Ethiopia is the oldest independent country in Africa. With the exception of five years of Italian rule between 1936 and 1941, it has never been occupied. Its history is amazing. It is referred to innumerable times in the Bible and in many ancient texts, and it has many as yet unexplored architectural remains—churches hewn out of solid rock, steles and much more—that confirm its prominent place in man's early history.

At 1.14 million sq km, it is as large as France and Spain combined. Probably its most famous leader was Haile Selassie, but he was ousted in 1974 by the Derg, Colonel Mengistu's brutal Marxist dictatorship. In May 1991, after a long struggle, Mengistu was overthrown by the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front. A new constitution was adopted in December 1994, when Meles Zenawi became Prime Minister. He continues in office as the head of a slightly uneasy coalition.

Ethiopia's population is multi-ethnic, with around 78 ethnic groups, and 80 languages are spoken. Most of the people in the highlands around Addis Ababa, the capital, are members of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, but many lowlanders are Muslim; it is a 50:50 split, but there are some other Christian sects. They are bound together in a federation of states delineated by natural features of the landscape; they seem to coexist quite amiably.

Unfortunately, Ethiopia is best known for drought and war. The most notable war was the border war with Eritrea, now ended after a border commission and a commitment not to reignite hostilities, although there remain issues on the allocation of Badme to Eritrea. As for drought, securing a sustainable supply of food for its people has been a priority for the Ethiopian Government and for donors for about 20 years, but food insecurity remains the country's most deeply rooted problem. The major famine of 1984–85 was followed by further food shortages in 1992, 1994, 2000 and 2002. By 2025, Ethiopia will need to double its production of cereals to 24 million tonnes in order to feed its people.

The international community has responded to food crises in Ethiopia with food aid, but it has never sufficiently addressed the causes of those crises by investing in Ethiopia's poor rural communities. As a result, Ethiopia, its people and the international community have become trapped in a cycle of dealing only with the immediate crisis.

Ethiopia is a fascinating country. I have had the privilege of visiting it twice in the past two years, most recently courtesy of the Norfolk Fellows Trust, when I travelled with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow). Another of Ethiopia's problems is the scale of epidemics, most notably HIV. I shall not refer to them now, Mr. Benton, as I hope that my hon. Friend will catch your eye. Having been there with me, I know that he took a particular interest in the problem; he will be able to tell the Chamber what we found.

Ethiopia is one of the poorest countries in the world. It ranks 169 out of 173 in the United Nations Development Programme human development report. It has a literacy rate of 32.7 per cent., and its economy is rural. About 85 per cent. of its population lives in rural areas, and most people have small farms leased from the Government. However, since the days of the communist Derg, the Government have owned all the land. Land policy was central to the political debate during the previous two elections.

There appears to be a popular mandate for the communal ownership of land, but it is subsistence farmed, and tef is the most usual crop. It is a nutritional miracle food that contains much more iron than wheat or barley and has high concentrations of essential minerals. It is made into injera. Together with maize, tef is the country's staple crop, and that is grown for food and for the local drink.

As the drought developed this year, after the failure of two lots of rain, it was thought that people would move from the land into the towns to look for food. The anxiety was that they would become a dependent urban underclass, unlikely to be able to return to the land. The fact that land cannot be sold for short-term survival, which would have happened, has helped to avoid that catastrophe. Therefore, land can be seen as a sort of social security. However, we were concerned to hear that land was handled by peasants associations and that it could be redistributed.

There are two sides to the issue: on the one hand, a family who have perhaps three or four sons need land for their children and may have to split an already small area of land into much smaller packages to accommodate more and more people; on the other hand, peasants associations redistribute land to other families, so there was perhaps unhappiness about the prospect of improving land lest it be redistributed. However, it is clear that the nationalised nature of land plays a role in stability and in three of the states no further land redistribution is allowed. There will be a move to longer leases and there will then be the ability to pass land on to children—indeed, to do everything with it except sell it. That land status played a very important role in the beginning of 2003 and there is a political commitment to its continuing.

We went to areas near Dirẽ Dawa and Harer with the World Food Programme to see how the food aid was being delivered in drought areas and the steps that are being taken to create sustainability in communities. I make a generalised comment, but, happily, it is clear that enough food aid came in sufficiently early to stop a major catastrophe occurring. However, that does not mean that there are not deep problems, even with this impressionistic view of Ethiopia, which is all there is time for me to mention.

Approximately half the population is in long-term, deep poverty; they suffer repeated droughts, the loss of their assets, and a decline in the price of coffee, which is the main export crop, leading to the collapse of livelihoods. There is also a lack of infrastructure in poor communities. At the best of times, upwards of 5 million people will never be able to live sustainably on their own land because it is too poor and poorly irrigated to be adequately farmed, and they will be permanently dependent on food aid. In a good year, Ethiopia can produce food in abundance, but even then, because their livelihoods have crashed because of repeated drought, people are often unable to purchase the food that is available. Only 5 per cent. of Ethiopia's irrigable land has been cultivated; the country has great reserves of under-utilised ground water and annual surface water but there has been a lack of investment in water harvesting.

Driving out of Addis Ababa towards Dirẽ Dawa, we saw an amazing sight. It poured with rain, which, although absolutely essential for the crops that were starting to appear and, hopefully, will soon be harvested, ran down both sides of the road in an orange torrent, taking with it the topsoil and eventually running into the lakes, which were made shallower and shallower by the deposited silt. As the rain rushed along the side of the road, it flooded people's houses and was lost from the cultivable areas, carrying away the topsoil and making the lakes shallower, so that that source of water was lost. We saw clearly that it was a lose, lose, lose situation.

The cornerstone of the Ethiopian Government's rural development policy has been to try to turn subsistence farmers into commercial farmers. We heard that there are now 38,000 agents who have been educated to go out to farms to try to persuade them to change their farming. The export of fruit and vegetables from Ethiopia has tripled in the past year, partly as a consequence of that policy, and there is now a move to grow flowers for export in Oromia.

In the drought-ridden areas, there is an excellent project called managing environmental resources to enable transitions, of which I am sure the Minister will be aware, in which food is given for work. MERET aims to discourage people from being dependent on food aid—as long as they are able-bodied, they are given food aid on the basis that they contribute to the sustainability of the local community, for example by digging ditches for irrigation, developing terraces for crop growing, or planting trees where there has been deforestation.

Now that the latest crisis has died down, there is a clear need for the protection of people's livelihoods to begin in earnest. There should be cash-supported programmes focusing on building skills and infrastructure through public works in return for money, which can then stimulate recovery in rural communities. There needs to be rapid development of Ethiopia's ability to store food and transfer it from areas of surplus to areas of deficit. There is an urgent need to restock pastoralist communities, which have lost many of their animals. Women's access to and control over resources and assets should he greatly enhanced. There is also a need to protect small, infant industries, which are just starting to develop and produce diversification.

The food aid performance of donors has been patchy, but the habitual giving of food as aid, rather than providing cash to pay for long-term development, can create a chain of dependency from wealthy donors such as the UK to poor communities. We are starting to change our approach, but the USA continues to give the majority of its aid in kind.

One of the infant industries to which I just referred is a new heavy steel plant on the outskirts of Addis Ababa. That is a welcome development, providing approximately 1,000 jobs and producing 220,000 metric tonnes of sheet steel. That economic development is to be encouraged. It is right that we have changed tack in the way in which we give our aid. At the end of October, the EU announced 3.8 billion birr for development projects over the next five years, intending to try to facilitate food security and economic development. On the same day, the Secretary of State for International Development was invited to an international conference on food security in Addis Ababa, and I know that he has agreed to go. It appears that we, with our EU colleagues, are leading the way into moving our aid on to a more sustainable basis.

I shall quickly refer to two areas of high importance and concern. The first is reproductive health. While in Ethiopia, we were privileged to talk to Dr. Duah from the United Nations Populations Fund. The Ethiopian Government statistics show that the country's population is 70.5 million. Population growth, which was 3 per cent., has now settled at 2.9 per cent. That is a very minor reduction, despite the high level of activity of charities such as Marie Stopes International, and the work on birth control carried out by UNICEF, the UNFPA, aid donors and the Government; 2.9 per cent. of 70.5 million represents huge population growth—the population will undoubtedly double before 2030. The birth rate is 39.8 per 1,000 people, notwithstanding a death rate per 1,000 live births of 103.2. The average woman has 5.55 children, and life expectancy for those children is about 40 years.

The UNFPA has a $5 million per year programme over five years for dealing with reproductive health, which is not very much. It hoped to focus its resources on a few regions, but it seems that the Government have a fairly clear policy of regional resource distribution according to a formula, and so resources have been spread rather thinly. It is estimated that 6 per cent. of the Ethiopian population use contraception compared with, for example, 40 per cent. in Kenya.

The national population conference in Ethiopia in June this year emphasised the need for urgent action. However, family planning is not popular, and presents political difficulties. There is also some sense that the Orthodox Church will not help. Charities told us that the Orthodox Church has no doctrinal problems with birth control, but it seems clear that it will not come off the fence. I am grateful to the ambassador for making it clear that there is no hope of that. That is a great tragedy. The 500,000 orthodox priests in Ethiopia are each an integral and respected part of the community. They could certainly help to break down the myths that stop people from taking up the use of contraception as strongly as they should.

The issue is clouded in myths and traditions. Dr. Jember, in a sustainable development project in a poor area of Addis Ababa, told us of a fear that the contraceptive pill made a person weak and unable to manage their work. Unsurprisingly, there is a notion that a child is a gift of God, a measure of status and an insurance policy for old age. Women are expected to have children. One tribe tells its males that they should abandon their wives if they do not produce one baby a year. I am not surprised, and no one else will be, that some women are bitter that they are denied control over their futures. Maternal mortality in Ethiopia is the highest in the world.

Availability of contraceptives is low, irrespective of the lack of will to take the methods on. The UNFPA spends half of its budget on physical contraception, as the major supplier of the public health system. However, no programme of contraception will work without Government support, strong political will and the help of non-governmental organisations. As we went around, day after day, talking about attempts to make sustainable communities and engender a livelihood for Ethiopia, we were concerned not to hear about sufficient reproductive health to curb the increasing population. Great concerns exist that the Government pay insufficient attention to the issue.

I was recently reassured by the important announcement that the US Packard Foundation has announced that it will spend $40 million on expanding its reproductive health work in Tigray and the southern states. I understand that the request that Packard should spend resources on reproductive health came from the Prime Minister, which I find strongly reassuring. The Government are clearly taking up the idea that better contraceptive advice is needed. However, there is a long way to go.

There is no doubt that UK resources should be applied. We had concerns that donors would not be able to do much about myths about child bearing if there were no political will to tackle them. A donor country cannot easily impose conditions about ways of life and morality on a recipient country. It was a relief to learn that the Packard Foundation's project has been encouraged, as it shows that Ethiopia is keen for all the help it can get.

In ways that are too obvious to set out, reproductive health is integrally linked with women's rights. I went to Ethiopia on the second occasion to look at women's rights. Ethiopia has a modern, gender-egalitarian constitution. Article 35 should be read out in ringing tones:

"Women shall, in the enjoyment of rights and protections provided for by this Constitution, have equal right with men."

It gets better:

"Women have equal rights with men in marriage as prescribed by this Constitution."

Better still:

"The historical legacy of inequality and discrimination suffered by women in Ethiopia taken into account, women, in order to remedy this legacy, are entitled to affirmative measures. The purpose of such measures shall be to provide special attention to women so as to enable them to compete and participate on the basis of equality with men in political, social and economic life as well as in public and private institutions."

Women played a significant role in the overthrow of the Derg, and have earned that equality.

All the institutions are in place. The Ethiopian Parliament has a standing committee on women's affairs, which is chaired by Dr. Ethiopia—a notable female MP who recently visited the House of Commons. She is proud to say that there are two men and 11 women on the committee. There are quotas to ensure that women have a voice in public life and there are efforts to train women candidates for public office. The committee felt that the issue of gender equality was mainstreamed.

A new family code has recently been adopted, and there is a new criminal code to outlaw marital rape, which was outlawed here only 10 years ago. Ethiopia is doing very well to outlaw both that and female genital mutilation. We were told that over 90 per cent. of women in Ethiopia suffered from genital mutilation. They are a bold and strong Government who outlaw something as prevalent as that. There is no doubt about their commitment to equality, or that it is affecting the metropolitan areas.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the work of the national committee on traditional practices in Ethiopia, which considers not only the many beneficial traditional practices but the harmful ones? The women in Parliament have been particularly involved with that committee.

Yes, I believe that we did talk to someone who was on that committee, although I am not certain of that. My hon. Friend is right to point out that there are beneficial traditional practices as well as some harmful ones.

I have been lucky enough to go to Ethiopia twice in the past two years, and I can track the improvement in women's roles from my own experiences. I was first asked to go by the British Council in order to train some of the judiciary to deal with domestic violence cases. At that time, the new family code, which expressed the new constitutional principle of equality, was functioning only in Addis Ababa, although the constitution is national. The old civil code, which goes back to Haile Selassie's day, made it perfectly clear that the man was the head of the family and that the wife owed him a duty of obedience. The penal code states that nothing is a criminal offence if it is done according to law. Judges outside Addis Ababa were saying, "We can't do anything about domestic violence. The man is the head of the family; his wife owes him a duty of obedience. If he has to enforce the duty of obedience on her by assault, that is not a crime because it is done according to the law in the civil code." That position was very hard to argue against. I said that judges must look at the constitution and interpret those difficulties through the equality clauses of the constitution. That was a hard argument.

