fertilisation is necessary in this global industry.

It is worth noting that inward investment from international film makers locating productions in the UK increased by some 16 per cent. from £230 million in 2001 to £267 million in 2002. That is more than four times the £58 million spent on inward investment in 1992. That is the background of our achievements to date.

If I have time, I will set out further plans for the film industry, but I should now like to concentrate on aspects of the film industry that the Government are supporting. The Government, working with the industry, set up the skills investment fund to support a number of priorities identified by the industry, including new trainees and a health and safety executive. All British productions are asked to contribute to that fund, and public funding for training through the Film Council now more than matches the contribution from industry. I welcome that partnership, which is now tangible, and can be measured.

The Government have also significantly increased investment in Skillset—the sector skill council for the audiovisual industry, which has already been mentioned—and that has been welcomed across the board. Skillset and the Film Council are mapping the key training needs for the film industry, and plan to develop a comprehensive training strategy this year. We look forward to the outcome, and to working with them and taking forward their conclusions. We also fund the national film and television school, which provides high quality post-graduate education opportunities for those entering the industry.

The Government are keen to ensure that the industry takes full advantage of the new digital technologies. My Department, which works with the Film Council, commissioned a research study to identify the implications of digital technology for the film industry with the aim of provoking discussion. That information can be accessed on the DCMS website.

There is much to be proud of, but we cannot afford to be complacent. The number of UK film productions fell in 2001-02 after the record in 2000. The reasons why that happened. which include foot and mouth and the problems with the Screen Actors Guild in the US, have been articulated today. Nevertheless, many in the industry recognise that the fall in production does not represent a return to the industry's recession of the 1990s. As I mentioned earlier, inward investment by international film makers increased by some 60 per cent. in 2002, which was a vote of confidence in the industry.

Alan Parker, the chairman of the Film Council, made it clear in his speech to the industry on 5 November that the UK film industry—

Order.

I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to raise this important issue.

As a secular republic since it was granted independence, India has committed itself to religious toleration. Events over the past few years have, however, threatened to tarnish that reputation. Bhutan has a reputation as a remote and isolated country, which is slowly opening up to outside influences. Its treatment of ethnic and religious minorities, however, leaves a great deal to be desired.

India is governed by a coalition called the National Democratic Alliance. The Bharatiya Janata party, a Hindu nationalist party linked to militant Hindu groups such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bajrang Dal, is the leading party in the coalition. Since the BJP came to power in 1998, persecution of Christians and those of other faiths has risen enormously in certain parts of the country. Such persecution usually emanates from militant Hindu groups and state and local governments rather than directly from the national Government. However, the BJP's emphasis on Hindu expansionism has helped to create a climate in which the persecution of Christians in particular can flourish.

The BJP's close links with the VHP and the Bajrang Dal are of great concern as those groups have been implicated in many attacks on both Christians and Muslims in which the attackers usually escape justice. Page 1 of the United States State Department's annual report 2000 on international freedom states:

"ineffective investigation and prosecution of attacks on religious minorities is interpreted by some extremist elements as a signal that such violence is likely to go unpunished".

That is partly due to weaknesses in the legal system, although many observers attribute it in large part to links between those groups and the BJP.

Over the past four years, many Christians have been killed or wounded by Hindu militants, although most of those attacks go unnoticed by the outside world. Occasionally, an incident comes to the world's attention: in January 1999, an Australian missionary, Graham Staines, and his two young sons were burned to death in their camper van by a mob of extremists, which made headlines around the world.

More common are attacks and murders, which go largely unreported. At the end of September 2000, a Christian woman in a remote part of Tamil Nadu state was burned to death in an attack by local extremists on Christians in a village. In February 2001, a gang of Hindu extremists beat to death a young Christian evangelist, Riyaz Augustin. In the same month, a Catholic priest, Father Tommy Manjuli, was shot dead by an unidentified gunman, who was believed to be a militant. Sometimes, the name of the victim is not recorded for posterity. In December 2000, the body of a 35-year-old man involved in Christian missionary work was found in a remote part of Orissa state. Extremists who were angered by his evangelistic work had apparently murdered him. His body was found only after he had been missing for some time.

Hindu militants particularly target evangelists, missionaries, religious orders and Christian leaders such as pastors and priests, who are subject to the biggest threat because they are active in living out their faith. Those people are also easy targets because they make long journeys in isolated areas as part of their work, and many of them have been killed and attacked in recent years. Churches are regularly attacked by mobs of Hindu militants, who are often armed and shouting anti-Christian slogans. Many Christians have been injured in those attacks, and Church property is frequently destroyed.

Other campaigns of intimidation may be more subtle but still have malicious intent, such as the campaign in the summer of 2001 to close down some Christian orphanages. Bishop M. A. Thomas, who runs such an orphanage, received death threats. Last year, in a widely circulated e-mail, a prominent Hindu militant made a thinly veiled death threat against a Christian leader, Dr. John Dayal, who is the secretary-general of the All India Christian Council. Dr. Dayal has campaigned vigorously on behalf of Christians and other minorities, especially the Dalits, who were formerly known as the Untouchables. His effectiveness is probably the reason why he has been targeted.

We know from recent surveillance in Gujarat, where the Muslim community was targeted, that more than 2,000 people have been killed. There is evidence of complicity of the state authorities in that carnage. Indeed, there are rumours that Hindu militants are planning to rise up against the Christian community in Gujarat in the same way that they rose up against the Muslim community last year.

Those are not the only incidents of threats and intimidation. Recently, a confidential circular from the umbrella militant Hindu organisation, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, was discovered. It was sent from RSS headquarters in Nagpur, Maharashtra state, to local RSS officers. Although only recently uncovered, it is believed to have been in circulation for some two years. One commentator notes:

"the circular contains a total strategy for persecuting, weakening and marginalizing the Christian, tribal and Muslim communities through economic boycotts, media onslaught and conflict provocation."

It advocates waging a terror campaign against various minorities, including tribal peoples, lower castes, Christians and Muslims. Article 11 calls for

"mass rapes of Muslim/Christian women during riots".

That is a sinister precursor of what actually happened in Gujarat last year when Muslim women were gang-raped by Hindu militants.

Shockingly, article 4 of the e-mail suggests that doctors sympathetic to the aims of the RSS should inject newborn Christian babies with diseases that would handicap them, and should prescribe dangerous drugs to Christians, tribal peoples and Muslims. Article 32 urges the killing of "anti-Hindus", and article 26 discusses a plan to starve non-Hindu groups in areas where there are food shortages. It discusses continuing the malnutrition of Christians.

Article 12 recommends lies and deceit as a means of discrediting minorities:

"Place images/idols under the ground near non-Hindu religious structures … new literature to be fabricated to prove all old churches … are old Hindu structures."

The tactic was used very successfully against Muslims by the RSS and the VHP in a notorious incident in 1992. A mob of Hindu militants stormed the mosque of Babri Masjid on the dubious grounds that it was built on the birthplace of the Hindu god Ram. Indeed, as the BJP owed its subsequent electoral triumphs at least partly to the incident and the way in which it was manipulated, the tactic proved successful beyond all expectations.

The close links between the RSS and the governing political party, the BJP, become all the more sinister in the light of the RSS document. One Indian commentator stated:

"It frightens me that the leaders of our country, while telling the world that they respect freedom of religion, are really working for an organisation that has no problem killing, raping and poisoning those of other religions to advance their agenda of Hindu extremism."

The circular is far from unique. Typical of other threatening literature is an e-mail from a supporter of the RSS concerning a series of planned evangelistic meetings in Sikkim, which were to be conducted by a Christian, Dr. Paul Dinakaran. The writer encourages fellow militants

"to disrupt the proceedings and if possible intimidate and threaten"

Dinakaran, and urges:

"If he does not vacate Sikkim in three days time an attempt should be made to kick him out and set his residence on fire."

There are general as well as specific threats. An e-mail from a Hindu militant a few months ago, which was intended for wide circulation, states:

"On the other hand, if Muslims and Christians use perfidy and force in conversion, as they frequently do, we have to act with merciless ferocity and militant determination",

using

"unwavering force without quarter, delivered calmly without passion or attachment."

The following example, which was reported by a western missionary who was in India with her husband but who has since returned to Britain, shows the threats and intimidation that Christian and other faith leaders face:

"The local community had had visits from the police and had been told to inform on us … Our Hindu friends came to us and told us that we were on a killing list. The local Catholic priest was, as well. It had been passed to all the local shopkeepers who had been told to inform on us. Everything we did or said was thereafter re-hashed until we had assumed sinister, subversive roles and were [seen as] a danger to the community".

The reference to the role of the police in that example should set alarm bells ringing. Elements in both local and national Government are unsympathetic to the plight of Christians, Muslims and other minorities. Officials and police are often reluctant to register or investigate attacks even when they are reported to them and the Indian Government refuse to denounce the activities of militant groups such as the VHP and the Bajrang Dal. Given the close links between the BJP and such groups, that comes as no surprise.

Other significant instances of persecution are occurring in India. The state of Tamil Nadu has just passed a law that claims to ban conversions "by force or fraud". However, it has been widely seen as an attempt to prevent all conversions to Christianity in the state. It is the culmination of a campaign by militant Hindu groups against Christian conversions. They allege that all conversion to Christianity is "by force or fraud". The leader of the RSS recently claimed:

"No-one converts voluntarily. It is motivated by greed".

The law is also aimed at stopping Dalits converting from Hinduism to other religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity and Islam. Many Dalits see Hinduism as an oppressive religion that keeps them at the bottom of the caste system. Over the past couple of years, a number have converted to other religions, saying that they find greater freedom that way. State authorities vigorously opposed a recent conversion rally in Tamil Nadu, at which a number of Dalits converted to Christianity and Buddhism.

Christians and Dalits in India fear that the law will spread to other states. There is even a similar Bill pending in the national Parliament. Such laws will make it easier for militant Hindu organisations such as the RSS to harass and obstruct Christians witnessing to non-Christians, and they will give the mobs an excuse to attack evangelists on the pretext that they are breaking the law. The laws would also be a means of stopping the Dalits converting to other religions.

Will the Minister tell me what action Britain is taking to raise those issues with the Indian authorities? Our strong economic and cultural ties with India are likely to give Britain added opportunities to raise such issues. I realise that India is notoriously prickly concerning what it sees as outside interference, but there are ways in which such matters can be raised sensitively and appropriately.

The Indian Government need to crack down on the activities of Hindu militants. Those carrying out attacks on Christians, Muslims and others need to be caught and punished; justice needs to be done and to be seen to be done. The Indian Government need to be reminded of their international obligations, having ratified the international covenant on civil and political rights in 1979, as well as similar covenants and conventions. Above all, the Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Vajpayee, needs to be told that strenuous statements asserting India's commitment to secular, pluralistic government need to be backed up by strong action to demonstrate that.

Our Government can also take action closer to home. The VHP has an active British branch. Despite the repeated involvement of the VHP in atrocities in India, the VHP UK branch has charitable status, with all the advantages that that brings. Will the Minister ask his counterpart in the Home Office to launch an investigation into that? We need to be sure that money raised in this country under charitable pretexts does not end up funding the dubious activities of a militant organisation in India.

I want to consider another example in the same part of the world: the country of Bhutan. Bhutan has the only Buddhist Government in the world and Christians in the country face growing discrimination and persecution, which, unlike in India, comes directly from the national Government. In parts of the country, state officials, such as district administrators, apply huge pressure on Christians to force them to renounce their faith. That intimidation includes severe beatings, imprisonment, verbal threats and forced participation in de-Christianising rituals. Census officers sometimes mark the names of Christians in the register and threaten to delete their details if they do not renounce Christianity. Some observers believe that there is a strong possibility that, if current trends continue, Christian communities could be evicted altogether from Bhutan within a few years.

The British Government need to make strong representations on those points to the Government of Bhutan. I realise that Britain does not have formal diplomatic relations with Bhutan, but our high commission in India has a section that deals with Bhutanese issues. Britain also trades with Bhutan, and is an aid donor to the country. That should provide a useful context in which to raise issues of religious liberty.

Last year, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Andy King) tabled a series of written questions on the persecution of Christians in Bhutan. As part of his reply, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), declared that the Government had no reason to discuss the issue with fellow European Union member states. That is simply not good enough.

The Government claim to put human rights and religious liberty at the heart of their foreign policy. Various former Ministers, including the present Secretary of State for Wales when Minister for Europe and the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) when Minister of State at the Foreign Office, have reiterated that. The situation in Bhutan warrants a higher priority in discussions with other EU countries. That is especially true given that the EU has some links with Bhutan that are independent of Britain. Also, I gather that the EU is considering increasing development aid to Bhutan. If that is so, it should provide a good opportunity for the UK Government to raise human rights issues with their EU counterparts.

The Under-Secretary also declared that the form and content of a proposed Bhutanese constitution is a matter for the Government and people of Bhutan alone. However, that is not entirely true. The drafting of the constitution is not purely an internal matter, because Bhutan joined the United Nations in 1971, and by virtue of its UN membership has pledged itself to bring its law, including any constitution, into line with the universal declaration of human rights. Article 18 of that declaration upholds the right to freedom of religion. The international community has every right—indeed, an obligation—to ensure that article 18 is upheld and respected in Bhutan.

These are important issues, which I say again I am grateful to have had the opportunity to put on record. While I have been speaking in this half-hour Adjournment debate, it is very likely that somewhere in India or Bhutan, or in both countries, someone has been attacked purely because of their adherence to their faith. The Minister, whose Government claim to put great emphasis on religious liberty, should urgently address that. Taking the steps that I have outlined today would be a good start.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on the clarity of his arguments. In the short time available, I hope to address many of the points that he raised.

I start by making it clear that religious intolerance is deplorable in the United Kingdom, India, Bhutan or wherever it occurs. The close links of many British people of Indian origin with their families in Gujarat, Kashmir, Punjab and elsewhere in India mean that Britain has an especial interest in and responsibility to human rights issues in such areas.

The Government have put the promotion of human rights at the core of their foreign policy. The United Kingdom has a long-standing tradition of raising religious freedom issues around the world. In doing so, we take the 1948 universal declaration of human rights as our starting point. Article 18 of that declaration is clear and unambiguous on religious issues:

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

We take that very seriously.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), the then Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office, made abundantly clear in July in replying to an Adjournment debate on violence against Christians in Asia, the Government unreservedly condemn the persecution of individuals because of their faith, wherever they are and whatever religion they practise. We certainly take every opportunity, both on our own and in conjunction with European partners, to urge states to pursue laws and practices that foster tolerance and mutual respect, and to protect religious minorities against discrimination, intimidation and attacks.

Wherever possible, we work with officials, religious leaders and non-governmental organisations at international and local level to promote mutual understanding and tolerance. Indeed, at the United Nations General Assembly in New York last year, we co-sponsored a resolution that made clear our determination and that of the international community to work towards eliminating all forms of religious intolerance.

The FCO's work is done not only through the European Union and the United Nations; we believe that it is vital to work with and alongside non-governmental organisations. I was pleased when the FCO restarted the religious freedom panel in December 2001. It is an informal contact group of NGOs based in the UK which are concerned with religious freedom worldwide. The panel's purpose and aim is to share information, to discuss strategies and to promote international religious freedom. I welcome the fact that most faiths are represented, including Christian Solidarity Worldwide, with which I know the hon. Gentleman has links.

Let me turn to the hon. Gentleman's specific worries about religious freedom in India. It is worth starting by saying that India has been seen as a model of a successful religiously diverse and democratic state for many years. It has won high standing throughout the world because of its respect for, and celebration of, religious diversity. India is a vast country with a population of more than 1 billion people and it is true that diversity is, and should be, inherent in its identity. Although the majority of the population are Hindus, people of all faiths—including Christians, Muslims, Sikhs and Buddhists—live largely peacefully together in Indian society. The concept of an Indian state in which all religions flourish was central to Mahatma Gandhi's thinking. He wrote:

"Indian culture is neither Hindu, Islamic or any other, wholly. It is a fusion of all."

That is absolutely right.

The vast majority—82 per cent.—of India's population are Hindus. However, the population contains a substantial minority of Muslims. Owing to the size of India's population, that represents 120 million people. Although the Christian and Sikh communities are small minorities that each represent 2 per cent. of the population, more than 20 million Christians nevertheless live in India, which is a substantial number.

The right to the freedom of religion is enshrined in the constitution of India. Article 25 of the constitution states:

"All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion".

That is one of the clearest and least ambiguous statements of commitment to be found in the constitution of any country in the world. The Prime Minister of India, Mr. Vajpayee, reaffirmed in his new year message this year that India had been

"secular since the beginning of her known history".

He rightly defined secularism as

"the duty to show respect for all faiths and to practise no discrimination among citizens on the basis of their beliefs".

The founding principles of India and the words and commitment in the constitution are very strong. However, tensions between Hindus and Muslims and Hindus and Christians increasingly pose a challenge to the concepts of secularism, tolerance and diversity on which India was founded. We have heard disturbing accounts, especially about attacks on Christians and Muslims, and I verify that concerns are well founded.

Violence against Christians in India increased significantly between 1998 and 2000. The Indian United Christian Forum claimed that the number of attacks against Christian institutions in 1998 alone was more than the total number of attacks between 1964 and 1997. Although the Catholic Bishops Conference of India reported in April 2001 that attacks had decreased since then, violence and the threat of violence remain a serious problem. The hon. Gentleman referred to the recent attack on Joseph Cooper, an American missionary, in Kerala, which was a particularly shocking example. That is not the only example of attacks on Christians, and the hon. Gentleman referred to many of them.

We welcome the fact that the Chief Minister of Kerala responded with a clear denunciation of that attack and we welcome the swift action of the Keralan police to arrest several people who were suspected of being involved in the assault. We hope—and urge—that the perpetrators will be quickly brought to justice, and our high commission in Delhi will continue to watch the situation closely.

The attack on Mr. Cooper was reminiscent of the brutal murder in January 1999 of an Australian missionary, Graham Staines, and his sons. Mr. Staines had worked with leprosy sufferers in Orissa for more than 30 years and had devoted himself to alleviating their suffering. That was one of several vicious assaults against Christians and Muslims that took place in 1999 and 2000. We have expressed strong worries about the attacks.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the situation in Gujarat. The violence that engulfed Gujarat between February and April 2002 was the worst outbreak of religious-related violence that had occurred in India for more than 10 years. Christians suffered badly but Muslims were the main victims of the atrocities. We have expressed our concerns and we welcome the fact that the Indian Government have publicly condemned the violence. Prime Minister Vajpayee called it a "blot on India", and I agree with that assessment. We are worried by reports that the state Government of Gujarat did not do as much as they could to stop the violence. The National Human Rights Commission of India has accused the Gujarat Government

"of a complicity that was tacit if not explicit".

Nevertheless, we welcomed the Government's quick response in October to stop further violence after the terrorist attack on a Hindu temple in Gujarat.

We remain concerned about the welfare of many in Gujarat, especially Muslims and Christians. We welcome the Government of India's assurances that they will take action to bring to justice the perpetrators of violence, but we understand that, to date, there have been no prosecutions. We have repeatedly voiced our concerns with the Indian authorities about such matters. We have also rightly offered practical assistance. The British Government have provided immediate relief assistance to victims of violence. We are now considering whether we can support practical measures under the human rights project fund to encourage reconciliation between the communities in Gujarat.

Will the Minister speak to his counterpart in the Home Office about the United Kingdom charitable status of the VHP?

The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my next remarks. We are aware of the concerns about the links about the VHP and the BJP. It is worth saying that the BJP-led national Government have criticised the VHP's extremist rhetoric. Nevertheless, as for charitable status, the Charity Commission is keeping the activities of VHP-UK under review. If the hon. Gentleman has specific evidence about the VHP-UK's activities, I am sure that the Charity Commission would be interested to receive it.

I turn now to Bhutan, which has a population of almost 2 million. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is predominantly Bhuddhist. Its law allows for religious freedom, but Bhutan has not ratified the international covenant on civil and political rights. None the less, the international community expects Bhutan to observe the internationally agreed standards that it sets out. The hon. Gentleman referred to his concerns about the work of the European Union. We have certainly voiced our worries about it. The EU is providing assistance to Bhutan and, as is traditionally the case with its programmes of assistance, it is taking a carrot and stick approach. We shall push it further.

There are concerns; we have raised them, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that there remain grounds for hope in India and Bhutan. It is crucial that progress is made. The values of human rights and religious tolerance are values that we expect in this country, in India, in Bhutan and throughout the world. Within the Government, we will use our best offices to ensure that those values are upheld.

Order.

I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me time for a debate on voter participation. I genuinely believe that the problem of apathy among the electorate throughout the United Kingdom is of the utmost importance not only to my party, but to all political parties in Britain. If we do not deal with it, there is a distinct possibility that the country's whole democratic process will be in danger of collapse or near collapse.

Like many other hon. Members, I become frustrated when people do not vote. We all know of the tremendous fight people conducted over the years so that others might have the right to vote. I want to draw attention to several reasons why people choose not to vote. I hope that other hon. Members will share their experiences of why people do not participate in our electoral process.

There has been a worrying increase in the number of people who fail to take part in our electoral process. We are in grave danger of taking democracy for granted in the United Kingdom. As politicians, we should not be paranoid and believe that apathy exists only in politics. I am sure that hon. Members can describe other forms of apathy in their communities, whether it is in respect of community councils, churches, youth organisations and so on. Persuading people to become involved in organisations that affect and influence their lives is becoming more difficult.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence for why people choose not to vote. We must make all the necessary changes to the voting system to encourage people to come out on polling day and ensure that they are an integral part of the electoral system. The use of electronic online voting would increase the number of younger voters. Making use of as much of today's technology as possible is certainly worthy of consideration. As politicians, we should mount an awareness campaign showing first-time voters the importance of using their right to vote and how that keeps alive the notion of democracy. There is a worrying trend of young people showing no great interest in the world of politics.

Recent surveys commissioned by the Electoral Commission noted that 40 per cent. of the electorate did not turn out to vote at the general election. Such figures are replicated at both local and regional elections throughout the United Kingdom and indeed throughout Europe. There was an abysmal turnout in the European elections. Equally worrying was a recent survey carried out by the children's BBC "Newsround" programme, which showed that only 27 per cent. of 400 seven to 15-year-olds would be concerned if they lost their right to vote. Two thirds of our youngsters do not believe that voting is important or relevant, and that rings alarm bells, at least in my mind. We must never forget that those seven to 15-year-olds are tomorrow's voters.

On the subject of young people and their participation in the voting system, it may be appropriate to refer to the voting age. I have an open mind on that, and I welcome the views of other hon. Members. Regardless of the voting age, however, we must all work hard as politicians to engage young people in politics and to convince them that they can and will influence their own lives and those of others if they participate in the voting process.

Does my hon. Friend consider that there is a case for compulsory voting? Does he share my view that if people do not participate in the voting democracy of the country, they do not have a say in what the Government do?

My hon. Friend raises an important point about compulsory voting. When people choose not to vote, they should not be allowed the same opportunity as others to participate in the complaints procedures of national and local government. Moreover, I share her view that compulsory voting is worth considering. Perhaps the Minister will say whether there is any evidence that compulsory voting encourages people to vote?

Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the fact that in a country where there is compulsory voting—which I believe is the case in Italy—there have been since 1945 as many Governments as there have been years. Although there have been enormous turnouts, by some standards the country has a less than satisfactory democratic system.

I bow to the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of Italian politics, which I do not share, although my understanding is that the problem with the political process in Italy has more to do with proportional representation than with any other voting matter. I do not believe in proportional representation. It does not enhance people's wish to vote.

Does my hon. Friend accept that international figures show that turnout in countries that have proportional systems is 10 per cent. higher than it is in countries that have our system? Does that not show that there may be some benefit in a system that is more proportional—not so much because of proportionality, but because everybody has an incentive to vote when a vote is certain to make a difference?

The figures that my hon. Friend has cited may be right, but that does not necessarily mean that PR or any other exercise leads to better government, although it enhances people's choice.

As a citizen of the United Kingdom—a normal Joe Bloggs, not an anorak—I ask what would encourage me to vote? Compulsory voting is not worthy of active consideration, although I would be keen to hear the Minister's and hon. Members' views on that. What is wrong with asking people to take time out to register their vote? If a person is too lazy to go to a polling station or cannot be bothered to do that, why should that individual be free to participate in any other aspect of governmental or local authority policy? I understand that situations arise when people cannot reach polling stations for various reasons, and measures such as postal voting or increased access for disabled people are in place to accommodate that.