This year, I was asked to teach police officers how to police domestic violence. I asked them whether they felt that there was any impediment on their legal powers similar to that which the judges had experienced. They laughed and said that it was perfectly clear that the constitution now prevailed and that everybody accepted it. That seemed to be empirical evidence—although pretty rough and ready—that the march of women in Ethiopia is going forward ever stronger, but it is easy to paint too rosy a picture. In a country that until recently had laws allowing the subordination of women, there is still a huge tradition of that.

We were privileged to meet the head of the Ethiopian Women Lawyers Association, who has recently received the African Nobel prize for her help with women in Ethiopia. After receiving the award, she was interviewed and was asked what she thought the position of women in Ethiopia was. She said that it is poor and does not compare with that in the neighbouring countries, as they have little social and economic power and are still prisoners, especially in the rural areas, to old traditions and views.

The prevalence of abduction of schoolgirls is still clear, so much so that parents are reluctant to send their daughters to school. If a young man asks a girl to marry him and she is not interested, his usual tactic is to abduct her with his friends and rape her. Then, when no one else wants her, she becomes his. There is also a strong tradition of female genital mutilation, and although rape in marriage may technically be outlawed, it is prevalent. There is also still a good deal of domestic violence, so there is a long way yet to go.

There are now clearer statements than ever before of the Government's good intentions on reproductive health and women's rights, but there appears to be a long lead-in time before either desirable policy comes to fruition.

I have said little about the Government, who have had a difficult time in contending with war and repeated drought. They appear to aim to do well and attempt to comply with international human rights treaties, and although they are not perfect, they do well to try. They appear to be run intelligently and have strong plans and powerful initiatives. There is a sense that, because the Derg was an oppressive regime in which initiative was regarded as rebellion, the civil service may still be slow to respond to Government initiatives, but that problem is not isolated in Ethiopia.

I understand the significance of what the hon. and learned Lady says about hidebound social traditions that have constrained or undermined the pursuit of gender equality. On the theme of governance and pluralism, is it the hon. and learned Lady's impression that the elections that have taken place have not yet been fully free and fair? Can she offer any advice on that?

We did not take it as our job to investigate the democratic viability of the country, but it is notable that the ruling coalition has a majority of about 97 per cent. To some extent, that may speak for itself. None the less, there is no doubt that that Government intend well by their country, and perfect democracy may not be an essential concomitant of progress.

I, too, visited Ethiopia twice, with some colleagues who are present. The Ethiopian Government's intentions are honourable, and they are dedicated to bringing about an improved condition for the people of their country, which, as was rightly said, is vast. One of the Government's priorities was capacity building, which my hon. and learned Friend referred to in terms of the judiciary and police force. What evidence did she see of the central policies delivering changes to the outlying states?

The empirical observation that I can make is that, at both training sessions that I was asked to take, people from each state in Ethiopia had come to Addis Ababa. That suggests, although only impressionistically, that a network is developing from the cosmopolitan metropolis outwards to the states.

Overseas investment in Ethiopia is critically needed, and tourism is one of the country's greatest hopes. Like my colleagues, I can give direct testimony to the interest and beauty in Ethiopia—Simien national park, the rock-hewn churches of Lalibela, the castles of Gonder, the fantastic and unique former kingdom of Axum and the stunning Blue Nile falls. It is as beautiful as eastern Africa and as historic as northern Africa; it has as interesting peoples as western Africa and all the wildlife of southern Africa. It is a country with multiple problems but with a reasonably stable Government with clear hope and strong plans. There is a saying in Ethiopia when one looks on something that is particularly beautiful: before he made it God must have washed his hands. I am sure that everyone who has visited this complex, but now optimistic country, would agree that before God built Ethiopia he certainly washed his hands.

Before I call the next speaker, I should point out that I intend to commence the wind-ups at 10.30 am. Five hon. Members have indicated that they want to speak and I ask them to bear that in mind.

Thank you, Mr. Benton. I will try to keep my comments brief. I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) on securing the debate and on an excellent introductory speech. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on his appointment. I am sure that he will add to the quality of the Opposition Front-Bench team. I leave others to make judgments on the general quality. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows what I mean.

I first took part in debates on Ethiopia during the major crisis of 1984. We were told then that it would be a one-off, yet here we are with a sense of déjà vu. What is taking place now, outlined by my hon. and learned Friend, was predictable and predicted. The international community must clearly challenge it. It is not just that things in Ethiopia are bad, but that that is against a backdrop almost throughout Africa of food crisis, drought, plagues and conflict. None of that helps.

As we have heard, the crisis is of staggering dimensions: 14 million people are at risk in Ethiopia and Eritrea. That is bad enough given that in a normal year 4 million such people would face a crisis of famine. Across southern Africa, 13 million other people face death and famine. There have also been many natural disasters in the Congo, in Uganda, in Mauritania and elsewhere. Transcending all that is the issue of global warming. I do not want to depart from the debate, but it is relevant during the visit of the American President to point out that environmental matters in the Kyoto agreement are as relevant to Ethiopia as they are to the rest of Africa and elsewhere. They simply have to be addressed.

There are some who criticise our response, Bob Geldof perhaps among them. We will not criticise him for the contribution that he has made. I cannot quote precisely what he said, so I will paraphrase. He asked why on earth we cannot give food to non-governmental organisations to help the people who are in desperate need. He said that he was a citizen of Europe and that he expected more from the European Union. Many of us would want to echo that last point.

Even if that food aid were delivered in the way that we want and in the time that we want, there are still some structural challenges, particularly in Ethiopia as well as elsewhere in Africa, some of which my hon. and learned Friend addressed. One such challenge is population. Since the 1984 crisis, the population of Ethiopia has grown from 40 million to almost 70 million. The problems with world trade, including the fluctuations in coffee prices, are a great blow to Africa, coming as they do on top of the existing difficulties of economic situations and abilities to export and earn. In addition there is the scourge of HIV/AIDS.

The problems are of a staggering dimension. Some people think that money flows in when there is a crisis, but that the problems are then forgotten. One aid worker in Addis Ababa is reported as saying, "If you don't have starving babies, you don't get the money." Recently, there was a particularly relevant and thoughtful article in The Independent by Declan Walsh, in which he said:

"Funding does not always follow famine."

In recent years the Balkans received $300 per capita in aid, Albania $111—which is not an enormous sum—and Ethiopia $16.

If we are to address the problems, we must discuss the challenge set by the Ethiopian Government, which does not have a bad record on good governance, for the G8, the IMF, the World Bank and the UN. It is worth considering how much the essential development that is needed for Ethiopia to recover and thrive has changed. Twenty years ago, 80 per cent. of World Food Programme resources were spent on development, compared with 20 per cent. on aid for emergencies. That trend has been reversed, which is a short-termist, knee-jerk reaction. That reversal does not represent the vision of aid agencies that work there and address practical problems day in, day out. They experience frustration, knowing that, for example, in respect of the millennium goals set for Africa, the targets for 2015 will not be met until at least 2050.

In view of the time, I shall conclude. We know what is happening in Ethiopia, and we know the early warnings. Our friends in the aid agencies tell us that the situation will almost certainly recur in two, three or five years' time, but that can and should be avoided. So what should we tell aid agencies in Addis Ababa? What is the UK Parliament's message to the Zenawi Government, who are committed and set higher standards for anti-corruption policies than most other developing countries? We should tell them that we genuinely recognise their problems. We congratulate the Department for International Development, and hope that its efforts are emulated in Europe and elsewhere in wealthy parts of the world. We must tell our friends in Ethiopia that theirs is a country of great beauty. We want them to share in the mineral resources of Africa. We want transparency and accountability, and we want those mineral resources to be fairly shared for the benefit of the many, not just the few.

If we can address the problems of the need for food aid when it is required and the need for water, which people are crying out for, as well as the need for fair trade, conflict resolution, and the issue of blood diamonds, we should be entitled to say that security, good politics and good government are at least as important as providing transient warehouses full of grain. Those warehouses are there temporarily, and do not respond to the hearts and minds of people who deserve better.

I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) on securing the debate. Following our return from Ethiopia in the summer, we felt that an Adjournment debate would be appropriate, and I am grateful for this one. My visit to Ethiopia in August was my second; I went there as part of an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation in December 2002 with my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Andy King), who are present this morning.

The visit last December was timely in that, while we were there, the international donor community was meeting the Ethiopian Government to discuss the food aid crisis there. It was interesting to see how Ethiopia has improved its early warning system, which gives advance warning of food crisis. That is done by measuring rainfall during the two rain seasons in spring to early summer and the main rains in August and September. Those rains were very patchy, and made clear to the Government the risk of famine. Instead of 5 million people needing food aid, it was calculated in December that the figure would be 12.5 million.

On that basis, the international community reached agreement with the Ethiopian Government to deliver food aid. Having visited in December, it was interesting to visit in the rainy season this year towards the end of the famine period, when crops were in the fields, and to see how successful that programme had been. The international community and Prime Minister Meles Zenawi's Government were very successful overall in handling that crisis, and should be congratulated on that.

However, that does not deal with the issue of sustainable development. The population constraints that my hon. and learned Friend mentioned have struck me on both visits. They are very real and need to be tackled, as does the issue of how the land is used or misused. I remember visiting the West Harerge area, Asbe Teferi and the Messio district in December last year, and there were piles of sticks or charcoal everywhere. The forests were being cut down to produce fuel to sell for income. One could see, even from the hotel in Addis Ababa, that the hillsides that were covered in forest a generation ago were completely denuded. In many parts of the country, the effect of that was the same as the problems that we saw in Harer in August: when the rains came there was no forest left on the hillsides to keep the rain within the land. It came as a torrent off the hillsides and was wasted. We visited a project where trees had been planted to replace those lost, but it is clearly still an issue.

Another issue is that of water management. It is a sensitive issue as the waters of the Nile are used extensively by Sudan and Egypt, although they generally come from the mountains of Ethiopia. It is clear to me that even in a year such as 2002—a poor year for rains—there was sufficient rainfall, if managed properly, to feed the people of Ethiopia. The problem is that the infrastructure is not in place and irrigation systems do not exist to ensure that the land can be used productively. The pressure on the land means that there is great pressure to increase grain production, but instead of pressure to produce tef, which is part of the staple diet, there is pressure to produce maize. If it is successfully grown, maize produces more grain than tef, but it is very susceptible to anything less than the optimum rainfall, so if there is only half or three quarters of the optimum rainfall, the maize grows, but does not come to proper fruition. One sees half-grown stalks of maize everywhere, because there has not been enough rain, whereas tef and other indigenous grains will grow even if there is poor rainfall, and they will produce a crop, even if it is not of the size that one sees in a very good year. At least tef produces some grain; maize is either completely successful or produces nothing at all, which was a real problem in 2002.

That situation derives in part from issues of land tenure and the willingness of people at village level to invest in the land that they occupy, but do not own. They fear that if they invest in improving the land, it could be reallocated when the village council next meets to decide who gets the land. A real issue is how to devise a system that encourages farmers at local level to invest in improving the land.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will take a short intervention; I am mindful of colleagues who wish to speak.

Is not what the hon. Gentleman has described an argument for establishing proper private property rights?

We need to be fairly careful about giving prescriptive advice to an independent country, particularly one such as Ethiopia, which has a long, proud history. However, there is a problem, which I think it recognises, with how land tenure operates there and the knock-on effects.

I shall touch on HIV/AIDS, which was the main reason for my visit in August. The official figures show a prevalence rate of between 6 and 7 per cent. That is based on antenatal testing in 34 centres throughout the country, 28 of which were in urban areas and six in rural sites. The figures show real variation. The infection rate is 3 per cent. in the rural areas, but in some urban areas it is much higher. It is 20 per cent. in Bahir Dar, 19 per cent. in Jijiga, 18.7 per cent. in Nazret and 13.2 per cent. in Addis Ababa.

I have some scepticism about those figures. The National Intelligence Council in Washington projected a possible figure of 18 per cent. on the figures that it had for 2002. We had discussions in August with UNESCO and it felt that the figure was higher. My feeling from speaking to people at all levels, particularly on the visit in August, is that there is real recognition that HIV/ AIDS is a problem. When the figures are 18 or 20 per cent. for Uganda, Kenya and other parts of east Africa, it is difficult to believe that the figures are so much lower for Ethiopia, and that the assumption is that they will remain so much lower.

There may be particular issues in Ethiopia that make its figures much lower. We heard that the army has a strong sexual health policy: condoms are issued to soldiers. In many other places, the army is often a strong instrument for spreading HIV/AIDS, so the Ethiopian Government are to be congratulated on their policy. The fact that so much of Ethiopia is very rural may also make a difference.

That said, I sense that there could well be a major problem with HIV/AIDS in Ethiopia in years to come. It is applying to the global fund to deal with the issue and to secure drug funding in respect of mother-to-child transmission. That is crucial, but in many ways we need to know more about the scale of the problem. I am not sure that the figures are as robust as those available for other African countries.

My overall impression in Ethiopia was that the Government are doing their best in very difficult circumstances. They coped well last year with the risk of major famine, but the international community will have to feed 5 million or more people with emergency food aid in the years to come unless we put in place, or help Ethiopia to put in place, a structure that brings the productivity of its land and its food production in line with its population growth. That is unsustainable. We must work with the international community and the Government of Ethiopia to determine what policies are needed to improve the productivity of the land and to manage the population growth better than has been managed in the past 20 years. I fear that the international community will become increasingly reluctant to find funds for emergency famine aid if it is requested year after year with no end in sight.