Perhaps we should consider the time scale in which voting takes place, and whether it should be the current one day or whether voting should be spread over several days, including weekends. Where should people vote? Perhaps the general public should be able to vote in places that they frequent, such as supermarkets, libraries or workplaces. It would be extremely interesting if we could create a way for employers to allow their employees to vote at their workplaces. We should make use of new technology, such as electronic online voting, given that many everyday activities such as banking and shopping are carried out online with ease. Those are only several practical measures that are worthy of further consideration and debate.

We must examine how we politicians portray ourselves and how the press and other media portray us. Although I accept that journalists and television presenters have an important role in today's society, I think that they would recognise that they have a fundamental responsibility to report accurately the work of elected politicians. There is over-concentration by the press and other media on what politicians do in their private lives, and insufficient concentration on what they do in their working lives. That is somewhat regrettable. I firmly believe that the electorate are completely turned off by such trivia and are more concerned about what politicians can, and will, do to influence their lives.

That is not always the journalists' fault. There are many examples of the press and other media being used by our fellow politicians to spin and to undermine each other, which feeds the frenzy for trivia. Although the press and other media have a responsibility to report accurately, they are not helped by such unacceptable behaviour by politicians.

I turn to television presenters and commentators. It now appears to be sexy to hear or see the aggressive interviewing of politicians by commentators who are more interested in their own ego than in conducting a mature interview and getting mature answers. We all know who the aggressive presenters and commentators are. I find it strange that fellow politicians volunteer their services on those programmes when they know that the presenters are interested only in promoting their own egos. Some presenters treat politicians with utter contempt, and politicians who give succour to such aggressive interviewing should perhaps reconsider their attitudes.

I recall Brian Walden of days gone by, who was one of the best interviewers at getting a response from politicians. I long for the day when the Brian Waldens of this world return to the political scene and hold politicians to account instead of discussing trivia. That is not to say that journalists and television commentators should not pursue all issues of public interest with vigour and hold politicians to account for their actions.

We must consider how the public can come to perceive us, the politicians, through our good work. Politics is about opinion, but the negative campaigning becoming more prevalent in the political world contributes greatly to turning voters off politics and politicians. It is unfortunate that no Members from the Scottish National party are present. Perhaps they do not have an interest in what the people of Scotland think of their politicians. The SNP's negative campaigning is a perfect example of how to turn people off, particularly in the run-up to local and parliamentary elections in Scotland. Last time there were elections in Scotland, turnout was pathetically low. Unfortunately, parties such as the SNP concentrate on the personalities of individuals, and that reflects the lack of substance in their policies.

It is vital that, in future elections, every party—in Scotland and elsewhere—should promote the importance of voting, and that there is none of the usual petty and at times spiteful campaigning. I shall certainly urge my party to avoid any kind of negative, personalised campaigning, as I firmly believe that the general public do not wish their politicians to behave in such a frivolous and contentious manner. Perhaps we all should remember that, particularly at Prime Minister's Question Time, when we sometimes behave like bears in a trap.

British voters have, for some time, been disenchanted with the electoral system, and are now sympathetic to the notion that they have no control over their destiny or direction in life. We will never improve our notion of democracy and debate if the electorate has such a low opinion of our system, and we must encourage greater constituent interaction in all our communities to reflect people's interests and, more important, regain their trust.

We are in danger of going to war in the middle east with Iraq, and that could have massive ramifications for everyone in this country, as was more than adequately pointed out recently by the Prime Minister. He reminded us that we live in a time when citizens face extreme danger from terrorists, many of whom ignore or undermine legitimate democratic processes at every opportunity. We should remain vigilant and focused to protect our hard-fought-for and hard-won democracy. We should hold it dear.

In conclusion, we live in a country that is proud of the history of its democratic process. Over the years we have influenced other countries to follow suit, and we should be extremely proud of that. We must not allow ourselves to take our eye off the ball by allowing our own democracy to be undermined or undervalued by voter apathy. I look forward to hearing the views of the Minister and other hon. Members because this is a vital issue, not only for the current generation of politicians but for those coming behind us. We must ensure that the public genuinely believe that we have a job to do and that we get on and do it.

Order. I notice that six hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, only three of whom have given prior notice—[Interruption.] Do we have a percussion section in the orchestra? Can the Control Room sort out that noise please?

I want to explain to those who are unaccustomed to established practice in the Chamber that we commence the first of the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before conclusion of the debate. That means that we have 39 minutes in which to try to fit in six people's speeches, so I ask all hon. and right hon. Members to make their comments pertinent and concise and not to accept or make interventions that could be covered in another way at another time.

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) on the thoughtful, measured and comprehensive way in which he introduced this extremely important debate. I agree that Brian Walden was an exception to the rule. The fact that he was previously a Member of this House and had real contact with real people may be why he had more idea of what they were interested in than do many of the commentators and interviewers that we suffer from in the media.

I listened to your very proper admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I want to be brief. I will refer to the written statement made by the Minister for Local Government and the Regions last Thursday about electoral pilots. That referred specifically to the May 2003 local elections, so it is strictly outwith the subject on the Order Paper. Nevertheless, this year's experience will be extremely important when it comes to deciding what it is sensible to do in relation to the general election, whenever it is held. The Minister said:

"I have now accepted 61 applications, covering 6.5 million electors."

That means that a very large percentage of people are taking part in the experiments. At the end of his statement, the Minister said:

"The pilots are an important step towards our aim of holding an e-enabled general election sometime after 2006."—[Official Report, 23 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 18-19.]

So there will be a period during which we can take careful stock of the situation and decide whether the lessons learned will be useful for a general election. A number of the new applications accepted from local authorities refer to all-postal ballots. Many Members have some concerns about all-postal ballots and the opportunities for fraud and intimidation and therefore for distorting the result. Ministers will have to take that carefully into account.

Leading on from the intervention made by the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton), there is a real danger that by concentrating on peripheral issues—some would say gimmicks—the Government will ignore one extremely important lesson. According to the Electoral Reform Society, in the 2001 general election no less than 70.3 per cent of those who voted had no impact whatever on the result. That figure is composed not only of all those who voted for defeated candidates, but includes all those whose votes were over and above what was needed to achieve a success in that constituency.

The biggest single disincentive to voting is the knowledge that one's vote does not matter in many parts of the country. The hon. Member for Battersea was right—the House of Commons is not the only place where proportionality is of concern. Almost uniquely, our electoral system gives people a disincentive to vote because they know that it makes no difference.

I pray in aid the following figures to show the extent of the problem, because the aggregate average figure for turnout is misleading. For example, in Liverpool, Riverside, where the result seemed to be a foregone conclusion, the turnout was 34.1 per cent. The constituency has always been and is likely to remain a safe Labour seat. Voters knew that their vote would have no impact on the result. In Glasgow, Shettleston turnout was 39.7 per cent.; in Glasgow Maryhill, it was 40.1 per cent.; in Salford it was 41.6 per cent.; in Leeds, Central it was 41.7 per cent.; and in Manchester, Gorton it was 42.7 per cent. There were very low turnouts in all those constituencies because the electorate knew that their vote would have no appreciable effect.

By contrast, in marginal seats where every vote counted, the turnout was much higher. Several of the following are Liberal Democrat seats, but that is a coincidence.

In Winchester, where my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) had a majority of two in 1997, the turnout was 72.3 per cent. It is worth noting that the Conservative candidate and his wife were not registered to vote in the constituency, being still registered in Scotland. In Hexham, where the Conservative had a majority of 222 in 1997, turnout was 70.9 per cent. In Northavon, turnout was 70.9 per cent.; in Torridge and West Devon, it was 70.5 per cent.; in Somerton and Frome, it was 70.3 per cent.; and in Norfolk, North, it was 70.2 per cent. Under the first-past-the-post system, average figures are misleading.

I hope that I have made one point clear: when a general election seems to be a foregone conclusion nationally, and when locally—[Interruption.]

Order. To do justice to the subject, I am suspending the sitting to give the engineers time to sort out the sound problem from which we are suffering. I will add injury time at the end. It was not so bad when the voice of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) was being amplified, but the sound is now so poor that it is pointless to carry on. With the indulgence of hon. Members, we will wait until we get the all clear.

I hope that that my words of wisdom have been recorded somewhere and that they have not disappeared into the ether, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to note your assent. I hope that it was not my loud tie, worn in the interests of cancer research, that caused the confusion. I apologise if that was so.

If we cannot do anything to make votes of equal value and ensure that people can be confident every time they vote that they will have an impact on the result, turnouts will continue to drop. I shall give another illustration. When I was first elected in February 1974, I had a majority of nine. Clearly, my clever constituents had worked out that my majority would be narrow and there was a turnout of 83 per cent. in the then Bodmin constituency. In my present constituency, the majority was nearly 10,000 at the 2001 election. People worked out that the national result was a foregone conclusion and that the seat was relatively safe so the turnout dropped to 63 per cent. There is a direct correlation between people's perception that their votes matter and turnout. I refer again to the extraordinary statistic that 70.3 per cent. of those who voted, let alone those who were discouraged from voting by the way in which the system operated, had no effect whatsoever on the result of the 2001 general election.

The useful, but marginal, reforms that are being piloted at the moment are well worth pursuing. However, unless the Government are prepared to grasp the real problem at the bottom of our electoral system, we will continue to see fewer people willing to go to polling stations to exercise their democratic rights. The hon. Member for West Renfrewshire is absolutely right that this is a critical issue about which we should all be concerned, but we need to take radical action to deal with a radical problem.

Order. We have almost exactly 30 minutes in which to accommodate five hon. Members.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) on securing this debate on a very important issue. He referred to the democratic deficit throughout the world. There are certain countries where we would like democracy and which do not have democracy but, in our own country, we have a democratic embarrassment because turnouts have decreased significantly over the years.

I recall, as will every hon. Member present, that a turnout of between 70 and 75 per cent. could be expected in every constituency not so long ago, irrespective of voting patterns. I also recall that when the referendum was held on the Scottish Parliament, aspirations were high and there was a 70-odd per cent. vote in favour of a Scottish Parliament. However, when the Scottish Parliament was elected, the turnout was lower.

People's first reason for voting is their aspirations. I wish that solving the problem were as easy as looking at other countries. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister says about the Government's proposals for policies that could be developed to encourage greater turnouts at election time.

The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) mentioned Italy. A comparison can be drawn between the situations in Italy and in Australia, where there is compulsory voting, and one can ask whether the two cases are identical. Did the countries return the same results, or was there greater confidence in Australia than in Italy? Was the situation more stable in Australia than in Italy? One can also compare our situation with that of Sweden. My hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire referred to weekend voting in Sweden, which has had a flexible voting system for many years and has turnouts of more than 80 per cent. Weekend voting and voting in supermarkets have been referred to. However, turnout has been getting lower in democratic countries throughout the world, irrespective of the voting systems in place. There is clear evidence that fewer people think it is valuable to vote in the democratic process although we encourage more democracy throughout the world. There is a conflict not only of conscience but of identification. How can we convince other people that democracy is valuable if we cannot convince our electorate that voting is valuable?

I do not want to repeat much of what has been said because as you rightly pointed out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is an issue of time—I suppose that it would be appropriate to say that I shall short-circuit my contribution.

May I reflect on turnouts? The turnout was between 70 and 75 per cent. two parliamentary elections ago, and the turnout for the Scottish Parliament elections was 60 per cent. There was a 54 per cent. turnout in my constituency at the last general election, and a national turnout of about 56 per cent. The trend is clear. I am not so sure that PR will bring about a higher turnout in the Scottish Parliament elections this year. I would like to think that it is a solution to the problem, but time will tell.

Credibility is a big issue, as is education. The system used can have an influence, but any steps taken to change the system would have to be considered very carefully indeed. However, systems do not bring about greater enthusiasm for the democratic process. People may be fined for not voting but that would not necessarily make them more interested in the result, as my hon. Friend said, and would not necessarily bring about good government. We have to ask what it is that we actually want to improve.

I mentioned education and I mentioned other countries. We have all expressed concerns over Zimbabwe, where we would like a democratic process to be introduced in the best interests of the people. However, if we cannot make moves to encourage greater turnout in this country, our arguments are less strong.

I welcome the opportunity to have this discussion and to hear from other colleagues. We are all concerned about this issue. Whatever the solution may be, we would all like to find one that encouraged young people to see how important it is to cast their vote, and to see that—whatever the system—they can influence government and opinion.