I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) on securing the debate.

Time is short, so I shall talk briefly about some of the issues that emerged on my visit to Ethiopia last July as part of the British Council's pairing scheme for Westminster and Ethiopian women MPs. I was linked with Dr. Ethiopia, whom my hon. and learned Friend mentioned. Dr. Ethiopia visited my constituency in Cardiff, and I spent five days with her in Addis Ababa and Nazret. I want to talk about the issues that she wanted me to raise, and on which she wanted me to work with her.

The British Council should be congratulated on starting the scheme. Now that many visits have been made, it is important to determine how to sustain them and how to work together to resolve issues such as those that Dr. Ethiopia raised with me and I raised with her.

Dr. Ethiopia was very concerned about health, which is high on the agenda. We all know that Ethiopia has one of the highest child mortality rates in the world: 166 per 1,000 births. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) referred to HIV/AIDS. Project workers in Nazret said that it was a huge issue and told me that coping with young people who tested positive was very difficult. Dr. Ethiopia took me to a district health centre—Woreda 13—in Addis Ababa, and one of her great passions is to try to develop it. I was extremely impressed by the quality of care that it gave. It was very holistic and examined every aspect of the lives of mothers and children. It urged mothers to use contraception, encouraged the use of deprovera and tested for HIV/AIDS. It also gave good antenatal and postnatal care, and children were vaccinated. All those treatments were available at the same time, and there was an extremely high rate of breastfeeding, which this country would envy. We have much to learn from the way in which the centre operates. However, Dr. Ethiopia drew to my attention the fact that although so much good work was being done at the centre, which was progressive, its resources were poor. It had no ambulances to bring in mothers to deliver their babies, the delivery bed was so old and broken that it was depressing, and there were no heaters, dish washers, sterilising equipment or microscopes.

Any aid that we decide to give must be sustainable. There is no point in sending over an ambulance in a great charitable rush when there is no money to run it and no spare parts are available. Very small resources may help centres such as the one in Addis Ababa, which is already doing a tremendous job. I had a great deal of admiration for what it was doing. I ask the Minister to take on board the fact that sustainable aid can help in places where progress is already being made.

The other major issue raised with me by women in Ethiopia—I met mainly women and it was women's issues that were brought to my attention—was the effect of the harmful traditional practices that are still carried out and which particularly affect women and children. I was in the Parliament for what I think was an annual debate on the traditional practices of Ethiopia. As I mentioned in an intervention, there are many good and positive traditions, such as breastfeeding, the care of mothers after delivery, the care of elderly and disabled people and many others, that we would want to emulate.

Nevertheless, there are harmful practices, and women in the Parliament are leading the fight to get them outlawed, as they threaten the human rights of women and children. The practices in question were debated in Parliament for a whole day and I was tremendously impressed by the way in which they were being tackled at all levels—through the school curriculum, through the training of trainers and through the mass media. However, there were very limited resources for the task and the areas that could be covered were also limited.

Parliament accepted, fundamentally, that the traditional practices challenged mothers' and children's rights and caused additional health problems, as my hon. and learned Friend mentioned; permanent damage can result from childbirth at a very young age. I want to ask the Minister how we can give sustainable help on health issues, and provide help in the matter of harmful traditional practices.

I shall take careful note of your strictures, Mr. Benton, and keep my remarks to three minutes. I welcome the introductory comments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who gave a clear exposition of what Ethiopia is like. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) mentioned the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation last year, of which I was a member; one thing that I remember is that we shared our visit with a certain Mr. Rumsfeld, which is something that we might care to forget.

I want to make two clear points. The first was touched on by my hon. and learned Friend, but it is crucial: to achieve sustainable development, Ethiopia needs to remain at peace. It can do so only if it has territorial sovereignty; the countries that surround it are Djibouti, Eritrea, about which I shall say more shortly, Kenya, Somalia and the Sudan. Pleasingly, the British Government are investing time in trying to overcome the boundary dispute with Eritrea. While we were there, we met General Gordon, who is the grandson of the General Gordon—that's Britain for you.

It is crucial that we invest time, money and real effort to resolve the dispute in the Badme area. If there is a return to war, everything else will fail. Of course, there is internal tension. It is clear that the Government are still dominated by the Tigreans. That causes resentment elsewhere in the country. We need to provide the means to develop good governance.

I do not think that the other point I want to make has yet been mentioned. It is a simple fact that Ethiopia is an under-urbanised society. Addis Ababa is by far the dominant centre, but its population is less than 2 million, in a total population of 70 million. There are no other centres of any size in the country. Some form of urbanisation is needed, and we need to help with that.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble made a point about infrastructure, and transport in particular is woefully inadequate. There is one rail line to Djibouti. A developed country cannot be established on that basis. Telecommunications are also relevant, as any hon. Members who tried to use a mobile phone there will know. Ethiopia is about the only country in the world that has not yet got its act together to set up a network. That is due to its dilemma of trying to maintain some vestige of belief in the rural society, which has a strong grip on the population, while aiming for development.

I, too, congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) on her interesting speech, and all other hon. Members who have spoken so passionately this morning. Like others, I visited Ethiopia this year, and, all being well, I should return next year.

This is the latest in a series of debates concentrating on Africa. When the eyes of television news crews, and therefore of the world, are focused on places such as Iraq and the middle east, it is important to remember those countries that face grinding poverty every year. We must continue to assist them if we are ever to meet the UN's millennium development goals. The hon. and learned Lady, along with all other speakers, fairly and effectively spelled out both the short-term and the long-term problems facing Ethiopia. On both counts, we have a duty to help.

The UK should be a champion in the war against global poverty—I know that the Minister and his Department are genuinely committed to that cause. Other Members have demonstrated why Ethiopia should be at the top of our list of priorities—its chronic symptoms include 82 per cent. living on less than a dollar a day, 15 per cent. suffering from HIV/AIDS and adult illiteracy of almost two thirds. Those underlying problems cause the crises that sometimes—not often enough—feature on our televisions and in our newspapers.

In the short term, we have a responsibility to respond to humanitarian crises as they occur. Approximately 5 million people require food aid almost every year. The Government—the Department for International Development specifically—have a good record of contributing to UN appeals, something that other countries would do well to emulate. However, as the World Bank has pointed out, official aid to Ethiopia fell considerably between 1995 and 2000. The $2.5 million that DFID recently pledged to fight malaria in Ethiopia is a massive forward step, and a good example of our Government's contribution. Over 100,000 people die from malaria every year in the country, and while this debate takes place, some 17 Ethiopians will be killed by it.

The hon. and learned Lady was right to mention the equally, if not more, important challenge that faces us: that of the long term. How can we help Ethiopia to develop in a sustainable manner so that it can treat its sick, feed its people and help them out of poverty? Most of all, how can we ensure that Ethiopia has all the necessary tools to resist external shocks, particularly the environmental shocks that appear to be becoming the norm, and to minimise their impact?

Earlier this year, I visited Ethiopia with the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) and representatives of Oxfam. We saw the food aid that was being provided to help to mitigate the effects of the drought in the rift valley. On my way there, I passed several windmills, designed to pump water from below the ground. Most of them had fallen into disrepair, because the initial investment and good will that had enabled them to be built was no longer there, so they had not been maintained. Rainfall is crucial. It is not rocket science to say that when the time, energy and money are provided to build Ethiopia's infrastructure, we must ensure that that infrastructure is maintained—that is at the very heart of long-term development.

When I was there, I found that there was a particular requirement for considerable and sustained investment in rural development, particularly in water management and infrastructure. It struck me that a diversification from agriculture is needed. Farming is almost entirely dependent on smallholders, which leaves the country particularly vulnerable to the external shocks that I mentioned. A related issue is the ongoing problem of land tenure. The average holding is only one hectare and because all land is Government owned, farmers are not encouraged to invest in the land that they work. That problem will increase as population growth outstrips agricultural growth.

The current debate in Ethiopia about land reform needs to involve the Ethiopian people so that the environment is managed. This is a matter of life and death. There are real problems of going straight to private ownership of land. If people are so poor that they cannot produce enough to feed themselves, the temptation may be just to sell their land and move into the city, which does not solve the problem.

The ongoing crisis in the coffee industry has also taken its toll on Ethiopia, a country heavily dependent on that industry. Not only has coffee production decreased by between a quarter and a third over the last year because of the drought, but coffee prices have collapsed by some 70 per cent. over the past four years. There are small projects that can benefit those in direct need. When I was in Ethiopia, I was fortunate enough to see the Negele Gorbitu coffee farmers' co-operative, an excellent set-up that benefits its 1,400 members enormously. However, even with the co-operative, farmers still only get 100 birr—roughly £8—for 100 kg of coffee.

It did not take me long to work out that when I buy a cup of coffee here, I pay roughly what one farmer gets for producing the coffee for 1,000 cups. That is a scandal, and that is even with a pro-farmer co-operative that leaves out some of the middlemen between the farmer and the supermarket. The difference in the price that the farmer receives and what we pay in a supermarket is outrageous. That also links to trade agreements, imports and exports, but I do not have enough time to go into that this morning.

In the short term, we need to help coffee producers weather this storm. However, if the coffee crisis shows us anything, it is that Ethiopia must be less dependent on one crop and even less dependent on agriculture. That is not easy but it must be a long-term goal. The fact that coffee comprises 60 per cent. of Ethiopian exports has meant that the collapse of the market has had a massive negative impact on the country's income. That is very serious, especially as Ethiopia is still servicing $6 billion worth of debt. Last year it spent almost $120 million in debt repayments, 12 per cent. of its GDP. That is outrageous.

For a country with so many problems to be paying so much money on debt, money that could be spent on food and medicines or health care and roads, cannot and should not be tolerated. That money, if spent annually on poverty-focused development, could make an enormous contribution to visible improvements for the people of Ethiopia.

Ethiopia, along with many of its neighbours, is also in the grip of HIV/AIDS. Although it is not as widespread as in other parts of Africa, particularly the south, it is still a major problem. There are possibly 1 million AIDS-related orphans and, in many cases, knowledge and skills are being lost and not passed down from one generation to the next. Not only must we ensure that Ethiopia can afford to treat those suffering from the virus, but we must ensure that the delivery mechanisms for health care are improved so that access to medicines is increased.

If Ethiopia is to become the country that we all want to see, its next 70 years must not match its last when it comes to war. Too much has gone wrong in the past. When more money is spent on guns than food, when more money is spent on soldiers than doctors, we can never hope to tackle poverty. The ongoing and sometimes daily shootings that take place along the border serve as a reminder of this. That is why the promotion of and persistent attempt for peace is so important for Ethiopia's long-term development. It must be a safe place to visit for the tourism industry to develop.

In the short term one of the most pressing problems facing Ethiopia is the removal of the 2 million land mines estimated to remain in the country. Ethiopia remains one of the most heavily land-mined countries in the world with regular casualties caused, especially along the northern border with Eritrea.

This has been a valuable debate, which has served to highlight the short and long-term difficulties and challenges. Of course the burden does not and should not fall entirely on the shoulders of the Minister and his Department. However, there is a role for them to pursue in terms of aid to improve trade and infrastructure. If successful, we can hopefully meet in this place in the coming years to celebrate the improvements and advances in Ethiopia, rather than revisiting many of the problems that have plagued the country over the decades.

I begin by congratulating the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) both on securing the debate and on the vivid portrait that she painted of a beautiful but beleaguered country. She was ably followed by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), with a characteristically powerful speech, and by the hon. Members for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett), all of whom brought something different to bear on consideration of the plight of some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world.

In the short time available, I shall focus on a few issues on which I am interested to solicit the Minister's response. First, the aftermath of the war with Eritrea was mentioned. We would all agree that sustainable peace is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of sustainable development. The Minister will be familiar with the decision taken by the boundary commission that was set up by the Algiers agreement. It is underpinned by and has the support and authority of the United Nations, and it has to be implemented if peace is to be achieved and maintained.

The Minister will be aware of resolution 1507. My concern, based on a recent parliamentary answer by the former Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), and on the work contained in the Africa research bulletin, is that peace could be in danger of losing out. Can the Minister tell me what the Government are doing in concert with the United Nations, the United States, the African Union and the European Union to ensure that the momentum for peace is maintained? He will be aware that the Ethiopian Government are anxious about the lack of domestic support for the agreement that has been reached. Does he feel confident that the Government of Ethiopia will be kept on track and that peace will be achieved?

Secondly, I come to the issue of debt relief. Starkly, there seems to be a problem. The Government gave £12.3 million in aid to Ethiopia last year, yet, consistent with existing arrangements, it sought £15 million back in debt repayment. The Minister will be aware that completion point, which is the jargon in debt relief, was expected to take place in the third quarter of 2003, but World Bank analysis shows that the debt will not be sustainable for Ethiopia after that completion point. Total debt is already about 150 per cent. of gross domestic product. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West correctly pointed out that the cost of servicing that debt has risen to about $118 million a year and there is genuine anxiety about whether debt relief and reduction will be ongoing and sustainable.

Does the Minister accept that there is an inherent tension between giving money with one hand and taking it away with the other? I do not suggest that just one Government are culpable; it is a long-standing phenomenon involving an international system that doubtless requires a thorough rethink. However, I should be grateful if the Minister said whether he thinks that there is a problem that needs to be tackled. In the process, he might also like to say something about the direct Government budget support to assist the Ethiopian Government in the pursuit of its poverty reduction programme of £60 million spread over three years. Can he say precisely how those moneys will be used to best effect to ensure a direct benefit to the cause of poverty reduction?