There is a concern about how politicians are portrayed. I can remember a time when, if people saw their MP walking along the road, there was greater respect—irrespective of whether the MP was female or male. That respect was greater than the respect given to MPs today. We are almost getting to the stage where, in certain quarters, MPs are frightened to mention that they are MPs. We have to ask why politicians today are considered less credible than were politicians in the past. I am concerned about the credibility factor. We all care about our constituents, we all want to see the job done and we all want to make a difference to better our communities—but do the people believe that those are our intentions, or do they believe that that is just spin and that we care about our own objectives rather than those of our communities?

I would like to hear from the Minister about the consideration that the Government have given to possible systems. Again. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire on giving us this opportunity to discuss a very important subject.

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) on securing this debate today. It is important to members of all parties and members of none. Legislation that is passed and the way in which the country is run affect us all, including those who do not vote. There are a number of things that we can all do to improve voter turnout, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) mentioned the election in Winchester in which the Liberal Democrats beat the Conservatives by two votes. The Conservative candidate and his wife were not on the electoral register; they were still registered in the south of Scotland.

A number of things can be done to make it easy to vote: we can ensure that registers are accurate; we can explore weekend voting; and postal voting, which has already been mentioned, could improve things, although fraud is a key concern. Other things to consider include internet voting, electronic voting and telephoning voting. The best recent example of that was the telephone voting on "Pop Idol" on television, in which more people voted than voted in the last European election, and three times as many young people voted as voted in the general election. If people think that they can influence the result, they will get out and vote. We must make it easy for shift workers, the elderly, carers and those with mobility problems. That issue is covered by the fact that anyone who wants a postal vote may have one.

Making it easy for people to vote is probably the easiest aspect of this debate, but getting people interested and engaged in the process will also have to be tackled. As has been mentioned, education is vital. I support, and my party supports, giving the vote to 16-year-olds. Why should people pay tax but not be able to vote? Lowering the age would not increase the percentage of people voting, but it would increase young people's engagement.

People have been asked why they do not vote. Sometimes, the answer is that they are not interested in politics, but if they are asked whether they are interested in the health service, they say yes. They are interested in the education of their children, crime on the streets, defence, foreign affairs and Iraq, which was mentioned earlier. International development might not immediately strike a chord, but most people are genuinely concerned about the poor and starving in third-world countries. To engage people in the process, we must make them enthusiastic about it. Politicians must take a lead.

It has been said that the behaviour in the House of Commons, particularly during Prime Minister's Question Time, is an absolute embarrassment. As a newly elected Member, I found it embarrassing to sit in what has been described as a bear pit. It is no wonder that people who see that on television become disengaged from the process. Also, there have recently been allegations of fraud in MPs' expenses claims. We have no control over what is in the press—rightly so, we benefit from a free press—but the press must take a responsible attitude on the matter.

At the last general election, for the first time ever, more people did not vote than voted for the winning party. Recently, the British National party won a council seat. The BNP has never won a council seat where the vote was more than 40 per cent. Apathy is a real danger to us all.

PR would improve the situation, because it would be felt that a party had a strength of voice in Parliament that reflected the percentage of people who had voted for it. I feel disfranchised in this place because many MPs want a substantive vote in the House about sending troops to war in Iraq but are unable to vote on a subject that they would dearly like to discuss.

As has been mentioned, many seats are considered relatively safe seats. PR would deal with that.

To sum up, we must make it easier for people to vote. If people cannot be bothered to cast their vote, compulsory voting is not the answer, because it would hide the problem. People would go out and vote, but they would not want to vote. We must get people interested in and enthusiastic about the system. That calls for inspirational leadership. There is a danger to us all if people are disengaged, and we would all benefit by encouraging more people to vote.

I shall be brief. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) introduced this important subject. As several issues have already been covered, I shall speak briefly on those that have not.

The equal value vote issue is separate from the argument about the democratic deficit—people not voting. I accept that there is an argument for proportional representation, but we must be aware when we talk about it that there are different types of PR. For example, a form of PR is used in the European elections, which have a turnout of only 20 per cent. We must be clear about the type of PR we mean.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the low turnout for European elections is more about the European system than about the electoral method?

It says much about the European system, which brings me to my next point. It is important to recognise that people do not turn out if they feel disengaged from the decision making. For example, it is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire said, that people turned out in substantial numbers to vote for a Scottish Parliament, but only 61 per cent. turned out to vote in its first election. The PR system shouts to me of compromise—that is what it is about. The people who argue for PR normally come second in the running and are trying to take a position of power.

There is a bigger issue than PR. We must try to encourage people and bring them into the discussions. It is very important that political education starts in schools. It does not have to be dealt with in a party political manner. One of the best debates that I have heard was in a primary school. Children of primary age raised various issues such as foxhunting and so on that did not actually affect them but were important to them. I have attended public meetings that were less political than those very good discussions at Rosewell primary school in Midlothian. If we could proceed in that way, we could talk about the system and the best way to encourage voting.

I am an ex-miner. In the pits we used to vote at the pit head, and the average turnout was 81 per cent. That was because the vote was taken to the people. When the previous Government argued for, and forced the unions to hold, postal votes, the turnout plummeted to 51 per cent. It is horses for courses—an old saying—and we must try to look at different options.

I agree that we should make voting more accessible. People currently have just one day in the week—a Thursday—when they can vote. That is not a great system; weekends would be better. Enabling people to vote in the big shops—Tesco and other supermarkets—would be one way forward. If we took the vote to the people, there would be an increase in the number of votes being cast.

It is important that we recognise that in the UK more elderly people than younger people vote because they appreciate the value of what they have. Voting is a gift and I cherish people's right to vote. People in many countries wish that they had such a right. I believe strongly that the Australian system, which features compulsory voting, should be considered. I know, however, that people might resent that and I do not think it would be a great idea for one Government—this Government—to argue the case in isolation from other parties. There would have to be a cross-party discussion on compulsory voting, because whoever delivered it might be rebuffed for forcing people to turn out. The onus is on hon. Members to get out there and tell people the reasons why it is important they should vote and why they should not feel disfranchised.

The situation regarding local elections is very bad throughout the country. In my area, 59 per cent. of the population voted on local government, because it was tied to the Scottish Parliament elections. However, only 59 per cent. voted at the general election. People felt that there was an issue surrounding the Government's performance and they wondered whether their votes would count. When people who have never bothered to vote come to see me, calling me by the wrong name and saying that they did not realise I was their MP, I get angry. There is an old adage that says, "If you do not vote, what are you complaining about?" People can ensure that their views are expressed only through voting.

Some of the points that I have made have already been covered well and, bearing in mind what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will try to cut my remarks short. Electronic voting is an excellent idea, but it would apply only to a limited number of people and it could be corrupt. Whichever system we adopt, it should be a complementary system that deals with various issues. That is how we should address the issue of voting in the UK. Let us make voting appealing to people.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to talk about Government measures to improve voter participation. Hon. Members will know that in 2001 we had the worst turnout since 1918. Never have so many people been turned off by politics and politicians. Turnout was as low as 34 per cent. in some areas, and in some wards during local elections it was as low as 12 per cent. In my view that is a crisis and we must consider it.

We must consider whether to change the system fundamentally. We credit ourselves with giving democracy to the world—we did—but our political and electoral machinery has become outdated, in the same way that our industrial machinery became outdated after the industrial revolution. We must update it if it is to meet its 21st century job description, which is to deliver the will of the people and to encourage the people to exercise their will.

I shall mention the practical issue of trialling proportional representation in local elections. In November 2001, Lewisham council applied to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions—as it was then—to have a trial additional member system in the 2002 local elections. It was refused on three bases. First, that would require a change in law. Since the law will have to change to move the European election dates that need no longer be an obstacle. Secondly, it would mean that different councillors were elected by different means under a top-up system. The Greater London Authority has shown that that can work. I do not think that Trevor Phillips has suffered very much as a result of being a top-up elected representative. Thirdly, Lewisham was told that there was no evidence that the reform of systems increases turnout. Frankly, everyone knows that those who live in safe seats are less likely to bother to vote, and that was clearly shown in the most recent general election. Turnout in the 100 most marginal seats was on average nearly 10 per cent. higher than in the 100 safest seats.

I have been instructed to be brief, and I will be, but I want to add that participation is not just down to whether people think that they can affect the result, but whether people think that the result will affect them. In other words, it is down to whether Westminster has relevance to them, and whether what happens in Westminster affects what happens on the streets or estates. Politicians have some responsibility in that respect. We have to learn to speak in plain English.

I would like the voting age to be lowered to 16. As has been said in the past, there should be no taxation without representation. I do not understand why that should not be true for 16-year-olds who pay tax. We need electronic and telephone voting, and we should consider making voting compulsory, although I hear what hon. Members say about it being unpopular. Perhaps I am influenced by the fact that I lived in Australia for some time, where voting is compulsory and that issue never came up. We think that compulsory voting would be unpopular because that is not how we do things now, but if we are to deal with the crisis that we face, we have to start doing things differently.

Finally, I would be grateful if the Minister would write to the Secretary of State about the Lewisham trial period and whether a trial can be arranged in time for the next elections.

I call on Martin Linton and ask him please to be brief. That is not an instruction, but a polite request.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) for securing the debate, and I am sorry if not all my points are in accord with his.

We are all addressing the same problem, which is that 5 million fewer people voted in the most recent general election than in the previous one, in which there were 2.25 million fewer voters than in the election before that. A cumulative loss of 7.5 million voters clearly shows a crisis in the system. I support all the mechanical, logistical improvements that have been made to our voting system. Indeed, I was a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs that recommended in 1998 that we have postal voting on demand and a rolling register, and that we introduce various other reforms. I am glad to say that those reforms were introduced in the Representation of the People Act 2000.

Schemes on early, electronic and weekend voting are worth piloting. I think that we can go much further down that road. My hon. Friend mentioned Sweden. In this country, we have pilots for early voting. I succeeded in getting the deadline for postal vote applications moved to one week before polling day, and that was a great help in the most recent election. Without that amendment, the deadline would have been two weeks, so I regard the change as an important advance. However, that is still not far enough; those voting in the Swedish election can cast a postal vote in any post office in the country up until the Friday before a Sunday election. Indeed, in certain big post offices in Stockholm and other large cities, people can vote in a post office on polling day if they happen to be away from their home town. Also, in certain Stockholm post offices, if people cast a postal vote before 5 pm, it will get to their polling station before the close of polls at 8 pm. There are no real technical difficulties involved; we could go much further down that route and make voting easy for everyone.

We on the Home Affairs Select Committee never believed that such changes would add any more than 5 per cent. to voting turnout. In fact, because turnout has gone down for other reasons, we have not even had the satisfaction of such an increase. I take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall) about the voting system determining voter turnout. There are two important factors: first, the difference that a vote makes to the outcome of the election—that is important, I think—and secondly, the difference that the outcome of the election makes to someone's life. That explains why so few people vote in European elections, and why the vote in local elections is so much lower than in national elections. When one takes that into account, there is no doubt—it could not be clearer—that the main reason for the low turnout in this country is the voting system. The solution, which could not be more obvious, is to change the system.

On average across the whole globe, turnout in first-past-the-post elections is 58 per cent., which is similar to the figure in this country, while turnout in proportional systems is 68 per cent. Even that understates the difference that the system makes. We already had low turnout in national elections, European elections and local elections before the last general election. Turnout in general elections has decreased from 71 to 59 per cent., turnout in European elections has decreased from 36 to 24 per cent. and turnout in local elections has decreased from 40 to 33 per cent. In the international league table of turnout, we are in 65th place. The United States, which shares our system, is in 138th place out of 163 countries. Nobody can doubt that our voting system is uniquely likely to lead to low turnouts.

I am sceptical whether compulsory voting would make much difference. The international figures show that, if one takes turnout as a proportion of people of voting age rather than as a proportion of people who are registered to vote, compulsory voting does not make that much difference because it tends to make people not register. If we consider voters as a proportion of people of voting age, we find that in countries with compulsory voting turnout is 69 per cent., which does not say very much, and in countries with non-compulsory voting it is 63 per cent. There is a difference but it is not staggeringly large. Giving people something off their council tax if they vote would be a better way of incentivising them than making voting compulsory, which would introduce feelings of guilt that would put people off voting.