Many hon. Members focused on agricultural production and the significance of coffee, and I want to press the Minister on the issue of a future processing plant. If Ethiopia could export, not in raw form—green beans—but on the strength of a processing plant, that would be vastly more commercially beneficial. We discuss that ambition and we hear periodic pronouncements from Nestléand others, but are there concrete grounds for hope that that worthwhile aspiration could, before long, become a practical reality to the benefit of Ethiopia? If the Minister could also, in the 10 minutes available to him, say something about the debate on land reform, crop diversification, water and irrigation, he would be displaying a pithiness and intellectual distinction that we would all like to emulate.

On the issue of food relief, the Minister will be aware that the food security coalition donors have another conference next month, possibly similar to the one last year, to which the hon. Member for South Ribble referred. The Ethiopian Government understandably want to receive the moneys that will flow from those donors and to be able to deploy the resources as they see fit. However, there is concern that it will not be able to manage those resources, and that it should benefit from the expert assistance on offer from the non-governmental organisations. Oxfam is one of the bodies that thinks that it has a role to play. Does the Minister agree with that concern? If so, are the Government taking steps to ensure that such co-operation happens?

We have heard much about HIV/AIDS. I have received different indications as to whether the spread of AIDS in Ethiopia is likely to get worse or better. The NGOs with which I have spoken advise me that the issue has not been effectively tackled, and they are pessimistic about the short-term prospects. It has been put to me that one quarter of Ethiopian children could be orphaned due to AIDS within eight years. That is not only a human health tragedy, but it has implications for the Ethiopian economy. It will be an obstacle to industrial investment, commercial expansion and economic growth, and will concomitantly have implications for the chances of poverty reduction.

Will the Minister comment on the Ethiopian Government's policies on HIV/AIDS, as articulated first in 1998, and more recently in the plan for 2000–04? Reference is made to transmission education, behavioural change, and care and support for infected individuals. What are our Government doing to help the Ethiopians, given the dramatic significance of antiretroviral treatment and appropriate care in cutting transmission rates? Transmission rates could be reduced from 35 per cent. to 5 per cent., so a premium must be attached to pursuing the best public policies. Will the Minister comment on what the British Government are doing towards those worthwhile objectives?

This has been a stimulating and wide-ranging debate. I suspect that all hon. Members agree that too many people in Ethiopia have suffered too much for too long. There is a pressing need for this and other Governments, as well as international agencies, to pool their financial and intellectual resources to assist Ethiopia. We should not impose solutions but work with Ethiopia to help it to realise its human potential and tackle the problems that have undermined it for so long. I am anxious to hear what the Minister has to say and, on the strength of my nine minutes, I rest content and look forward to his response.

I, too, congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) on initiating the debate and on the excellent way in which she outlined many of the issues currently facing Ethiopia. I should also like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) and my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew), and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) on their contributions. They have added additional focus to other issues facing Ethiopia. I also welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). This is the first opportunity that I have had formally to congratulate him on his appointment, and I look forward to regular opportunities to cut my teeth on his performances.

If ever a country serves to remind us of our responsibility to look beyond our own borders, Ethiopia is it, not least because it faces huge levels of poverty. Of its 67 million population, 47 per cent. live below the national poverty line. Ethiopia's people face the regular threat of drought and famine, chronic food insecurity, the ongoing backdrop of the recent conflict with Eritrea and, as a number of hon. Members have outlined, a growing HIV/AIDS problem. If one adds to that mix Ethiopia's historic debt relief needs, the ongoing human rights abuses that still occur there, and the low status of women, we begin to get a sense of the scale of the challenge facing Ethiopia and its friends in the international community in helping its population to survive but, more importantly, move on and live their lives outside the daily challenge of poverty.

The UK's support is within the framework of Ethiopia's own sustainable development and poverty reduction programme. That programme, which the Ethiopian Government worked up, includes a strong commitment to empowerment, gender equality and democratic governance, all of which are fundamental to poverty reduction. We plan to provide substantial funding in the form of a multi-annual programme of direct budget support to back up that programme. In order to create a solid framework for our development partnership with Ethiopia, we have recently signed a 10-year memorandum of understanding setting out the necessary mutual commitments and establishing the basis for ongoing dialogue between the two countries. In addition to that memorandum of understanding, we are providing technical support in key areas, including food security, capacity building, education and HIV/AIDS, to which I hope to return if time allows.

In this financial year, we are seeking to spend some £19 million supporting Ethiopia. That will rise to some £42 million in 2004–05 and £57 million in 2005–06. As I have said, much of that money will be allocated in the form of budget support. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston referred to the debates on Ethiopia in the House in 1984, and the excellent work that Bob Geldof did in bringing Ethiopia's plight to the attention of the world. As he rightly said, there is a sense, in many people's eyes, that Ethiopia is continually associated with the need for more humanitarian aid and the ongoing difficulties of food security.

We have been one of the largest financial donors of humanitarian assistance. Since January 2002, we have provided some £50 million in relief. Most recently, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West mentioned, we have provided some $2.5 million to help UNICEF to tackle the problem of malaria. That support is provided both through voluntary agencies and through the United Nations for food and non-food relief. Last year the possibility of famine was again identified; fortunately, it was identified early. The Ethiopian Government quickly sought help from external donors, many of whom responded extremely generously.

On Monday, I had discussions with representatives of the World Food Programme. Current estimates suggest that the food pipeline is in good shape and that cereal needs are certainly covered this year. Indications are that, in most parts of Ethiopia, rainfall was better this year in comparison with last year. Assessments are under way, but it looks likely that food production will be much better than it was last year.

Health issues remain a serious concern. Signs suggest that parts of the east of the country face problems because of inadequate seasonal rains. However, the idea that food aid alone is not a sufficient response, a point made by several hon. Members, is absolutely right. Other issues, such as health care, water and sanitation, are equally critical to child survival. We, and other donors, need to pay more attention to that problem.

The Ethiopian Government have put considerable time and effort into their coalition for food security initiative, which seeks to address some of the underlying causes of food insecurity. That will be discussed at a meeting between donors and the Government, where the UK will be represented, on 1–2 December. It is right that we are there. We have a shared focus on wanting to address those underlying causes. I am sure that we will have opportunities to discuss the results of those meetings in the House.

The hon. Members for Edinburgh, West and for Buckingham rightly raised the issue of debt. Ethiopia reached the first phase of debt relief under the enhanced heavily indebted poor countries process in November 2001. Ethiopia no longer has to service around $1.9 billion worth of debt, and clearly that allows those savings to be spent on the needs of its poor. We hope that those debts will be formally written off, probably in the first half of next year, once completion point is achieved.

The hon. Member for Buckingham highlighted concerns that Ethiopia's debt-to-export ratio has risen sharply. That is largely due to global interest rate and exchange rate movements as well as lower export prices; coffee has been mentioned. We are concerned that such a rise could damage Ethiopia's prospects for long-term debt sustainability. Ethiopia's level of need is such that additional debt relief from the international community is merited to reduce that threat. We are working to achieve that. Ethiopia is receiving full—100 per cent.—debt relief on moneys owed to the UK.

I will not say too much on the peace process, other than that dialogue to reduce tensions on the border is clearly necessary. We remain firmly of the view that the recommendations of the boundary commission need to be implemented and adhered to. Clearly, ongoing political dialogue between Eritrea and Ethiopia is needed. We are closely watching the developments in both the UN work and the African Union work in that area.

The hon. Gentleman alluded to concerns about human rights abuses. We hope to discuss human rights on a regular basis with the Ethiopian Government as a result of the memorandum of understanding that has been signed.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble, in particular, referred to the problem of HIV/AIDS, and expressed rightful scepticism that the current statistics on HIV/AIDS have captured the seriousness of the problem in Ethiopia. I should say that, as well as the UK, the international community is focusing on HIV/AIDS as an important issue in Ethiopia, which we believe has the fifth largest problem with prevalence in Africa. Some $60 million has been set aside by the World Bank to tackle the problem, and the UK is providing some £7 million to help intensify, better co-ordinate and increase the effectiveness of Ethiopia's response to the problem.

I recognise that I have been not been able to answer all the questions raised by hon. Members. I will look carefully at the debate in the Official Report and reply later.

I am delighted to have secured this debate, as it concerns an important matter that must be brought to Members' attention.

My hon. Friend the Minister will know that my constituency contains Gatwick airport, so the airline industry is important to Crawley and the surrounding areas. We welcome the Government's approach to airport expansion, air travel and the careful management that the air industry needs. I wanted to raise an important issue for holidaymakers that relates particularly to the air travel industry. All Members would welcome the expansion of travel for people who, for many reasons and especially for holidays, can now travel abroad. That must be welcomed, as it widens horizons, makes for a smaller world and improves our understanding of the rest of the world.

However, today's debate is not about the travel industry alone, but about the protection of travellers against the insolvency of the company with which they book. Only a few Members will have a major airport close to their constituencies, but all will have constituents who travel, and that is why the debate is so important. It affects all consumers in the United Kingdom.

I shall begin with an overview of the UK package travel industry. It takes 20 million people on holiday a year, employs 50,000 people and has an annual turnover of £8 billion. By any standard, that is a significant industry for the UK's economy and its citizens. Civil Aviation Authority figures show that around 60 per cent. of UK air passenger traffic to or from another European Union country is on charter airlines owned by or associated with tour operators. The largest tour operators in Europe are: Preussag of Germany, which owns Thompson; Thomas Cook AG of Germany, which owns Thomas Cook; Thomas Cook UK, which was formerly JMC; MyTravel, which was formerly Airtours; and First Choice Holidays. First Choice Holidays, Thomas Cook UK and MyTravel are all based in my constituency.

We know that since the events of 11 September, there has been increased insecurity in the air transport business, and companies have been hit hard. The business is settling down, but the impact of the cost of bonded insurance has been significant. It has widened the competitive divide between those that are required by law to carry ATOL—Air Travel Organisers' Licensing—protection and those that are not. Our world is also changing, and an increasing number of people choose to book not through tour operators, but directly, often via the internet, with companies such as easyJet. Such companies have offered highly competitive options that have opened up the possibility of foreign holidays to many, which I applaud.

The package holiday industry has changed dramatically since the legislation introduced in the early 1990s. The increased use of the internet to book travel, in particular, has affected many aspects of the business, including private as well as business travel. That change is significant, for reasons that I will outline. For now, however, I offer an overview of the scale of those changes.

Personal use of, and access to, the internet has expanded enormously in the past 10 years. Between September 1999 and September 2002, internet usage doubled to 11.4 million households. By September 2002, 46 per cent. of all homes in the UK were said to have access. The latest figures show that 57 per cent. of the adult population—23.3 million people—have accessed the internet at some time. Some 46 per cent. of us have bought goods and/or services online.

This is a growing market. Increasingly, people may choose to put a package together themselves using the internet. In the past few years, low-cost, no-frills airlines have helped to expand the market. That is a good thing, which we should welcome because it has extended personal choice, increased competition and driven down prices. No-frills airlines have provided important business at Gatwick. There is no doubting the value and quality of the service that they provide to many of my constituents, but—and this is a big but—consumer protection legislation and regulation has not kept pace with those changes.

Air Travel Organisers' Licensing was set up after a spate of airline collapses in the late 1960s, which some of us here may remember, when many holidaymakers were stranded in Spain. In the 1990s, the legislation was revised, but at that time booking on the internet was not common. The scope of the existing regulations needs widening to ensure that a greater number of the 20 million Britons who go on package holidays each year are protected in a way that is equitable and transparent, regardless of how a booking is made.

Under package holiday regulations, operators are required to carry an ATOL licence, which the CAA issues. Crucially, however, the regulations do not cover package holidays booked through no-thrills airlines—I mean no-frills, because, in fact, they are quite thrilling, and certainly provide an excellent service. As I said, the package holiday regulations require holiday organisers to hold a CAA licence to provide financial protection for consumers in the event of insolvency.

Operators not covered by the regulations—mainly no-frills operators that offer internet booking—incur no such costs and so can be very competitive on price. Consumers, however, are often unaware of that. There are similar problems in other areas of the travel industry—for example, with coach holiday companies. Travelrisk Management contacted me about today's debate. It has problems with bonded coach holiday insurance, and is subject to the package travel regulations. People booking direct on the internet, however, have no such protection.

There is a need to ensure full consumer protection throughout the market. Recent figures provided by the Office for National Statistics show that the market is changing and that the number of travellers protected by ATOL bonding has declined in the past three years from more than 90 per cent. to 75 per cent. That could leave as many as 9 million holidaymakers each year with no financial protection.

Changes in the level of internet access and the growth of the no-frills operators, which I very much welcome, have resulted in a significant reduction in consumer protection. Some 25 per cent. of consumers are exposed to some degree of risk, and most are not aware of that.

An EU Council directive published recently recognised that the definition of "package" in the original 1990 directive was no longer adequate for the reality of the market. The CAA, which is aware of the increase in people using the internet who are therefore not covered by ATOL protection, recently conducted research into consumer awareness of the risks posed by do-it-yourself packages. It found that 29 per cent. of people regularly book their holidays via the internet and that 57 per cent. of those people did not know what ATOL protection was. When asked what they thought would happen if their tour operator went bust—we all hope that that will never be the outcome—people who had booked via the internet responded to a variety of suggested scenarios, and 50 per cent. of them consistently said that they expected to get a full refund.

I know that many organisations responded to a recent CAA consultation on that matter, and I want briefly to highlight a point raised in that consultation by the Consumers Association, which clearly represents those who may be affected. The association said that the issue to be resolved was

"the ambiguity in the current wording of the Package Travel Regulations, so that they clearly cover all tailor made packages."

Those who are most vulnerable—people who have to operate to a tight budget, who may not have additional cover, who increasingly use the internet to reduce the cost of their annual holiday in the sun, and who will not be able to bear the cost when things go wrong—will always be the most affected. Although I do not understate the importance of ensuring a level playing field for business, it must also be recognised that the changing market is failing the people who are least able to protect themselves.

ATOL protection has served the industry well until now, but other models should be considered. For example, the Netherlands operates a system where cover is provided by a common bond, which passengers pay for directly, and it is held at an independently agreed level to cover any situation that arises. I know that the Minister is aware of that system. Clearly, any legislative changes should be Europe-wide to ensure consistency, and therefore the European Parliament, too, must deal with legislative change.

I ask the Minister to give a positive response to what I believe to be modest but fair proposals for changes to the law. Consideration should be given to extending the scope of the existing package travel regulations, and legislative time should be made available for that. I offer any support and help that the Minister might need to achieve that. Since the late 1960s, we have not experienced a time when hundreds or thousands of Britons are stranded abroad without any protection. However, I have outlined how difficult the market can be, and the careful handling that the airline industry requires because of the many airlines collapses around the world. We cannot ignore the possibility of that continuing to happen.

The growth of the airline industry and of air travel is to be applauded. My constituents travel as never before. I want to ensure that they will be protected in the unlikely event that problems occur, and that they can be brought home without difficulty. I sincerely hope that the Minister can respond positively to my request.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) on securing this important debate. I am aware that some of our major tour operators are based in her constituency and that she takes an assiduous, active and informed interest in travel and aviation matters. She is a real credit to her constituents. I also thank her for staying miles away from the forthcoming aviation White Paper; other hon. Members might have taken the opportunity to get stuck into that.

ATOL is a statutory scheme managed by the Civil Aviation Authority. It was introduced in 1973, and protects holidaymakers from losing money or being stranded abroad if their tour operator defaults. Since 1990, it has been the primary means by which the UK has implemented the EC package travel directive. As my hon. Friend said, there are also a number of trade schemes to protect consumers of package holidays that do not involve air travel. If she wants to pursue similar matters in relation to coach travel and other forms of travel, I would be grateful if she wrote to me.

All tour operators selling flights and air holidays must hold an ATOL licence from the CAA. Before granting or renewing a licence, the authority carries out a range of checks on the firm's financial fitness and management structures. The licence holder must then lodge a bond—a financial guarantee provided by a bank or insurance company. If the licence holder subsequently fails, the CAA uses the bond to pay for people who are abroad to continue their holidays and travel home, and to refund those who have paid but have not travelled.

The ATOL system covers all air packages, flights, and flight-only seats on chartered flights, as well as discounted scheduled tickets that have been sold by a travel firm. Over 1,850 travel firms hold ATOL licences, thus protecting about 28 million passengers who book flights or air holidays each year. The value of the holidays that are protected is nearly £15 billion; the CAA holds bonds of nearly £2 billion. Over the past 17 years—the period for which consistent records exist—ATOL has covered over 300 travel organiser failures, at a total cost of £160 million. Almost 190,000 people have been brought home and more than 1 million people have received refunds.

This year, the Government have taken steps to ensure that the ATOL scheme continues to provide sufficient protection for consumers. Several travel organisers and agents—mainly small ones—were avoiding the cost of ATOL licensing by selling the elements of a package holiday under separate contracts. They would obtain a flight from an ATOL licence holder and add it to accommodation or other services sold under a separate contract. A reference to ATOL could have misled customers into believing that all the components of their holidays were protected, only to find that they were only partly covered, or not covered at all, against the organiser's failure. On the recommendation of the CAA, and after fully consulting the trade and the public, we decided to change the regulations to close that gap. Agents that sell air package holidays under split contracts are now required to hold an ATOL licence.

As my hon. Friend said, the UK package holiday industry has been a great success story over the past 50 years. It has enabled millions of UK citizens to travel abroad, and to enjoy a range and quality of holidays that their predecessors could only have dreamed of. The industry has been innovative, competitive and imaginative, and the ATOL scheme has worked well. It has provided peace of mind at a reasonable cost for holidaymakers, for many of whom a holiday is the largest discretionary expenditure of the year. When the European Commission carried out a comparative study of protection arrangements across Europe, the UK scheme was singled out for its coherence and effectiveness. I fully concur with my hon. Friend's comments about the efficacy and success of the scheme to date.

I also agree with my hon. Friend that the market for overseas holidays is gradually evolving. Led by the no-frills—rather than no-thrills—carriers, most airlines now sell a substantial proportion of their tickets on the internet, and they are often linked to other services such as accommodation and car hire. As people grow more confident as travellers and consumers, more and more are putting together their own packages. In those circumstances, the purchaser has separate contracts with different companies and does not enjoy ATOL protection. As my hon. Friend says, that has led to calls from many in the tour operator business for the ATOL scheme to be extended. In particular, tour operators feel that they are disadvantaged if airlines selling via the internet and providing links to other services do not require ATOL protection.

The CAA recently conducted a major consultation exercise covering a wide range of financial protection issues, and the scope of the application of ATOL was one of the central questions addressed. The closing date for the consultation was a few days ago, and the CAA will now consider the many responses received. Many complex and problematic issues are involved, and I understand that it is likely to be several months before the authority can make recommendations to the Department for Transport. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that when we receive those recommendations, we will consider them thoroughly and with an open mind, and try to ensure that the ATOL scheme keeps pace with the evolution of the market, as we have done with the disaggregation of the holiday contract, and filling the gap. To say that is not to preempt what the CAA will say; we shall approach the recommendations with an open mind.

In the meantime, I recognise that it is not always easy for consumers to know whether they are covered. That is one issue that the CAA review will address. For now, I say firmly to consumers that if they want protection, they should always look for the well-known ATOL symbol. If there is any confusion about whether their holiday transaction is covered by ATOL, they should ask. If they do not see that symbol on their documentation, they must assume that they are not covered. Holidaymakers should remember what an excellent deal ATOL cover provides. I am told that the average cost is about £2 per person.

I should say something about the air travel trust fund. In the event of a failure, should a company's bond be insufficient to meet the cost of repatriation and refunds, the ATTF provides a back-up mechanism for everything else that is in place. I regret that the powers to replenish that fund were allowed to lapse in the 1980s, and the fund has been in deficit since 1996. However, it continues to provide funding of last resort by means of a commercial loan backed by Government guarantee. The Government intend to take powers to replenish the fund as soon as parliamentary time permits. In the meantime, we fully support the ATOL system and will continue to underwrite the fund's borrowing. Holidaymakers who book with ATOL licence holders can therefore be assured that if their tour operator defaults, they will be reimbursed if they have not yet travelled, or repatriated if abroad.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to debate these issues with my hon. Friend. No doubt we shall return to them many times in the coming months as and when the CAA consultation comes to fruition. Given the proximity of her constituency to Gatwick, and the fact that many of our major tour operators are located in her constituency, I fully understand that this is an important constituency matter for her. She deserves full credit for having done the broader leisure industry, and the country, a service by airing her views.

Initially, the CAA is on the case. As and when we review the results of its consultation, we shall see in what direction we should go to revise or reconsider the system. At that stage, which I fear is a few months off, I shall be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend, and whoever else she thinks appropriate, to discuss the CAA's findings and the outcomes, in the context of the matters that she has raised today concerning an industry that is important to the wider economy. For that, I am enormously grateful.

I want to thank the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) for securing the debate and I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for agreeing to substitute my name in view of the hon. Gentleman's duties in the Chamber.

I was fortunate to be one of the three Members on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association visit to St. Helena last month. I therefore speak with a special knowledge of and interest in the island and its people. After what I saw and the people whom I met, I must conclude that the Government's track record on St. Helena, one of the 14 British overseas territories, is at best disinterested and at worst deliberately neglectful. That is especially true when the record is contrasted with those of other EU countries that care for their dependent territories so differently.

The Saints—as the St. Helenians are called—want their island to be self-sufficient. That means that the Government must help them to help themselves, instead of merely treating them as a backwater dependency. It is like the old Oxfam adverts, which showed the need to encourage people in the third world to create their own food, rather than have it sent to them by developed countries. The French view their overseas territories as a department of France—equivalent to metropolitan Paris. That ensures that their West Indian islands, such as Martinique, and their Pacific islands, such as Tahiti, have a standard and quality of life similar to that in mainland France. The Spanish will receive ¬1.846 million between 2000 and 2006 for renewable energy in the Canary islands alone.

That aid dramatically contrasts with the embarrassing and obscene waste of public money that the British taxpayer has had to find. The Minister's Department spent, not ¬1.75 million, but £300,000 in 1999 to install three small wind turbines on St. Helena to reduce electricity costs there. In an answer on 3 November, the Secretary of State for International Development said:

"Due to various technical problems, the turbines operated only Intermittently until October 2002. Since then, they have not been in operation at all." —[Official Report, 3 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 493W.]

So, £300,000 of taxpayers' money was spent on three small wind turbines that really did not work for long. According to the Secretary of State's figures, the fuel costs saved while the turbines were operational were far less than half the set-up costs. The British taxpayer has paid around £170,000 for a totally wasted operation. Furthermore, the Department's evaluation team has just left the island—it was there at the same time as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation. The further cost involved was £90,000. The team has yet to produce its report—I am sure that it will be compelling.

I contrast that situation with the competently installed American turbines on Ascension island, which were spinning round and creating electricity while we were there. The turbines are working well and producing considerable savings. Our Government provided the wrong sort of wind turbine in St. Helena. In Tenerife, there are wind farms with 40 or 50 turbines in groups, which were provided by EU money and which produce considerable energy savings. The money has come from structural funds. Why does not St. Helena have a wind turbine park such as the one in Tenerife, paid for by structural funds? Why do France and Spain get preference for their islands, while Britain does not? Why is what is good for the Canaries not good for St. Helena?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is creating a great deal of wind. He mentioned 1999, when the St. Helenians were not British citizens because of action taken by the Conservative Government in the 1980s. Will he acknowledge that the granting of citizenship to the St. Helenians means a great deal to them? I hope that he will credit the Labour Government with righting a wrong.

I am not going to spend my time arguing for or against the past, but I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman says. I am concerned about the present. I accept that the Act to which the hon. Gentleman referred has benefited individual St. Helenians, but it is disadvantageous to the island as a whole. I am not suggesting that we should go backwards; we must go forwards and put matters right in view of that Act. I do not, however, agree with his unparliamentary remark about wind.

The wind patterns in St. Helena are similar to those in the Canaries and Ascension island. All those islands are volcanic, and they have similar topography. It is strange that the French and Spanish have built tremendous energy-saving parks out of EU largesse, while the British taxpayer has had to pay for a failed experiment on St. Helena which has still not been put right. I hope that the Minister will answer this question: why cannot St. Helena have a good wind park with turbines to reduce electricity costs which is paid for by the EU rather than by the British taxpayer?

I gather from a note that I received from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office this morning that St. Helena is eligible for structural funds. Some ¬6.9 million was rolled over from European regional development fund 8, but the proposal for cliff stabilisation was not approved. The reason is not clear, although it may have stalled because it was wrongly ordered, which is another example of the Government getting the issue wrong. Now ¬8.6 million has been earmarked under ERDF9, and the St. Helenian Government are producing a single programming document. It is strange that while the French in Martinique and the Polynesian islands and the Spanish in the Canaries have obtained multi-million pound schemes, we are playing around for peanuts in St. Helena, where small sums have been spent on unsuccessful execution.

St. Helena is a volcanic island, and its wind pattern is similar to that of other such islands. It may be a little further away from Britain than they are from Spain or France, but it is not that much further away. Regardless of the past, the Minister has an opportunity to explain both the Government's commitment to St. Helena and his wish to visit it.

St. Helena is currently one of the most isolated places on the planet. As one approaches it after nearly a week at sea, one sees a mass of vertical black rock cliffs between 800 and 1,000 ft high encompassing the entire coastline and dropping sheer into the south Atlantic. The island is about 1,300 sea miles from Cape Town, more than 1,000 miles from Angola, the nearest mainland, and at least 700 miles from Ascension island, which is the next port of call.

I do not know whether you have had the good fortune to visit the island, Mr. Gale, but it is certainly worth a visit. The Portuguese discovered St. Helena in 1502. It was first settled by the East India Company in 1659 and taken over by the Crown in 1834. It is most famous for its renowned and involuntary guest Emperor Napoleon, who was imprisoned in Longwood house in 1815. Longwood house is now a beautifully preserved museum with many of the original artefacts that Napoleon used. Elba, from which Napoleon previously escaped, currently attracts 800,000 visitors a year, so Longwood house must have considerable potential.

For hundreds of years, St. Helena was a vital staging post for all ships needing water and provisions in the south Atlantic. The number of ships calling at the island peaked at 2,000 a year. The birth of the Suez canal greatly reduced the need for such facilities and, since the advent of air travel, St. Helena has been passed over physically and metaphorically. The island's only means of contact is the Royal Mail steamer, RMS St. Helena, which plies a route between Weymouth and St. Helena via the Canaries, where all the wind farms are, and the Ascension islands, where the Americans have their wind farms. It docks in Cape Town—I did not see any wind farms there.