My final point is that the biggest problem in this country is not that voting turnout is low everywhere, but that it is low in safe seats. Other hon. Members have mentioned the seats where there is a problem: Liverpool, Riverside; Manchester, Central; Glasgow, Shettleston; Glasgow, Maryhill; Salford; and Leeds, Central. If one looks at Winchester, Mid-Ulster and Tyrone, the turnout is good by the standards of countries such as Germany and Sweden. It is good because several parties have a chance of winning those seats. There have been narrow majorities in the past, which means that not only every voter is incentivised to vote but every party is incentivised to campaign. Multi-party fights for narrow majorities give people the incentive to vote. If we could reproduce that in every seat in the country, the system would not matter. We cannot reproduce that turnout across the country because the first-past-the-post system creates a huge number of safe seats, which turn people off voting, turn parties off campaigning and turn people away from the political system because they feel that they have no purchase on it.

There are clearly many other causes of low turnout and there may be an international trend towards lower turnout, but if one compares this country with other countries there is no doubt that the single biggest reason, which overshadows all the other reasons by a factor of 10, is the voting system and specifically the existence of so many safe seats. Each party regards its safe seats as a source of strength, but really they are a source of tremendous weakness. We could have another 2 million Labour votes in every election if the people in our safe seats had the incentive to vote. We understate our electoral support in every election by 2 million or 3 million votes because most of it is in places where it makes no difference whether one votes. We underestimate the party's popularity and strength. We have solid support in mining seats, but half the people do not go out to vote. That has spread to huge areas of the country, where people feel no incentive to vote. Let us have a voting system—I do not mind which it is—that allows everybody to go to the polling station secure in the knowledge that their vote will make a difference.

Order. Perhaps I should remind hon. Members that conventional practice is for each of the three winding-up speeches to last for 10 minutes.

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) because I could not agree more with his comments about the need to change the voting system. I am not so sure about the overwhelming popularity of the Labour Government, but I shall leave that aside.

The 2001 general election gave us the lowest turnout since 1918. Indeed, some would say that it was the lowest turnout ever in this country, given the circumstances of 1918. Only 59 per cent. of the electorate were sufficiently engaged in the democratic process to play their part in choosing the Government. It is significant that that followed on from 1997, with a turnout of just over 71 per cent., which was then the lowest turnout since 1951. Many people had identified a worrying downward trend in participation in elections prior to 2001, but why did the Governments of the day not act sooner to deal with what has now become a crisis?

My further questions concern what action is being taken to deal with the problem and whether the issues behind the falling turnouts are being addressed? In 2001, more than 60 per cent. of 18 to 25-year-olds did not vote. If the problem is not dealt with adequately, that level of disengagement will pose a threat to the long-term health of our democracy. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) on securing the debate. It is timely, given the urgency of the situation, and appropriate given today's launch of the votes at 16 campaign in the House of Commons.

Why are people choosing not to exercise their democratic right? We have all experienced the responses of constituents when we are canvassing. The conversations that I have had with people who intend not to vote accord closely with the points made by Hansard Society's briefing "None of the Above". It would have been unusual for anyone in 2001 to have gone a whole day without hearing the words, "What's the point? You're all the same." It is not only young people who are disenchanted with politics and politicians. There are responsibilities on us as individuals in our constituencies and within our parties to change public perception. I hope that, in my next campaign, I do not hear so much of that argument. We, as well as the Government, must take the appropriate action.

Soon after being elected in 2001, I hosted a tour of Parliament for a group of young constituents, who were participating in the Princes Trust volunteer scheme. As a new Member of Parliament, I accompanied them along the Line of Route. They questioned parliamentary procedures in the most challenging way. Since the election has become more distant, I have not had the same experience. Interestingly, not one of those young people had voted in the general election. The main reason for that was that they did not understand what was going on, so it did not seem right to vote. That is a good reason not to vote.

That was against a background of the local council having started various initiatives to engage young people in the political process. In 1997, Poole council set up a primary schools council, a secondary schools council and a youth forum. Some schools accepted the council's offer to run elections for their representatives, so that provided some practical civic education. In addition, many schools in my constituency have school councils.

I wholeheartedly welcome the Government's commitment to citizenship education. It has been part of the national curriculum since September 2002. It was recommended in the Crick report in 1998. It is early days for an evaluation, but it will be important to review what is taking place in schools and the impact that it is making. There is obviously much more to the problem than just encouraging young people to vote. They must have a true understanding and an incentive to participate in the wider realm of democracy.

On Friday, I joined Poole's youth forum for the election of Poole's member of the youth parliament. More than 70 young people attended a lively evening. It started with pizzas and ended with a disco, while the middle part focused on political debate and processes. All those initiatives are important, but it is important to appreciate that whatever we do in schools will not be enough unless we, as politicians, change—Prime Minister's Question Time is not a good role model.

Voting at 16 is the logical conclusion of citizenship education in schools. The arguments are well rehearsed and come down to the rights of young people. Young people have a responsibility to pay tax; they can marry; they can bring up a family and they can join the armed forces, and there should be corresponding rights. I therefore welcomed the confirmation, given in July 2002 by the Minister with responsibility for young people, that the Government would consider any recommendations from the Electoral Commission following its review on the voting age over the coming year. A point raised at the launch this morning was that MPs who support the cause have an ideal opportunity to give leadership in their constituencies and in Parliament to raise awareness of such an important issue. It is, of course, Liberal Democrat policy to lower the voting age to 16.

I also welcome the Government's new commitments to increase spending on youth services. One of the benefits is that there will be additional opportunities to promote citizenship education in different ways. There is also a need for more information and citizenship education for adults. It is interesting that some non-voters can be engaged in political activities—for example, marches and protests. Globalisation protests are a prime example: people think that they can make a difference, and they care about the issues. Democratic ballots are enthusiastically embraced when people believe that their opinions will make a difference on issues that directly affect them. As an example, we have only to look at the housing transfer ballots; in contrast, ballots on how local council structures might be changed had, for the most part, woefully low turnouts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West said, there was a high turnout for voting for "Pop Idol".

We have to rise to the challenges and make changes appropriate to the 21st century. We need to instigate institutional change so that Parliament has more relevance. It needs to be more representative, with more women—dare I say it?—more younger people and more people from ethnic minorities. People want candidates to be more in tune with society and more accessible. I think the Government have given good leadership by permitting all-women shortlists. Last week, I was pleased to attend the first Question Time on youth issues, but I thought it bizarre that the proceedings were interrupted twice for 12 minutes while voting took place in the House. As well as being considered as a measure for increasing voter turnout, surely there is a case for using electronic voting in this place.

Many hon. Members have suggested measures to make voting easier. Of course there is a case for making it easier in order to oil the wheels of democracy. One beneficial effect would be an increase in turnout, but we are not looking at very large shifts. It is important to make it easier, but at the same time we must be wary so that we avoid fraud, attempts at impersonation and so on. There are the simple mechanical changes. We have all noticed the improvements, such as the fact that it is already easier to obtain a postal vote. I agree with all the points that are being made, such as where we vote, how we vote and so on. Such issues need to be looked at, but the core point is changing the voting system.

I am an MP in one of the 100 most marginal seats. Indeed, it is probably near the top of the list. It was a marginal seat for the Conservatives in 1997 and it is a marginal seat for the Liberal Democrats now. It did not have a significantly higher turnout—65 per cent.—but I suppose that it just about fits the mould. However, there was a great deal of interest and activity, and I think that that interest will go forward to the next election.

The issue is people knowing that their vote counts. Statistics show that voter turnout is higher in countries that have a proportional voting system. It is significant that the Liberal Democrats' favoured option of a single transferable vote seems to produce the highest turnouts. A change in the voting system, particularly to a single transferable vote system, would offer many advantages. I oppose a compulsory voting system. The argument was put very well by the hon. Member for Battersea, but we ignore the problem at our peril. We have seen what happened in the council elections; it is vital that we deal with the matter.

I rather disagree with the arguments that I have heard from some quarters today, especially from the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke). We all agree that voter participation is a serious matter and I am not sure that we will be able to give it the attention that it deserves this afternoon. It is one of the most critical factors facing democracy in this country—indeed, Europe and the rest of the world.

The solution, however, does not turn on voting systems. I do not disregard them because changes could improve matters, but I have examined and analysed the results of the electoral pilot schemes. It is interesting to note from a Library research paper that, when a website was used for electronic voting in Crewe and Nantwich, turnout increased from 18 per cent. in 1998 to 31.4 per cent. in 2002, which is remarkable.

There are other examples, however, of places where, for some reason, the same system was used but the results were different. For example, in Chorley, electronic counting was piloted, and turnout increased from 31.3 per cent. in 1998 to 61.5 per cent. in 2002. However, the same system was used in City of Westminster, and turnout dropped from 32 per cent. in 1998, to 27.4 per cent. in 2002. It is extraordinary that the same system doubles turnout in Chorley but decreases it in City of Westminster.

Had I more time, I could give details of other examples that show that changing the voting system will not solve the problem. Modernising voting systems with new technology will not get the right result. The problem is much more fundamental.

I was taken with the arguments of the hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall) who spoke about credibility and respect. They provide the key to the problem. I have spoken about the strengthening of Parliament in previous debates, and specifically about the problem of low voter turnout and respect for democracy. I have concluded that, to a certain extent, the Whip system has a lot to do with the problem, and I make no bones about making that point again. I need not repeat what I said in previous debates, but hon. Members are over-whipped. The Iraq war may turn out to be an example of a trend in the opposite direction—but people know that the bottom line is that the Whip system has tended to crush the individuality of hon. Members.

The role of the media has also been mentioned today. In many respects, unelected commentators and interviewers—who have no responsibility, who sometimes ask intelligent questions, but sometimes do not ask the right questions and none the less dominate the airwaves—have arrogated to themselves a position that is not justified and which is not necessarily in the interests of the people. Such people could make a useful contribution. There is no point in imagining that the problem will go away, but we must seriously examine it.

For example, when the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, made his statements about burglary the other day, I sought a right of reply on the "Today" programme. I set out my arguments in a letter, which astonished people because I attacked the programme for not giving me an opportunity to reply. When I got that opportunity, the following day, I was asked about House of Lords reform. That is a perfect example. People may say that MPs are ineffective, and they may say that of the Conservative party in particular, but I had quite a few things to say and had I had the opportunity to go on, it would have made a significant difference to the way in which people perceived our reaction.

There is also the question of low attendance in the House, which is a serious problem that turns people off. We hear much about the so-called yah-boo politics that goes on in the Chamber. However, it is a much deeper problem. I am not discounting the way in which the media intrude on how people perceive politics and politicians. If the public see politicians as the butt and as people who always have to answer questions from some glory boy who happens to be the key questioner at that time, however distinguished he may be, it diminishes their respect. That is the effect of seeing someone constantly being kicked into corners. It does not matter whether the politician in question is Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Scottish Nationalist or anything else. The serious question of how we deal with that issue has to be tackled and I am not sure that I have good answers. I have been on television and radio a great deal myself and I cannot complain about the treatment that I have received. However, from the viewer's point of view it is a different story.

Broken promises by Governments also contribute. I could enlarge on that, but I do not have much time. There is now a degree of cynicism, and people simply do not believe what they are told. It is significant that the percentage vote has dropped dramatically and quickly, particularly in the period running up to the 2001 general election. There is no question but that 59.4 per cent. was catastrophic. That was a drop from about 70 per cent., which was regarded as significantly low. When I was first elected to the House nearly 20 years ago, we automatically expected about 75 per cent. or 78 per cent. Now we have 59.4 per cent. That is absolutely catastrophic, and it could well get worse. The House has nothing to be satisfied or complacent about; we have every reason to take steps to ensure that we change the situation.

The situation is partly a result of the fact that people do not perceive politicians as having sufficient conviction. That is part of my point about the whipping system and the way in which it operates. I would agree with the findings of a report that claimed that the election of 7 June 2001 was seen as not being important and as not offering adequate choices. That situation arises when there is a lack of conviction at the heart of the political process and when people are simply gambling through spin doctors or the juggling of their manifestos in order to seem as near to one another as possible. That is quite contrary to assertions that it is all to do with proportional representation. I never heard such junk. Under a system of proportional representation, people's votes matter. If a person does not vote—I would always recommend people to vote—it matters. Low turnout has an effect, as it has, for example, in France, where there was massive abstention.

There is so much more that I would like to say, but I will conclude by saying that I very much believe that the fault lies with politicians. However, structural changes must be made, and the media have a great deal to answer for.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) on securing the debate and raising such an important issue. We have heard serious contributions from a range of perspectives in what has been a good debate. Hon. Members are right to say that drops in turnout should concern everyone who cares about democracy.

There is not yet a consensus on why turnouts have dropped. In the 2001 election, the turnout dropped to 59.4 per cent. from just over 70 per cent. in the 1997 election—which itself was a drop from the 1992 election, when the turnout was 77.7 per cent. Turnout has also fallen in European elections from 36 per cent. to 24 per cent. English local elections have shown the same general trend over the past 15 years—although the turnout in the most recent local elections in England was higher than it had been in the previous elections.

We take a lot for granted. Only 100 years ago, none of the women in this room could have voted. Many of the men probably could not have voted either. All men have had the vote for only a relatively short period; yet, after just a few generations, people take for granted the vote that was hard won over a very long period. This issue matters. If people do not vote, they do not have a voice in the choosing of their Government or the choosing of those who will speak for them. If certain groups do not vote, decisions that affect their lives will, in effect, be taken by others. Whenever there is a democratic void, anti-democratic elements, movements and parties will step into it. That is why this issue should concern us all.

There are two concerns. The first is that some groups have consistently, over a long period, been less likely to vote than others—for example, members of particular ethnic minorities, young people, and those on lower incomes. Whatever the voting system and whatever the period, those groups have been less likely to vote.

The second concern is the recent change. We do not yet know whether that change is part of a long-term trend, so we do not know whether it was just a one-off that affected the 2001 election. However, we are right to be concerned. There is no consensus on why voter turnout fell so far in the 2001 election. A range of theories has been offered. Some argue that it fell because people thought that the result of the election was a foregone conclusion; and some argue that, because of that, turnout will bounce back again when there is a closely fought election. Some argue about the fragmentation of society and a lack of party identification across the generations. Some argue that politics is too confrontational; some argue that it is not confrontational enough. There are also theories about the convenience of voting.

The fact is that we do not know why turnout fell. We will not know for some time and, by the time we do, it may well be too late to do anything. That is why hon. Members are right to raise issues that we must address immediately, regardless of the lack of consensus about what has caused turnout to fall. We have to ask what political parties can and should do. Political parties are the main forum for voter engagement—through individual politicians, candidates, local party organisations or national party organisations. I will not discuss those issues in detail now because the main issue to discuss is what we can do on a cross-party basis.

There is a perception that the Opposition are weak and that the media have felt obliged to become an opposition instead. The impact of that on people's perception of politics has not helped. Media attitudes towards politics and politicians have changed, and that has not helped either.

What can we do to address these issues? There are two areas in which the Government can try to respond. First, what more can we do throughout society, not only through Government, to promote a sense of citizenship and voter engagement and participation and, secondly, how can we address practical issues to make voting easier? Hon. Members raised issues about the voting system and the way in which votes are counted, and I shall address that in a minute.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire was right to raise the issues of education and young people. A change since 2000 is that citizenship is now a statutory part of the curriculum in secondary schools. That has the overall objective of ensuring that young people are aware of their rights and responsibilities and that they know more about our political system, our institutions and the votes to which they are entitled.

Increasingly, in addition to work being done by schools and the Department for Education and Skills, the youth service and local organisations are working to promote young people's knowledge about political institutions and their rights. On Sunday, I visited Wakefield college, which is just outside my constituency, to attend an event for the election of members of the youth parliament. Given that the event took place at 10.15 on a Sunday morning, I expected there to be me, three members of the youth service, four teenagers and not a lot more people. In fact, 100 young people aged between 12 and 18 turned up on a Sunday morning to discuss issues that concerned them and to participate in an election for local members of the youth parliament. I thought that that showed a fantastic level of interest, and it just shows that those who think that young people are not interested in politics in the widest sense or in the issues that concern them are talking nonsense. We need to give young people more opportunities to raise their worries. The young people at the college talked about local bus routes, teenage pregnancies and the required age for entry into clubs. The issues were of immediate concern to the young people, but they were interested in issues nevertheless.

This is not about only information and education for young people, but about older people as well. The Electoral Commission has the remit for voter information, education and awareness. It has started its work only recently and it focuses on increasing the participation of groups that are especially unlikely to vote. It has worked with Operation Black Vote, for example, and we should look forward to interesting work in that area.

We should make it easier to vote. It is not a panacea, but turnout increased in pilot schemes that involved only postal voting, when voting was incredibly convenient. Convenience is an issue, although it is not the only issue, and it is a reason why I am sympathetic to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton) about weekend voting. I do not know how people find time to vote on Thursdays if they have kids, go to work and are busy. They may forget to vote on the way to work in the morning, and how will they find the time to vote if it is 8 o'clock in the evening and the kids are about to go to bed? It should not be a hassle to exercise one's democratic rights.

My hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and for Battersea (Martin Linton) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) raised the question of whether the introduction of proportional representation would be effective. Hon. Members have overstated their case on that one. We have had the first-past-the-post system for decades but turnout has fallen significantly only during the past few years. The voting system does not explain changes during the past five to 15 years. Additionally, when PR was introduced for the European elections, turnout fell from 36 per cent. to 24 per cent. A range of reasons why that happened can be offered, but it is clear that no simple voting mechanism will address the turnout issues that we face. There is a wide range of problems. No one has any easy solutions, although I wish that they did because I would be desperate to implement them. It is right to try as many different mechanisms on as many different fronts as possible, and to keep the debate going in this House and throughout the country so that as many people as possible are engaged in how we can increase voter turnout and engagement in our democracy.

Order. I register my appreciation of and commendation for the good humour and patience that has been displayed throughout the tribulations of the sitting. I shall not offer an apology, because I do not think that one is necessary, but the circumstances were very difficult, and you all deserve credit.

We come now, 15 minutes late, to the next topic for consideration. My notes indicate that the subject is Humber bridge tools, but I am sure that it should be Humber bridge tolls.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is in fact a debate about Humber bridge tolls, not tools.

Tolls to cross the River Humber are nothing new. For example, I noted during my background research for the debate that Edward II granted a charter to the warden and burgesses of Hull to operate a ferry between Hull and Barton-upon-Humber in my constituency. In 1315, the cost of the toll for the ferry was half an old pence.

Overcharging!

It probably was overcharging then. That charge was for a person on foot. If one was wealthy enough to have a horse, the charge was one old pence, and for a horse and cart it was two old pence. We have always had tolls to cross the Humber—they are nothing new.

However, in the 19th century it was acknowledged that the river and the ferry crossings were becoming barriers to trade and communications, so local groups launched campaigns to have a tunnel or bridge built. The lobbying continued until enactment of the Humber Bridge Act 1959, which set up the board. Its raison d'être was to raise money and to construct, operate, maintain and administer the Humber bridge. It comprises representatives from councils in the surrounding area, such as Hull, North Lincolnshire, East Riding of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire councils.

Finally, in 1971, the project was realised and the board set about borrowing money for a major construction project. At the time, it was estimated that the cost of the bridge would be about £28 million, but it had escalated to £151 million by the time the bridge opened in 1981.

Since then, the debt, repayment of loans to the Government and cost of the tolls have been of great local concern. MPs from the area have campaigned tenaciously on the subject. I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who are here today in support of the debate, and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who cannot be here today because of ministerial duties. He too has worked very hard in campaigning on the issue.

We have had successes. In July 1998, the Government responded to our concerns about the escalating debt, the interest and the cost of the tolls, and an order was passed by Parliament writing off £62 million of the debt and to suspend and reschedule the remaining debt to make debt payments more realistic. The interest rate was reduced from about 12 per cent., which was high in 1998, to a fixed rate of 7.75 per cent.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. As she will know, I have been a local in the area throughout the period that the bridge went from being a pipe dream to a reality. I have always believed that the potential benefits of movements to and from the north and south banks are considerable but hampered by toll levels.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the absence of tolls during a brief period of industrial action by the bridge board staff in the 1980s resulted in a huge increase in the traffic that went over the bridge, proving that the toll level is a major deterrent to achieving all the benefits that could result from movements between the north and south banks?

I thank my hon. Friend for that characteristic intervention. He is right to say that traffic across the bridge increased enormously when the industrial action took place, thus proving that the tolls are still a barrier.

A few years later, after campaigning as a team on Humber bridge tolls and achieving success in rescheduling the debt, we were faced with the possibility of VAT being levied on the tolls. To be fair to the Government, however, we fought the case together and the decision that was made in Europe went in our favour and VAT was not levied on the bridge. It is levied only on tolls for private bridges. We have worked successfully with the Government.

The current campaign links in with what my hon. Friend said. The levels of the toll are creating barriers, particularly for people who want to access health care. The system has been dubbed "the toll on health". The campaign was sparked off by the reorganisation of health authorities in the area. It meant that people who used to receive various treatments for cancer, for example, in hospital in Lincoln now have to travel across the bridge to Hull and incur a toll of £2.50 each way.

The vast area of the south bank of the River Humber disadvantages those in Grimsby and Cleethorpes and those who live further west in the Isle of Axholme. In addition to the cost of the tolls, people have to make a lengthy journey to access health care, especially cancer treatment. Tolls should not be a barrier to health. In the 19th century, it was said that the river was a barrier to trade and communication; now the bridge is a toll on health.

I know from my constituency casework—as I am sure do my colleagues—that people are declining appointments because they cannot meet the cost of travelling to hospital. Relatives are having to cut down on their visits to their loved ones, even those who are seriously ill, because they cannot meet the costs of travelling daily over the bridge. It is all very well to say that people can use public transport, but as anyone who has visited that part of the country will know, we do not have direct rail links to Hull. The bus services are infrequent, especially in the evening. Unless people have cars, it is a difficult journey.

I admit that there are concessions and money is available to help a small proportion of people. If a person has the money to pay up front, there are discounts to be had. However, many people on low incomes who do not qualify for the concessions, or pensioners who are above the income support level usually cannot afford to pay £50 up front to receive a 10 per cent. reduction. There is an exemption, however, for people who receive the highest rate of disability living allowance and have a tax exempt vehicle. It is worth while my making that statement today because there are people who do not realise that they are entitled to free trips across the river.

Locally, everyone is in agreement that something must be done to assist people to access health care. The bridge board has said that, in principle, it wants action to be taken. The local authority supports the idea. In fact, my hon. Friends the Members for Scunthorpe and for Brigg and Goole were questioned by North Lincolnshire council about the campaign. They, too, lent their support to it. The primary care trust also supports it. The campaign has been marvellously publicised by the local newspapers, the Grimsby Telegraph and the Scunthorpe Evening Telegraph. Thousands of people have expressed their support for it, either through the newspapers or their MPs. Everyone agrees that such action is desirable. We must find a way forward.

We are taking part in a huge game of pass the parcel. Everyone is saying that we have to do something, but they are also saying, "It's not my responsibility", "There may be legal problems", or "We haven't got the money." I want everybody to get together and come up with a scheme that will actually get rid of this toll on health and the barrier created by the high level of tolls.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the need to find a quick solution is ever more pressing? The modernisation of the health service is leading to greater use of regional centres and specialisations, which is entirely correct from a medical point of view. However, what is an historic problem is affecting more and more families as the modernisation of the national health service moves on.

My hon. Friend is correct. As I stressed earlier, reorganisation and modernisation mean that people have to incur longer and more costly journeys to access health care. The Government have a role to play. They can provide a solution.

My hon. Friend has incited me to intervene. She has the backing of all the Members of Parliament in the area, but is not the real problem the Treasury, which could write down the debt? It is now a notional figure. Interest rates are much lower now than when they were fixed. The Treasury demonstrated in the 1990s that it could reduce outlay, and it has done so on many other occasions—for large-scale voluntary transfers, for example. This is a Treasury problem.

As in the local community, many interested groups are involved. On ministerial responsibility, many Departments have an interest—the Department for Transport, the Department of Health and the Treasury. If my hon. Friend waits a couple more minutes, I will come to my point about interest rates.

Debt is the problem. The Humber bridge makes a substantial operating profit: it raises approximately £18 million a year from tolls, of which £15 million goes to the Exchequer. The Exchequer has received more than £150 million from the tollpayers of Humberside, so the key lies with the Treasury. The Minister can have influence. I want him to re-examine the arrangements put in place in 1998 when the debt was rescheduled and the interest rates were reduced from approximately 12 to 7.75 per cent., which was a fixed rate. Everybody would now agree with my hon. Friend that 7.75 per cent. is high.

The debt arrangements will soon be due for a five-yearly review, and the Minister has scope to do something about the interest rates. He could also look at the length of time over which the debt must be repaid and extend the payment period. Both options would result in more of the money raised by tollpayers staying in the community. It would free up capital to allow organisations in the area to fund schemes to help people to access health care or help visitors to visit loved ones. We could even do something for trainee nurses who have to go to Hull for their training.