St. Helena is currently more isolated than during the Napoleonic days. At the time of the most recent census in 1998, its population was 5,157. It is estimated that since the passing of the Act referred to by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), the population has declined by about 25 per cent. to 3,900. That is largely because that Act restored British citizenship to the Saints. Although they deserved to have that status restored, it has adversely affected various aspects of life on the island. The current estimated population compared with that of the 1998 census illustrates how serious the haemorrhaging has been. A 25 per cent. decrease in four years is considerable.

When we visited the island, we discovered that against the odds its institutions were impressive and that they provided hope. There are three tiers of schools: three first schools for children aged four to seven; two middle schools for ages seven to 11; and the Prince Andrew community high school for ages 11 to 18. Declining numbers of pupils and teachers has meant that one middle school is downsizing and the learning support centre for primary level pupils with extreme learning difficulties is in some trouble.

Teachers in St. Helena earn considerably less than cleaners in Ascension island, so, understandably, teachers are leaving in droves to wield mops. Since 2002, those with PGCEs and other recognised teaching qualifications have been able to come to Britain, where the drive for teachers means that they can earn 10 or 12 times as much as they can in St. Helena. The island's good education system is currently at risk. Will the Minister stand by with benign indifference to the islanders' plight while the decline continues as teachers abandon the island?

St. Helena remains one of the most remarkable time warps in the world. There is virtually no crime; people care for and consider each other; there is a strong sense of community; and everyone knows everyone else. Although they are rich spiritually and socially, the people are materially quite poor. In 1989–1990, St. Helena received £24 million from the Government. That figure has gone downhill ever since, and last year, grant aid was only £9.5 million.

The average wage is between £3,000 and £4,000 a year, so the island's survival is wholly dependent on the Government's modest stipend administered by the Governor, David Hollamby. He understands the island's problems and works closely with the island's Executive Council and Legislative Council, which greatly impressed me with their collective wisdom and common sense.

The Saints are proud people; they do not want handouts. They want to be like every other self-respecting people: independent and financially self-supporting. On the one hand, the Government keep them short of money; on the other hand, they are not given any opportunity to help themselves. The EU, which has provided billions of euros for the French and Spanish islands, has provided virtually nothing except hurdles and obstructions for the Saints.

One island product is its wonderful wild honey. I have a sample with me. When I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), what amount of wild honey has been imported over the past few years, he replied:

"No wild honey has been imported from St. Helena over the last five years. EU rules do not allow the export of wild honey from St. Helena to the European Union."—[Official Report, 5 November 2003: Vol. 412, c. 632W.]

However, St. Helena has a very strict bee ordinance. It is 700 miles away from any other land mass, so its beekeeping credentials are impeccable. I know about beekeeping because Buckfast abbey is in my constituency, and the monks' beekeeping record is second to none. In fact, the beekeeping credentials on St. Helena are considerably better than those in other EU countries. Not surprisingly, St. Helena's bees are free from disease, such as varoa, which has spread throughout the European bee population blighting the quality of honey.

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation:

"For a country to be eligible to export honey to the EU, it is essential for its name to be added to the EU's list of 'third countries' eligible to do so"—

a nice piece of bureaucracy. It continues:

"To achieve this, they need to show the administrative procedures—

more bureaucracy—

"are in place for the analysis of honey for residues of antibiotics, sulphonamides, pesticides and heavy metals."

They do not have any of those in St. Helena. The organisation also says:

"The laboratory used (which does not have to be within the country) has to satisfy EU accreditation legislation."

When a list of such "third countries", which had received provisional approval, was published on 1 January 2003, St. Helena was not there. Why was it not there? I believe that the reason is simple. St. Helenians do not have the laboratories and the beekeepers do not have the money to pay for the tests. As Leo's Pure Wild Honey states on its label, it is produced from contented bees in the flowering meadows of St. Helena, and Napoleon loved it, too. What better endorsement could there be? In contrast, honey from the Spanish islands of the Canaries has been through all the processes.

Order. I feel obliged to point out to the hon. Gentleman that hon. Members are not allowed to use props. In order to facilitate the debate, I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to treat his labels as notes, but that is on the understanding that he does not wave the bottles around.

You are so right, Mr. Gale. I was about to point out that the Canaries produce honey at about £6 a bottle. The St. Helenians can produce it at £2.50. One is very pure and delicious. The other tastes of heavy metals and the other things that one gets if one does not buy honey from St. Helena.

That is my point about honey, but what about Arabica coffee? I shall not wave a packet of Arabica coffee around—that would be quite inappropriate—but I brought one just in case you felt it would be appropriate to look at the label, Mr. Gale. Such coffee grows well in St. Helena. There is considerable potential for the industry to expand. Being a coffee buff, I can vouch for it as one of the best beans of its kind. Why is it that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs explained in response to my question of 5 November that imports to the UK of St. Helena coffee had fallen from 1.8 tonnes in 1998 to only 0.7 tonnes last year?

At a time when coffee houses are on every street corner, and exotic and special coffees are an obvious money-spinner, what are the Government doing to help to market and encourage the export of St. Helenian coffee? I wonder whether there are any incentives to help the St. Helena coffee growers, or are they caught by a procedure similar to the bee ordinance? The EU prevents honey from getting in; is it preventing coffee from coming in as well?

There cannot be a more distinctive or unique location than St. Helena. It is an exclusive one too. The problem is that St. Helena only manages to attract 1,000 tourists and 7,000 day visitors a year, and even those numbers are now dwindling. In 2000 the QE2 was forced to turn away as the sea was too rough to carry out the docking procedure; the same thing happened to the Crown Odyssey in 2001, and last year the MV Aurora and the QE2 were unable to dock. The simple reason for that is that there is no dock. There is no port, jetty or breakwater.

All embarkation and disembarkation of passengers in St. Helena entails transit by launch between the harbour steps at Jamestown and ships anchored a quarter to a half a mile offshore. To get from the ships offshore, one has to walk down the gangway on to a wooden platform secured to a launch. The problem is that with a swell, the gangway might be between eight and 10 ft off the platform, so passengers have to jump at the right moment, as the platform moves up. Passengers who jump at the wrong time could suffer injury. Because of the prevalence of civil actions for negligence, the captains of ships are understandably reluctant to allow passengers, who may not be very nimble, to embark on what could be a fateful journey. I am told that the fear of actions from passengers going down the gangplank and getting their timing wrong is the sole reason that the big passenger vessels do not stop at St. Helena.

A breakwater at Jamestown has been on the cards since the early 1990s. In 1998, the consulting engineers, Coode Blizard, produced a report on wharf development that was subsequently submitted to the Department for International Development in the form of a financial proposal by the St. Helena Government. The Government rejected the breakwater element of the proposal, for two reasons. First, it did not meet the DFID target of an economic internal rate of return of at least 8 per cent., so that ditched it. Secondly, the Government did not consider Coode Blizard's design for the breakwater to be sufficiently robust to make enough of a difference. Imagine the Spanish or French letting that happen in one of their little islands. They would not have it; they would push ahead for development and get the money from the EU, but our Government spend their time finding reasons why progress cannot be made there.

In answer to a parliamentary question, the Secretary of State for International Development, no less, said that

"the St. Helena authorities are including plans for wharf improvements and an investigation of alternative options for passenger landing arrangements at Jamestown. We shall be monitoring this proposed work very carefully"—

perhaps the Under-Secretary can say how carefully he is monitoring it—

"and will keep the matter under regular review."—[Official Report, 3 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 493W.]

When did the hon. Gentleman last review the matter? What is the state of play now? Has any progress been made?

The total loss of revenue to the island due to the loss of cruise ships has been devastating. It is estimated to be at least £250,000, and it is probably more. Due to the difficulties of landing, cruise liners have taken St. Helena off their itineraries altogether. No Cunard Line ship calls there now, and Cunard says that it is not about to start again because it cannot risk it.

The lack of transport connections is the major obstacle to economic revival. Someone who misses the RMS St. Helena may have to wait up to two months for the next ship; it is no good putting a hand out at the request stop, because no ship is there. One cannot go 1,300 miles in a speedboat from Cape Town, and one cannot go in a rowing boat from Ascension island, which is 700 miles north. Although a breakwater will help tourists from cruises, the only hope for better transport links is an airport, which has been talked about for years. The Department's offer of a contribution to the airport costs of up to £26.3 million is based on the lowest cost, at 1990 prices, of a replacement for RMS St. Helena, which will be pensioned off in seven years.

The proposed site for the airport is a black, wild, windswept and deserted piece of flat rock, which ends in a sheer drop of some 800 ft into the ocean. It is a desolate place; as far as one can see there are massive slabs of volcanic black rock and a few local birds, known as wire birds. In many ways it resembles Dartmoor in my constituency, but without marsh bog covering. There is no infrastructure nearby—no roads, no water, no electricity, nothing except wire birds. However, without the airport there is little future for St. Helena and its people.

The governor recognises the situation well. Last year's referendum confirmed that the people wanted an airport. With an airport, tourists will start to trickle in; I suspect that they will largely be French tourists wanting to see Longwood house, Napoleon's final home. I do not often pay tribute to the French Government, but I do so in this case for the quality with which they have preserved and conserved a national monument and its gardens. The curator's guided tour is compelling and will attract, if not the 800,000 people who go to Elba, a sizeable number. Tourism will bring job opportunities, new wealth creation, new hotels and new opportunities to sell local produce such as honey and coffee.

While I was in St. Helena, two EU officials were inspecting the hygiene at the fish processing plant. I have never seen so many officials in my life as when I was on St. Helena. Everyone who stopped in the street was another official checking things—no one was checking the bees, though. For years, the plant has provided fish for the Saints. That industry has flourished, even though there is a shortage of boats capable of fishing in the sandbanks a few hundred miles off the coast. Furthermore, without an extended market, there is insufficient consumer demand to merit additional investment in a more robust fleet.

Tesco, no less, recognises the potential of imports of canned fish from St. Helena; indeed, one can buy canned tuna from St. Helena from the shelves of most stores. It seems satisfied with the hygiene standards, but the EU is still carrying out inspections, even though I am told by the secretary of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association branch in St. Helena, Ms Ethel Yon—who organised our trip magnificently—that the last case of food poisoning was in 1994, when an elderly lady ate a partially cooked turkey. No other incidence of food poisoning has been recorded, although there is some speculation as to how Napoleon died.

Offshore fishing is probably one of St. Helena's biggest potential assets. It is the island's largest natural industry. Thanks to the sale of fishing licences for foreign vessels, it looked like a money-spinner. Revenues from those licences have plummeted, though. In answer to my question of 11 November regarding licence revenue in the last five years, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), said that in 1999 the total revenue was £614,000, but last year it was down to about £56,000. When I asked to what extent the Government provided air surveillance of St. Helena's 200-mile exclusive fishing zone to determine the number of fishing vessels fishing legally and illegally, that Minister answered:

"The Government do not provide any air surveillance of St. Helena's fishing zone."— [Official Report, 10 November 2003; Vol. 413, c. 42W.]

Both the Government and St. Helena are considering other methods to control illegal fishing, including the possibility of using satellite surveillance to identify individual vessels in the 200-mile zone. However, if there is no means of enforcing licences, it is no wonder that few see the point in buying one. I am glad to hear that the Government are looking into other means. Satellite surveillance sounds like a particularly good option, but it will not come cheap and I doubt that the Government will pay for it. Again, the fishing industry is in a Catch-22 situation.

As for the Government's attitude to the islanders, I expect this Minister to jump up and down, saying that the Government very much appreciate the loyalty and determination of the islanders. No doubt he will cite the fact that the island provided an entire regiment to fight in the second world war. Some of the survivors marched down Whitehall this year. An entire regiment from the population of St. Helena is proportionately a very large sacrifice. Why do the islanders not deserve the recognition that other Commonwealth countries receive?

The Saints are passionately loyal to Crown and country. It is fitting that visits have been made to St. Helena by George VI and the Queen. Visits were made by Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret in 1947, the Duke of Edinburgh in 1957, Prince Andrew in 1984 and the Princess Royal last November.

In contrast, despite St. Helena's being a British overseas territory, no Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers have ever been to St. Helena—they do not even know where it is. In answer to my question of 3 November, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Harlow, said:

"St. Helena has never had a visit by a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister. There are no current plans for an FCO ministerial visit to the island."—[Official Report, 3 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 400W.]

I therefore decided to ask this Minister, from DFID, about his visits to the island. I refer to his answer of 10 November:

"I have no plans at present to visit St. Helena, and St. Helena has never had a visit by a DFID Minister."—[Official Report, 10 November 2003; Vol. 413, c. 61W.]

What does one conclude from all that? One concludes that the issue is not important to the British Government. If I am wrong, this is an opportunity for the Minister to put the record straight, as I am not the only hon. Member who feels that the Saints have been treated rather shabbily.

The answer to the problem is simply to give the people the tools to enable them to help themselves. We should ensure that the airport and breakwater get built; the obstacles preventing exports to EU countries are overcome; the infrastructure is in place for tourists; and the wind turbines work and produce electricity savings. St. Helena is supposed to be one of the windiest places in the world, yet we cannot even get that right for the islanders. We also need to provide banking facilities, so that they can borrow money for home improvements, starting businesses and buying fishing vessels, as there are no banks there. The French, Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese do that for their offshore islands.