Those things could be done easily—they are not difficult. The review is coming up and the Government hold the key to providing the solution. If the Minister will consider those suggestions, I will try, with the support of my colleagues who represent constituencies on the south bank of the Humber, to ask all the interested organisations to come together at a joint meeting so that we can devise a constructive way forward. We will work together and with the Minister to try to provide a solution to this problem. I also hope that the Minister will agree to meet a delegation from those local organisations so that we can scrap the toll on health.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) on securing this important debate and on the clarity with which she made her points on behalf of her constituents. In my hon. Friend they have a good fighter for their cause who can make their case clearly and with some power and passion. I am pleased to see my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) take an interest on this important matter from south of the Humber.

My hon. Friend gave us a brief history lesson, which I thought was interesting, but above all she gave a clear appraisal of the effects that the toll is having on her constituents, especially on those of limited means. The hon. Lady mentioned in particular the issue of the hospital, in relation to the sick, relatives visiting people there and nurses. If, once the deliberations have taken place and my hon. Friend has met various interested parties, she feels that there is some value in having a meeting, I would be pleased to see her and other hon. Members.

I shall give a brief summary of the bridge's history, which may be helpful in putting the issue, and some of the possible ways forward, in context. The Humber bridge was opened in 1981. It is not a part of the trunk road network, but was built under legislation promoted by the local authority—the Humber Bridge Act 1959, as amended by the Humber Bridge Act 1971. The bridge is managed by the Humber bridge board, which is a local authority body. Most members of the board are from Hull city council, and its local taxpayers stand to finance most of any deficit from the tolls.

The bridge was financed by borrowing from the Secretary of State for Transport and the Public Works Loan Board. It took longer and cost more to construct than was expected and traffic growth was lower than forecast because the population growth that was expected for south Humberside when the bridge was planned never materialised. Toll income failed to cover the interest on debts, so unpaid interest was added to the debt. Capitalisation caused an exponential growth in debt from £181 million in 1981 to £439 million at 31 March 1992. It was recognised that the bridge board's financial situation was unsustainable and that action was needed. Without Government assistance, the debt would have risen to £650 million by 1997.

In July 1991, the Roads Minister announced the Government's intention to legislate in order to obtain express powers to write off or suspend debt. The Humber Bridge (Debts) Act 1996 received Royal Assent in February 1996. In July 1998, a new loan agreement was signed with the Humber bridge board and approved by the Humber Bridge (Debts) Order 1998 under the 1996 Act. That wrote off the debt to the PWLB and fixed a new, lower consolidated loan interest rate and suspended interest payments on some of the Secretary of State for Transport's debt. In the absence of these arrangements, the total interest charges on the Humber bridge debts would have amounted to nearly £50 million, which, without Government action, would have resulted in an impossible burden on the local taxpayers of Hull. The new arrangements initially reduced interest charges to less than £10 million, which were to be accommodated from within the bridge board's operating surplus after operating and maintenance costs had been met.

Although the bridge was built with Government loans, its financing and operation is primarily a matter for the bridge board. It is for the board to propose the tolls charged, and it can revise them only by applying to the Secretary of State for Transport, who must consider the application objectively in accordance with the criteria set out in the Humber Bridge Acts of 1959 and 1971. Under those Acts, the Secretary of State must not be unduly influenced by the debt owed to him.

The toll revision process is lengthy and includes advertising the application and the possibility of a public inquiry into objections. The decision on whether to provide discounts to, or exemptions from, toll charges is a matter for the board, except in the cases of certain groups of people and vehicles defined in the legislation. Although not obliged to do so, the board provides exemptions for disabled drivers in receipt of mobility allowance and for those who receive the higher rate of the mobility component of the disability living allowance. The board has also put in place a discount scheme for all bridge users on whom tolls are levied, which is available when pre-purchasing books of tickets.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes raised the issue of people travelling to hospitals in Hull having to pay the full bridge toll. The matter has also been covered widely in the Humberside press. The last toll revision public inquiry, held in December 2001, discussed whether concessions for bridge crossings should be made on social policy grounds. In his decision letter on the toll application, the Secretary of State for Transport accepted the inspector's view that any subsidies granted on social policy grounds were a matter for those responsible for the provision of health and social services, not the Humber bridge board.

My hon. Friend pointed out that the Humber Bridge (Debts) Order was made in 1998, and has added five to get to 2003. However, my Department and the Humber bridge board are undertaking a review of the debt. Any rescheduling thought necessary as a result of the debt review will, of course, require approval from the Treasury, and would be made by order under section 1 of the Humber Bridge (Debts) Act 1996. The order would have to be laid before the House, and would be subject to an annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the House of Commons—that is, to a negative resolution procedure.

Section 75 of the Humber Bridge Act 1959 sets out how the board shall apply revenues, and it lists nine purposes for which the revenues can be used. The ninth of those reads:

"ninthly in the reduction of tolls which may be demanded taken and recovered under this Act or for such other purpose as may be approved by the Minister".

If the review went well and decided in the board's favour, an interpretation of that ninth category would have to be made to determine whether it would allow a concessionary crossing fee to be applied to those in certain categories. I am sure that my hon. Friend is not expecting any legal advice from me, but it would be for the board to interpret the ninth category, so one route down which people might go, if the five-yearly review goes favourably, would be to seek such advice and find out whether it gives them any comfort.

Peeling away all the layers of legalese, is the Minister basically saying that there is a way forward to try to achieve our aim?

I have learned in this place that the intricate layers of legalese cannot be ignored. I hope that I have set out the legal position for my hon. Friend. The 1959 Act gives the board the ability to make a decision on the reduction of tolls on the basis that I outlined. However, we make the laws in this place but others interpret them. The board would need expert interpretation of the law and I said that I was not qualified to do that today. Putting this in simple terms, it seems as if there might be an avenue for exploration, at least, of an interpretation of the meaning before the board does what it urgently and earnestly desires.

My hon. Friend said that she had received representations from her constituents setting out their discontent about having to travel to and from Hull for hospital. She cited the example of people receiving daily cancer treatment but not receiving help with paying toll charges for using the bridge although a person visiting someone in prison in Hull could receive assistance with the charge. Let me clarify that because I believe that it has been mentioned in the local media.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that this is not a matter for my Department, but for the completeness of the debate, I took the trouble to peruse the websites of Her Majesty's Prison Service and the Departments of Health and for Work and Pensions—you see what I do in my spare time, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The websites provide information on assistance that might be available to some users of the bridge. If a person is visiting a close relative or partner in prison or if a person has a low income and is a prisoner's only visitor, they may be entitled to help with the cost of the journey through the assisted prison visits scheme, which is funded and managed by Her Majesty's Prison Service.

People in receipt of income support, working families tax credit, disabled person's tax credit or income-based jobseeker's allowance can receive help with travel costs when they attend hospital for national health service treatment and when they come out of hospital through the hospital travel costs scheme. They can also receive help with travel costs when they go to and from hospital as an out-patient for NHS treatment. They may also be able to get help with travels costs for someone whom they need to accompany them to hospital, if they cannot go by themselves.

People who are on a low income, but who do not receive income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance, may be able to get help with travel costs through the NHS low income scheme, as may people whom they require to accompany them. Further questions about those schemes should be addressed to the Department of Health; I have outlined only my understanding.

Persons in receipt of income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance who visit an ill person in hospital may be able to get help with travel costs from the community care grant from the social fund. Further questions about that should be directed to the Department for Work and Pensions. My hon. Friend's constituents' concerns might be due in part to a lack of awareness of the funding available from various pots.

I totally agree that some constituents have a lack of awareness about available help. If they contact me or any other Member of Parliament who represents the area, we put them straight. However, it is not only people on low incomes who have a problem. People on moderate incomes find the cost of the tolls a real hardship and barrier.

I accept that. People who are just over the barrier—on a low income, but not a low enough income to qualify for the benefits—often have problems. There might be a case for better advertising of the schemes. Some people might be paying the toll although they could apply for one of the benefits.

My hon. Friend made an extremely powerful case on behalf of her constituents. The five-yearly review is taking place, although I cannot predict its outcome because there will be discussions between the Department—

Order. We must turn our attention to the final topic for consideration today: policing in Somerset.

I am grateful to be able to bring to the Minister's attention the situation of policing in Somerset. Running late is a bit of a novelty. Perhaps the microphones should always go down—things might go a lot quicker and less painfully. It has certainly been a long time since I saw an hon. Member get up and say, "Can I have a yes or no from the Minister?" It was very unusual but very nice to see.

This debate is slightly unusual. I am interested in policing in Somerset but we come under the Avon and Somerset constabulary area. That area was set up to include Bristol and a very large rural hinterland. As the years have passed, we have discovered that Bristol—which is now a large conurbation—takes more and more resources. Many of Bristol's problems are not problems that we have in rural Somerset. As a result, public service agreement targets have caused more and more problems for the chief constable.

I recently had a meeting with Steve Pilkington, the chief constable of Avon and Somerset constabulary. He has been trying to work his way through the raft of targets that he has been asked to hit. The latest target is to reduce burglary in Bristol. He has been very successful in doing that, but the problem is that burglary in rural areas has gone up. It is not that he is not trying to keep the levels down; it is that the resources that he requires for the enormous Bristol conurbation are way out of proportion.

The PSA targets should be broken down further to consider both rural and urban policing. I know that it is unusual to have such a big conurbation at the top of an area, but policing resources for rural Somerset should be readdressed. I imagine that hon. Members who represent Bristol will have something to say about that, and will say it louder than I am saying this, but there is a problem. Owing to the fact that the policing plan is national, it does not consider local variations. In Somerset, the national picture cannot be turned into a local picture with the flick of a magic wand.

The chief constable's task is to spend enough money to stand still, but the precept this year means that he will not be able to do that. His additional spending for 2003–04 is £21 million—just to stand still. The inflation part of that, and pay awards, account for £8.6 million and the extra cost of police pensions accounts for £1.9 million. Service growth accounts for £11.8 million. He has nothing extra to expand policing in his area. The chief constable will have to try to deliver with what he has got.

It is very worrying to receive a letter from a chief constable saying that the likely cuts in the precept could result in up to 100 officers having to go. He has made it clear that that will not happen—so I do not want to scare the Minister into thinking that it will—but he is extremely concerned, as any chief constable would be, about what he has been offered. To hit the PSA targets, he now needs to provide an extra 193 officers and 130 support staff. That represents a rise of 6 to 7 per cent. in policing numbers.

What targets will the chief constable have to try to achieve? They are: a 15 per cent. detection rate for domestic burglaries; a 6 per cent. detection rate for theft from motor vehicles; an 18 per cent. detection rate for robberies to be reached over two years; and to attend 80 per cent. of calls within 10 minutes in urban areas. One should note that that is the urban, not the rural, response time for policing in Somerset.

The Minister and the Government are imposing those targets on a chief constable who is finding it difficult to know where resources will come from. His increase in Government funding this year is £4.6 million—or 3 per cent. However, that figure would have to be £11.4 million just to allow policing to stand still. He will not be able to make up that differential unless he does so through efficiency measures or by putting up the precept in Somerset. That is the important part.

After this year's budget increases, pay and national insurance contributions alone will total £7 million. Over and above that, £2.8 million will have to be put aside for pensions. The only other sums that the chief constable will receive to meet the PSA targets—I have checked this carefully—are for certain specific Home Office projects on crime detection or crime reduction.

I wonder whether the targets are achievable. The increased revenue forecasts for 2004–05 and for 2005–06 are £20.5 million and £35.4 million respectively. Policing is getting more and more expensive. We want police, we need police and they do an extremely good job, but as resources are cut, it becomes harder and harder to see where the extra money will come from and how west Somerset will cope. The first thing that the inspector said to me was that we need resources. He said, "We have a drugs problem and other normal policing problems, yet I have to second officers to Taunton, Yeovil and other places." I see that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) in present. The police consistently face the problem of trying to balance the books.

My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook), who unfortunately cannot be here because he is serving on the Standing Committee considering the Hunting Bill, has made the point that on the enormous expanse of Exmoor, radios do not even work—never mind policemen. Police in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) have found it hard to hit the response times for the fairly elderly population of Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge because of the problems of such an unbalanced society. Elderly people require slightly more; they demand high-quality policing at all times.

In our area, we have the parish warden scheme, which was set up to build up police resources. I have no basic problem with that; as an idea, it is sound. Our two wardens do an extremely good job; they work hard. When funding for them runs out, however, it will fall to Sedgemoor district council to pay. It cannot afford to do so. We would like parish wardens, and I am sure that the Minister will say that he would like to give them to us, but district councils cannot afford to fund the posts. I would like many more people to be taken on as parish wardens to try to help the police.

I would also like more special constables. As an ex-Territorial Army soldier, I know the importance of volunteers. Special constables do a phenomenal job. Bridgwater has the biggest carnival in the world; it commemorates the battle of Sedgemoor. The specials police an event that sees 150,000 people arrive in a town of a population of 30,000. There is never any great trouble because it is policed beautifully. We know what is going to happen. We have the right people to do the job now, but given the terms and conditions and the fact that they are volunteering for what can be an extremely difficult job, the problem in future will be recruiting.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Does he agree that the prospect faced this year by his constituents and mine is a 35 per cent. rise in the police precept in Somerset in order to fund what is essentially a crime problem in Bristol? Does he also agree that Home Office Ministers should consider funding Bristol's particular problems centrally rather than at the expense of residents in Somerset? Does he further agree that if the raiding of Somerset's budget to fund Bristol continues, there will eventually be pressure for Somerset to join the more rural counties such as Dorset and to break the link with Bristol altogether?

The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly valid point. He is absolutely right. The chief constable has said that he can envisage council tax on a band D property rising this year by £25.45—just to be able to police the Somerset area. As the hon. Gentleman said, perhaps we should be talking about Somerset joining another rural area such as Dorset or Devon, because as a rural area we cannot afford to police a large conurbation.

An interesting piece appeared in Bristol's Evening Post in October. The chief constable, Steve Pilkington, wrote to all the area's MPs to say that if we do not sort out the issue, council tax will have to go up. The article said that his letter was a stark warning as the Government prepared to announce the conclusion of consultation on radical changes to the funding formula for local authorities. There is real concern. I am sure that the Minister would agree that when important local newspapers lead with such stories, it does not do the morale of anybody in the area any good.

I want to bring the problem of raves to the Minister's attention. Before people ask why we are discussing raves in Somerset, I point out that Glastonbury is down the road, where one of the biggest outdoor festivals in the country takes place. We also have Steart common, an area of unspoilt beauty. In 2002, there were two raves there, which ended up with 4,000 people trying to get past three policemen. The inspector had no choice but to withdraw the policemen. The chief constable was magnanimous in saying that there were problems but that a large number of people had come through Bristol and having got away from being held there had gone to an area in Bridgwater from which they could not be removed. The resources to police rural Somerset are not sufficient. There have been opportunities to give money, and the local council, the local police and the enterprise agencies have each given £1,000 to put up gates to try to stop such people, but policemen are needed to head them off. We do not have them.

The courts system is now under threat. I know that this is not the Minister's responsibility—he is concerned with rural policing—but the court in Minehead is to shut, the court in Bridgwater is under threat, and other courts in Somerset may be closing. The police in west Somerset fear that, having arrested an offender, they will have to take him to Taunton. We only have buses; if people do not have a car, they are stuck—and the buses do not exactly arrive every 10 minutes. That type of problem is creating enormous worry in the police system. If Bridgwater courts shut, cases will have to go to Taunton. We have an industrial town in the middle of Somerset, with all the attendant problems. Will the Minister consider how policing will be carried out if we do not have the courts system in the area to cope?

Another problem concerns the probationary service. Last week, the Somerset County Gazette ran a story, which is now confirmed, on how the probation service might have to change the way in which it works because magistrates are stopping case after case to wait for late reports. Police time, effort and resources are being wasted. We are squandering what we have. As I said when referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, my constituency covers Exmoor. If a policeman goes there, not only can he not use his mobile phone because there are no masts for his radio, but he cannot be contacted to find out what has been going on. That is a long-term worry.

The Government are putting the onus on local authorities, which are being used to cover a hole in the economy. The Government's thinking is to put the onus on them to raise the precept by 40 per cent. and ensure that local people have to raise the money so that they make the decision whether they want the policing level that they deserve. Will the Minister please look again at the calculations and allow the chief constable of Avon and Somerset to put his case? Will he make sure that the precept means that we have policing in real terms without having to beg central Government every year or put 30 to 40 per cent. on the council tax payers of Avon and Somerset?

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) on obtaining a debate on policing in Somerset. I will try to reply to as many of his points as possible. He spoke forcefully about the situation in Somerset, but his argument revealed some misconceptions. It is not the case that the Government have set a vast raft of public service agreement targets. This year, the Somerset force has three nationally set targets: on burglary, car crime and street crime. All the others that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are either generated locally by the police authority or are set by it against national best value performance indicators.

It is one thing for the Government to say to a force that aspects of its service must be measured because it, like any service, needs to know how well it is performing, but quite another thing for the Government to impose targets on forces. Under the new national policing plan, the burglary target is not set nationally—certainly not at this stage—but we have invited forces to set burglary and car crime targets. Overall, we wish to achieve the PSA standard that has been set. We should not confuse targets that have been set by the local police authority and police force with Government-imposed procedure.

Does the Minister deny that the priorities of the Avon and Somerset constabulary were essentially micro-managed by his Department during the recent street crime initiative in Bristol, in order to meet specific objectives?

There was no micro-management by the Home Office, but there was a common approach to tackling street crime among the 10 forces with a major problem, of which Bristol was undeniably one. For people in the Avon and Somerset area, the initiative achieved a dramatic reduction in street crime. [Interruption.] There was a dramatic reduction in street crime.

Additionally, the initiative focused attention on other aspects of the criminal justice system, and the benefits are spreading to other areas. For example, it led to the introduction of the Crown Prosecution Service premium service. In October, that was extended to the whole of the Avon and Somerset area, so it is not the case that the advantages accrue only in a small area.

It has been interesting to hear from both Opposition parties—through the hon. Members for Bridgwater and for Yeovil (Mr. Laws)—about the break-up of the constabulary that they advocate. I am surprised to hear, particularly from the hon. Member for Yeovil, the idea that areas with the highest levels of crime should not receive additional resources. Let us compare Bristol and Sedgemoor, for example. In Bristol, 48.2 households per 1,000 are burgled. In the Sedgemoor area, the figure is 16.2. In Bristol, 17.4 households per 1,000 suffer theft of a motor vehicle, whereas in the Sedgemoor area the figure is 3.1—and so on.

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Bridgwater that his constituents have every right to feel safe and secure in their own homes and in the towns, villages and isolated communities in which they live. However, it is equally right that the Government and the chief constable of Avon and Somerset give priority attention to communities where crime levels are highest. I would find it very surprising if anyone were seriously to advocate that we did not do so.

The Government have made specific provision for funding for rural areas. The hon. Gentleman referred to a newspaper article that I believe he said was published before the funding formula was determined. It warned about the consequences of changes to the formula. He will know that we did not make some of the changes on which we had consulted. For example, we left things as they were in respect of the rural policing fund, from which the Avon and Somerset constabulary benefits to the tune of £1 million a year. It is expected that the chief constable of Avon and Somerset will have used that money to enhance policing in rural areas.

As a point of principle, we should not separate out the costs of forces that cover major cities from the rest of an area. None the less, we recognise that additional costs exist in cities such as Bristol. That is why it has had extra money from the street crime initiative. It has also had additional Home Office money, for example, in the communities against drugs initiative. Central Government have recognised the need to provide some earmarked funds for rural areas, such as most of Somerset, and to meet the additional costs that are involved in the city of Bristol. That balanced approach has been right.

I reassure the hon. Member for Bridgwater that we are concerned about rural areas. That is clear in the development of the police standards unit and the new performance assessment framework for the police. We are not concerned solely with those parts of the country that have the highest crime rates. We will be looking for an increase in policing performance throughout the police service. We would look with as much interest at a rural basic command unit that was performing less well than its comparator BCUs in the same or other police forces as we would at an inner-city area BCU that was not doing as well as those in other inner-city areas. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will not focus solely on the higher-crime urban areas during the next two or three years. If a police service in a rural area is performing poorly down to BCU level, we will want to identify that, support it and work with it to improve its service.

I turn briefly to the funding formula. It is worth looking at what has been achieved on police officer numbers, especially against the background of a debate that may have left the impression that Avon and Somerset police have not been dealt with very well over the years. The latest published figures show that Avon and Somerset had a record number of 3,096 police officers at 31 March 2002–107 more than when the Labour party came to office in 1997. The constabulary is committed to increasing police officer numbers further and it is recruiting well. Between April and December last year, 157 new officers were recruited. The police force itself has forecast a strength of 3,187 by 31 March 2003—another record number.

I was arguing not about whether recruitment or numbers were right, but about the fact that the amount of money needed to continue to recruit just to maintain the number of policemen and women and to fund them will not be provided unless there are enormous county council precepts.

What may not have come across from the earlier parts of the debate is that, in addition to the 3 per cent. increase in police grant, to which I will return in a moment, the Government are directly picking up, through the crime fighting fund, the cost of a significant proportion of the additional police officers who have been recruited in the past couple of years. Indeed, we anticipate being able to provide further ring-fenced money to Avon and Somerset for new officers—paid for, or sponsored by, the crime fighting fund in the coming years. We are not only picking up the costs of recruiting officers in one particular year. The salary costs of those who were recruited two years ago are still being paid by central Government through the crime fighting fund. That principle of a level of continued Government support for additional officers will continue in the next financial year.

That illustrates a basic point that needs to be made. It is understandable that the focus has been on the headline figure of police grant increase. That figure has varied from a floor of 3 per cent., which Avon and Somerset has received, to a ceiling of 4.9 per cent., even for forces that the formula says should get more. I am sure that the focus will be the same next week when we discuss the police grant. That grant increase is, however, only a part of the resources that are being made available to forces through the crime fighting fund.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the radios do not work in one part of west Somerset. The new airwave radio system is funded from central resources; it is designed to ensure that police officers have radios that do work. We will also be providing centrally funds to meet the costs of introducing the case-in-custody scheme. That major information technology innovation will provide the greatest opportunity to free up police officer time and get them away from paper-based systems. There is much more in the funding that is being made available than the headline increase in the police grant. Indeed, including capital and ring-fenced funds, police resources will increase by 6.2 per cent. overall this year, rather than by the average of 4.3 per cent. increase in the police grant.

Of course, people will always want more, and it is good that local communities have been committed to supporting their police service in recent years when people have sought extra resources. Somerset's precept for policing is a little—but not massively—below the average; presumably that reflects decisions that have been taken. It is for the police authority to decide what precept it will set. There is nothing to suggest that anyone wants to do anything other than enable the police force to continue to operate effectively at a local level.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater mentioned a few other issues with which I would like to deal. I would hope that, where parish warden schemes have been a proven success, people would find ways to continue supporting them. In most of the places to which I have been, people have found the scheme remarkably cost-effective, as there has been a reduction in costs—whether through less graffiti and environmental damage, or through fewer abandoned cars—which has benefited local taxpayers.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the valuable role of specials. He may know that a national specials weekend is being organised for 21 to 23 February to promote their role. I shall soon write to all hon. Members, inviting them to contact their local police force and offer to be involved in promotional activities that weekend. It would be enormously helpful if hon. Members involved themselves.

I should like to touch on the thorny issue of raves. I share the anxiety that raves should not become an excuse for disorder, antisocial activity, criminality or behaviour that intimidates local communities. I also recognise that the effects of raves are not always limited to the duration of the event itself. They may bring traffic congestion to unsuited roads, and there may be rubbish or problems with people moving on somewhere else after the police have used their initial powers.

Legislation was introduced in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 as a response to the growing phenomenon of the rave and the associated difficulties. Section 63 allows the police to direct rave-goers to leave an event in certain cases. If they refuse, police are provided with a power of arrest, and on conviction the offence carries three months' imprisonment and/or a fine. The police also have powers to seize sound equipment in certain circumstances.

In the White Paper "Justice for All", published last summer, we said that we were considering extending police powers to include smaller raves and raves in buildings in which people are trespassing. We are also aware of the problem, raised by Avon and Somerset constabulary, of organisers who are directed to leave simply moving to another venue and starting all over again, and bringing misery to another community, as the hon. Gentleman says. We are considering making it a criminal offence for someone who is given a direction to leave a rave to attend another outdoor or trespassary indoor rave event within 24 hours of that direction being given.

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I understand from the chief probation officer for Somerset that although the magistrates courts building in Minehead will close at the end of March because it is too big, the service is looking for alternative accommodation. There is no suggestion of reducing the level of service to the community in Minehead.