Why is our track record so bad? Our track record for overseas territories, if St. Helena is any example, is totally unimpressive. I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity to make it clear that the Government are wholly committed to making St. Helena a prosperous, happy and flourishing island. If he does, our visit will have been worth while.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), whose speech was interesting, although I cannot agree with everything that he said. That was characteristic of our recent enjoyable and extremely interesting visit to the island of St. Helena, and it is a reflection of how important Commonwealth Parliamentary Association visits can be—there were three hon. Members from three different parties, with very robust views that did not always coincide. I am sure that we learned an enormous amount from the visit.

I should also like to place on record our thanks to the delegation secretary, Sir Paul Jackson, who did an absolutely superb job on what I am sure was a difficult trip, because of the logistics of putting together a visit to such a remote part of the world. That sums up the island's whole problem. Its geography means that it experiences structural, economic difficulties and makes it very different from other nations' overseas territories and dependencies.

I want to address the island's geography in my short speech. I indicated that I do not share all the hon. Gentleman's views, and one view that I do not share is his overriding observation that St. Helena's problem is that all Governments—not just this one—have neglected the island and seemed disinterested. I concluded the opposite: St. Helena's problem is that there has been too much Government interference. The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the officials. I have never met so many officials from different Departments, including the Foreign Office, DFID, the Department for Education and Skills, and the EU. The island was full of people, all with good intentions, wanting to do good for St. Helena.

Governments are not very good at creating wealth, although they are very good at distributing it and at delivering public services. Indeed, 80 per cent. of those in St. Helena who are lucky enough to have a job work directly for the public sector, and most of the other 20 per cent. work indirectly for the public sector in one way or another. That is the problem that we must address. The hon. Gentleman is right to point to a number of important issues relating to small businesses on the island. We should encourage those businesses in any way that we can, and obstacles to them should be removed. However, it is my view—based not only on my visit to St. Helena but on general experience—that that would not solve structural problems.

I have some experience in economic development and regeneration and in the attraction of inward investment in my home country of Wales, which has suffered enormous structural problems in the last two or three decades with massive capital restructuring and the decline of the traditional heavy industries such as coal and metal. Over 80 per cent. of the population were employed in those industries, which disappeared over a short period. In a sense, there is a parallel with St. Helena; despite its remote location, the island was the centre of the world because it was, for a long time, one of the most important refuelling stations in the world.

There is an historical link between St. Helena and my constituency and the ports of Barry and Cardiff in south Wales, not only because the RMS St. Helena docked at Cardiff until recently, but because for many decades we provided the coal for the refuelling station that was visited by ships from all over the world. The island was a vital strategic location, which meant that the East India Company and other private companies profited by having a link with and visiting the island. Most of the wealth—[Interruption.]

Order. There is a Division on the Floor of the House. The sitting will resume in 15 minutes.

The Division is off, but I understand that another is imminent. [Interruption.] The 15 minutes for this Division will start from 2.36 pm

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. You indicated that there would be a 15-minute suspension, but before that we were waiting for at least three minutes. I hope that the benefit of that will also be extended to the debate.

The delay was two minutes and that has been taken into account.

I assure you, Mr. Gale, that that will not encourage me to speak at unnecessary length. I agree with many of the points that have been made about some of the smaller industries, but I differ slightly about what the big problem is. The big problem is too much Government interference and the need for the major restructuring to make the island a success. However, I am sure that all three of us who visited St. Helena would agree that the one thing that is vital for its future is an airport.

In short, if we are having a debate on the future of St. Helena we should have a debate on the airport proposals. We must ensure that they not only succeed but succeed quickly and that DFID makes an early decision on the favoured bidders for the initial proposals. For goodness' sake let us get on with it. I mentioned my experience in these matters; I fear that if we fail to act quickly in this area we will miss an opportunity.

I said earlier that the private sector will solve the problems of these islands; if it does not, they will not be solved at all. It will not be enough for the Government simply to go in and build an airport. The Department has it absolutely right when it calls for a much broader set of proposals based not just on the construction of an airfield, but on the provision of an air operator and a sustainable economy, built round the airport and based on tourism. The hon. Member for Totnes quite rightly referred to the tourist potential. That is the biggest potential of all and the one on which the Government should focus.

I am sceptical when I hear grand ideas about how, if Governments build this and that, all of a sudden the future will be transformed. The experience on some of the projects mentioned, such as windmills, and others shows that that tends not to work. Indeed, the diesel-generated power station is a bit of a disaster in itself. I therefore took an interest in these proposals. It is not my intention to express a preference for any one of them. It is for the Government to decide and to use the existing rules on competition to do so.

I thought it was important, however, to establish whether those bids were serious. By coincidence, one of them involves two major companies located in or near my constituency. I made a point of making contact with them, not to give them favourable access in consideration of their bids, but to find out whether they were serious. I wanted to ensure that we were not talking about a company bidding for the airport, rushing in, pouring lots of concrete and then rushing out again, leaving the islanders with an airport that was never used, or not used enough, which would end up requiring an even greater subsidy from the British Government. I am delighted to be able to say that at least one of the bids is extremely serious, and it involves an air operator with a track record and some of the world's best specialists in construction and in the provision of sustainable economies.

One air operator that has expressed an interest is TBI, which is based in Wales. It runs the airport in my constituency and has a wide portfolio of successful airports throughout the world. I am not saying that it should undertake this project, but it is the sort of company that should be involved, because it delivers on air services. A company with such a worldwide reputation would not become involved in a project unless it was likely to succeed.

Similarly, Ove Arup, which is involved in at least one of the bids, has its international office in Cardiff. I recently met with Mr. Steven Luke, not to indicate any preference towards that bidder rather than another, but to find out whether the bid was serious, and I am delighted to say that it most definitely is. Ove Arup has some of the best experts in the world, who have visited the site and assessed its potential, with regard not only to the construction of the airport and the civil engineering involved, but to the operation of the airport and the development of a viable large commercial hotel that would attract the low-volume, high value-added tourism that the island needs. The company has done its homework—it is not just using business-speak or Government-speak.

This project can be successful, and the only criterion to which I should draw attention—I am sure that my colleagues who accompanied me on the visit agree—is that there should not be any unnecessary delay in considering the bids that are now before the Government, because that would put off the sort of high-quality contractors that are interested.

We must solve the geographical problem: access to the rest of the world. If there were a direct flight to Paris, that would attract the rich French tourists who want to come and see where Napoleon spent his last few days and died in somewhat questionable circumstances—I am sure that those will be debated for another 100 years or so. We have been there, and it is worth seeing.

The future of St. Helena is the airport, the airport, the airport, and a decision on it must be made quickly. I know that there is a risk, and that the Government must consult widely. Moreover, the Saints must be encouraged to share the ownership of the project. As someone with some experience in this field, I advise the Government to tread carefully because, when we were on the island, we heard concerns expressed about the "threat" that large-scale investment, especially that based on foreign tourism, could present to the islanders' cultural values and heritage. Coming from Wales, where we have similar problems, and the associated problem of language, I know that people from small communities are sometimes fearful of that type of investment, but in fact its effect is often the opposite of what is feared.

The biggest challenge facing the island is depopulation. If it continues at its current rate, only the elderly and young will be left on the island, and that will make the provision of a sustainable economy impossible. My colleagues and I were immensely impressed with the skills, talent and ability of the young people. We all regularly visit schools in our constituencies, but when we visited Prince Andrew school, I was astounded and impressed by the ability and latent talent of the young people. The future of the island depends on exploiting those talents. The only way to do that is through investment, and the only way to attract investment is through the construction of the airport. The honey was delicious—I refuse to say, on the grounds that it may incriminate me, whether I brought any home—but it is not the solution to the island's problems. The solution for the future of St. Helena, and this is my one plea to the Minister, is to get on with that construction project. It can work and it will work, as long as we do it in good time.

Order. It may be convenient to tell hon. Members that, if there are no further Divisions in the House, the debate is scheduled to finish at 3.47 pm. Three Front-Bench spokesmen have suggested that they want 10 minutes each to wind up. I shall therefore call the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) at about 3.17 pm. Two hon. Members who are not on the Front Bench wish to speak, and if they pay attention to the fact that 15 minutes remain, they will both be called.

Thank you, Mr. Gale, for allowing me to make a brief contribution. I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and commending him for raising the issue of St. Helena.

It is vital not to forget that we, as Members of Parliament, represent not only people on the UK mainland, but British citizens living overseas. It is sad that the Minister replying today represents the Department for International Development, because St. Helena is British; it is not a foreign territory. St. Helena, and all remaining British overseas territories, should be treated as we would expect our constituents to be treated, so this debate is vital. During business questions last week, I suggested that we should debate issues relating to overseas territories more regularly. There is no annual debate on overseas territories but there should be.

Today we have the opportunity to focus on St. Helena, a territory I have not had the privilege to visit, although I hope some day to have that opportunity, and I have visited several other British overseas territories. However, having spoken to many people from St. Helena, including Calvin Thomas, who is one of our distinguished doormen in the House of Commons, I know how proud they are of being British. They want to feel like they are part of our country, just like every one of us and each of our constituents.

The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), who has since left the Chamber, stated that the people of St. Helena were granted British citizenship only in 2002. That is correct, but it does not devalue the fact that those people were British subjects long before then. St. Helena remains a British territory. It seeks not independence or greater autonomy, but the opportunity to make its own decisions and govern itself. British Governments of all parties have let down the people of St. Helena. How can it be right that the people of that wonderful territory do not have access to an airport and are treated as second-best British subjects?

Is my hon. Friend aware that if a St. Helenian wants to study at a university in Britain, he pays between eight and 10 times more than a British subject from the UK? He also pays substantially more than some students coming from Europe. Does that make sense?

That makes no sense to me at all. As Members of Parliament, our job is to ensure that all British people are treated in the same way and given the same opportunities, and it is disgraceful that someone from St. Helena is not given the same opportunities as our constituents.

My hon. Friend referred on several occasions to the attitude of France, the Netherlands and Spain towards their overseas territories, which is different from the attitude that our Foreign Office has adopted over the years. I am afraid to say that I suspect that the Foreign Office has long hoped that our overseas territories would seek independence or join another country. I hope that that does not happen, as the remaining territories want to, and should, remain British. We should encourage them, and we should value and cherish the overseas territories that we have.

I want to commend the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who chairs the all-party group on St. Helena, of which I am proud to be a member. I hope that more prominence is given to the needs of St. Helena and that the British Government will ensure that the EU does not impose restrictions on our overseas territories without giving them the advantages that the overseas territories of other European countries are given. I accept that St. Helena is not part of the EU, so how can it be right that restrictions and regulations are imposed on it? I know that the same is true for other overseas territories. The Falkland Islands have had similar restrictions imposed on them while receiving no benefit—how can that possibly be justified?

I endorse everything that has been said about the need to push ahead with the development of the airport. St. Helena is a honeypot for the future, which we should encourage to develop in tourism and trade. We should give it the advantages that it needs to be self-sufficient while retaining its unique British status.

I hope that the Minister will consider one important point that has not been mentioned—democracy. The people of St. Helena are British, like us, but they have no vote in British elections. They cannot send a representative, or even part of a representative, to this place. How can it be right that we can debate, make laws for and effectively decide the future of that territory, when its people have no vote or say in how this place is elected? That cannot be right in democratic terms, and it is not how France, Spain, the Netherlands and Denmark treat their overseas territories, all of which have votes in elections to their Parliaments.

Our system is undemocratic and wrong, and I hope that that and all the other valid points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes and other hon. Members will be taken into account and that the Foreign Office will change its attitude. I hope that St. Helena will remain British, like Gibraltar, in perpetuity.

I apologise to you, Mr. Gale, and to the Chamber for not being here at the commencement of this debate. I was in the House presenting a ten-minute Bill.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing the debate and I thank the hon. Members who have spoken, in particular the three Members who have recently returned from St. Helena, an island that I had the great pleasure of visiting four years ago on the previous Commonwealth Parliamentary Association visit. By all accounts, the economic situation on the island has deteriorated in that time, and the population has fallen, arguably to below break-even point. Clearly, something has to be done.

The airfield is a vital—if not the most vital—aspect. However, there is more to the matter than that, because by my reckoning more citizens of St. Helena now live off the island than live on it. Get-up-and-go people are getting up and going, and one reason is that, given the education on the island, if a youngster is to progress through higher or further education, it is in the family's interest to move away to the United Kingdom.

Families establish residence here to qualify for an education system that is currently denied them, although, ironically—and I am sure that Napoleon would have been amused by this—a young man or woman from France can attend university in the United Kingdom for a fraction of what it costs a young person from the island of St. Helena, who is British. There is a difference between this country's treatment of its citizens who live on St. Helena and its treatment of those who live on the mainland of the United Kingdom.

It is not as if St. Helena is a rich country. It is not a third world country, but per capita income is considerably lower than in this country. I should explain that my interest in the island involves an extraordinary coincidence, in that the patron saint of Colchester is St. Helena. The spelling is the same, but the pronunciation is different. My wife and I and our three children all attended St. Helena school. That fact and a couple of constituents with connections with St. Helena are the reason for my keen interest in the island and its future.

We have a historical obligation to the people of St. Helena because the island played an integral part in sustaining empire for between 200 and 400 years. We have an obligation to the citizens who live there; I hope that we can create an economic climate such that some of those who have left will feel that they can return, and those already living there will be able to remain. I commend all that has been done. I suspect that per head of population the island of St. Helena has more spokespersons in this House than any other part of the Commonwealth or, indeed, the United Kingdom.

Something has to be done. We treat children differently if they come from St. Helena, but interestingly we are more than happy as a nation to recruit young people from St. Helena into Her Majesty's armed forces. There are more Saints per head of population serving in the British Army—about 50 young men and women from a population of fewer than 4,000 people—than there are from any other part of this country. If that sort of recruitment could be replicated across the UK, we would not have a shortfall in the Army.

This has been a welcome debate. I hope for some encouraging answers from the Minister. He is relatively new to his post, so he is not saddled with the baggage of those who have gone before. Four years ago, the new airport was on the agenda and a decision was imminent. Four years later, it is on the agenda and a decision is imminent. The best thing that I can suggest to the Minister is to tell us that the airfield is progressing. If he cannot give that assurance today, I recommend that he make an early visit to St. Helena. He would then make history; he would be the first Minister of any generation ever to visit the island. Royalty has been there, but no Minister has.

It is a great pleasure to speak after the hon. Members for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), who were interesting and enthusiastic travelling companions—as, indeed, are you, Mr. Gale.

In the last 25 years the British taxpayer has spent £250 million—a quarter of a billion pounds—on St. Helena, without the island becoming remotely financially self-sufficient. We have heard that the population of the island is declining rapidly. There were 5,000 people on the island 18 months ago. When we were there last month, the population was 3,800. It has lost almost a quarter of its population in 18 months. Something is seriously wrong, and something needs to be done. St. Helena has lost its raison d'être, to use an expression that Napoleon might have used. The island used to be a great strategic asset to the East India Company and the British Crown as a provisioning point for naval and merchant ships. That has gone now, and the island has become a supplier of migrant labour to Ascension island, the Falkland Islands and the UK.

I should declare a constituency interest. St. Helena has enjoyed an education link for several decades with Cheltenham's colleges of higher education, which now form the university of Gloucestershire. Professor Tony Charlton, head of the link programme, sent me an e-mail at the weekend to say:

"Without sufficient numbers of well qualified teachers (in appropriate subject areas&) then education on St. Helena will fail to meet the diverse needs and aspirations of pupils and young students (and their parents). Similarly, even access to the best educational opportunities will fail unless the students' potentials are matched to local (and other) demands for employment. Employment has been one of the major concerns on the island for decades. If you take into account the large number in government employment, then few islanders are gainfully employed."

He continued:

"The island's most pressing needs are for: well trained teachers given attractive financial incentives to train and then remain on the island (&also&other professionals such as nurses, police, social services personnel); meaningful—and productive—employment opportunities especially for the young; a commercial, trading and training infrastructure so that the island can not only become less financially dependent upon the UK but will also be able to generate monies to help attract islanders to remain on island; improved transport to and from the island, for islanders, traders and tourists; and an improved communication infrastructure (e.g. electronic communication facilities) so islanders can access world-wide information."

Before I went to St. Helena, I sought out Saints in my constituency. Several of them came to see me. Most of them came to train in the UK as teachers; most did not return to St. Helena. Although we are delighted that they have made their homes here, they point to and underline the main problem of St. Helena, which is population loss.

The need for air access to St. Helena has been discussed for decades. It simply is not sustainable in the modern world to rely on a single ship, the RMS St. Helena, plying its way up and down the Atlantic ocean, making occasional calls at St. Helena with fresh supplies, islanders returning for, perhaps from holiday, and a few tourists. Air access is vital. To underline what the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan said, airport, airport, airport—those are our three priorities.

The Government have set aside £26.3 million. The island's people, including Members of the Legislative Council, believe that that is a firm commitment. I want an assurance from the Minister that it is, because the Government do not seem to have made the final commitment to providing air access. A study of the four bidders is under way; hopefully, that will soon be concluded. We want a statement from the Government that there will be air access to the island.

I want to question the sum of £26.3 million. That is apparently the likely cost of replacing RMS St. Helena at 1990 prices. What kind of economic basis is that for making international development decisions? The actual cost of RMS St. Helena was £33 million, as it overran its initial estimate of £19 million. The airport will certainly cost more than £26.3 million. I would like the Government to revisit those numbers. I do not want them to take the £26.3 million away; I want the figure nailed down and, if necessary, given to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) for safekeeping. It is important that the airport goes ahead.

The RMS St. Helena requires an annual subsidy of £1.5 million, which is set to increase. As evidenced in places such as the Scottish islands, airports, particularly small ones, require subsidies to support them. St. Helena is no different. The airport will require a subsidy, which will eventually be provided by the St. Helena Government when the economy picks up. The current subsidy for the RMS, or something like it, will need to continue in the early days of the airport. Do the Government propose to subsidise the airport in the early years?

We have heard about ship access. I have some video footage—for sale at an enormous price—of the hon. Member for Totnes descending from the RMS St. Helena on to a barge. There was an extraordinary swell, but he made a very good fist of it; it was a good landing. Even when there is an airport, the island will require ships to carry freight. Better provision, such as a deep-water jetty or wharf, is needed for landing freight and passengers. We have heard that cruise liners could not send passengers to the island last year because of the choppy water. Not for the first time, the island lost a considerable amount of income because of that. Is there a Government commitment to contribute to the building of a deep-water jetty or wharf?

With air access, there is a good prospect of attracting greater numbers of tourists to St. Helena. We have heard about Longwood house, where Napoleon died. Fans of Napoleon would be showing dereliction of duty if they did not visit Longwood. The museum on Elba attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors—

Eight hundred thousand.

As we have heard, it attracts 800,000 visitors a year. Longwood has far more authentic artefacts to offer. I do not suggest that St. Helena needs hundreds of thousands of visitors, but many would come if transport links were improved. People would visit St. Helena for the sea. The island has no beaches, but does have fishing and scuba diving. Sea lovers would find a host of attractions, including a wide range of sea life and numerous wrecks, which offer a fascinating opportunity for divers. However, it may be necessary to introduce measures to ensure that those wrecks are not stripped of anything valuable.

As far as eco-tourism is concerned, many of the endemic species have died out, but some have survived, such as the wire bird—a long-legged plover, which we have seen—and the gumwood tree. The St. Helena National Trust's efforts to plant their millennium forest deserve to be applauded and supported. The forest is to include a section named the Colchester plantation, which will be devoted to the gumwood. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester has raised more than £500 for that, some of which was from me.

Eco-tourists might like to visit the phenomenon that is Jonathan the tortoise at Plantation house. He is almost 200 years old, is reputed to be the only living creature to have met Napoleon, and has a harem of five large lady tortoises. They are all thought to have come from Mauritius. It is believed that the island may cease to exist when Jonathan passes away. I hope that that will not be the case.

I was surprised to find so little agricultural or horticultural activity on the island, as it must be possible to grow vegetables or keep chickens there. Besides providing a fresh source of food, island-produced vegetables and chicken would reduce the need to import food from South Africa, and they would be something to offer to the visitors that the island hopes to attract.

One health problem on the island that was brought to my attention was the high incidence of hypertension. As someone who suffered a heart attack a year ago, I readily sympathise. My doctor tells me to eat five portions of fresh fruit a day, and I suspect that one of the reasons for the hypertension epidemic on St. Helena is the lack of fresh food. Tinned vegetables on display in shops contain a lot of salt, which is a major cause of hypertension. Growing more fruit and vegetables on the island would help to solve that problem.

The health system on the island is generally excellent. There is a well equipped cottage hospital and four doctors who can cope with most operations and run Government clinics. I had a titanium stent inserted into a coronary artery following a heart attack last year, and I was interested and comforted to he told that the procedure could have been carried out on St. Helena. However, if a medical emergency occurs for which the hospital is not equipped, there is no air ambulance to take the patient speedily to South Africa or the UK. On such occasions, the islanders become acutely aware of their isolation and the need for an airport.

We have heard little about the plan for a new constitution, which is provoking much thought and discussion. There is a disagreement between the island's Legislative Council, which wants a three-tier system of government, and the Minister, who wants a two-tier system. The only advice that I can give the Minister is that if the islanders get the system that they want, they are far more likely to make a success of it than if something is imposed on them from London. Members of the Legislative Council raised a range of issues with us, including the infrastructure, the wind turbines, illegal fishing—they really do want their 200-mile limit to be patrolled properly—and the EU regulations regarding illegally imported honey, which were mentioned. They also want a ministerial visit.

What struck me as the RMS St. Helena chugged gently towards the island is just how far it is from anywhere else. For somewhere this remote to have survived into the 21st century, with the sea as the only access, is a tribute to those who decided to stay. However, the shrinking population is a threat to a viable future. If the much discussed airport and wharf are built in the next few years, a more prosperous, albeit changed, future for this distant outpost of the Commonwealth should be secured. Without significant, dramatic and urgent change, including air access, Her Majesty's Government will be faced with another bill of £250 million, if not more, in the next 25 years.

It is a pleasure to take part in this important debate on St. Helena. I congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on securing the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on his able and vivid speech about the issues. I was extremely interested to hear the first-hand accounts of three colleagues who visited St. Helena only a few weeks ago. Over the years, we have all learned that there is no substitute for seeing a place in the raw in order to learn about it. I have just returned from North Korea—an isolated country. It will be interesting to talk about another country that is isolated only for the completely different reason of geography, not for reasons of politics or demography.

I have abandoned my set speech, as I do not want to go over ground that has already been well trodden, and I want to give the Minister as much time as possible to reply to the several points that have been made. I shall row in behind some of those points. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes, in his usual vivid and interesting style, asked several interesting questions, one of which is of particular concern to me: windmills and the Government's injection of capital into a project that seems to have failed. I hope that the Minister will tell us what went wrong, what he intends to do to put it right and in what time scale. I come from a part of the world—Devon and Cornwall—where there are many windmills that seem to work extremely well, much to the irritation of local people. I wonder why this project has failed.

Hon. Members also talked about the treatment of St. Helena compared with the overseas territories of other EU countries, especially in relation to access to EU structural funds. I hope that the Minister will tell us what rules apply to St. Helena in that regard and why funds have not been made available in recent years.

We also heard about the costs of accessing education in the United Kingdom, which seem to defy logic. I appreciate that that is not entirely within the Minister's remit, but in preparing for the debate I read that he had been made aware of the issue some time ago and that he would look into it. Can he tell us today why students from St. Helena have to pay the top rates to gain access to our institutions of further education, and much more than UK and EU students?

Finally, we have heard much about the airport. It is obvious that the airport is critical, and I shall return to the matter after I have made four points, which I hope will take the debate forward.

First, I agree with the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) about changes to the strategic position of the island. Once upon a time, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) said, it was almost in the centre of things. Ships had to pass the island, and it was a strategic refuelling stop, so people had a reason for going there. Such changes happen not only to islands and countries; they can happen even to towns. Market towns that have no market may start to struggle, and a coal mining town that no longer has a coal mine will certainly start to struggle. Places like that need to find a new, strategic raison d'être. That is what the island has been trying to do.

One does not need to be a genius to work out that tourism is obviously an important part of the island's future, but one cannot do tourism in today's high-flying, mass-communications age without an airport. How many people have the time to sit on a ship for a week, travelling from Europe to St. Helena, enjoy a week's holiday and then spend another week on the ship going back? That is not a viable way to run a tourism industry. The issue seems to come down to the island having an airport.

Secondly, it is absolutely fundamental that the Government are responsible for infrastructure. We know that a capital project of that kind could not possibly be achieved by the island itself. The Government clearly have a responsibility for it. I do not propose a love-in with the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan, but I agree with him that it is a question not of there being more government but of the Government doing the right thing.

The Government should provide the infrastructure, even if it is the enhanced port and docking facilities that were so graphically described by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes. I shall probably dream tonight of his legs waving around in the breeze as he tries to jump from a gangway on to the shore or on to a ship—it is a vivid impression. If the Government can move forward on proposals for the airport and the upgrading of the docking facilities, I am sure that the islanders will find the energy and enterprise to do the rest. I have read some of their websites recently, and it seems that they are not short of innovation and energy; they will provide the facilities to make the project work and come up with ways to attract tourists.

We have heard about Longwood house and Napoleon. We are all fascinated with that remarkable character, and that fascination will not go away. All tourist industries need a focal point; and the island has not only that but a beautiful climate. With the right sort of airport, it could become self-sufficient over a number of years if people focus on tourism. It is important that the Government deliver on that.

Thirdly, why has there been such delay? The issue has been raised many times in the House. I do not point the finger at the Minister, who is relatively new to his post; it is not his fault. However, the Government have taken an awfully long time deciding whether to back an airport proposal. For some time, it seemed that they were calculating whether it might be better to pump money into a new ship rather than an airport, but the advantages of an airport over a new ship cannot be compared.

The subject was raised in a debate in the House in 1997. It was explored again by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) in 2001, and it has been raised several times since. Each time the Government were pressed for a decision. Will the Minister say what has happened? How far forward are we in reviewing the bids that have apparently come in? What is the time scale for the start and completion of the project? We need definitive answers.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) said how sad he was that DFID should be dealing with one of our overseas territories. I wonder whether it is the right Department to oversee such a massive infrastructure project. Would it not be better, for example, if the Department for Trade and Industry were to be in charge of such a project? I am not saying anything negative about the Minister, but I wonder whether the Government's thinking is right. Was the transfer of responsibility for overseas territories from the Foreign Office to DFID a few years ago a step in the right direction, and did it affect our thinking about overseas territories? We do not want St. Helena to have handouts for ever and a day; we want to build self-sufficiency and give the islanders what they need.

The Government have often said that they want to make the island self-sufficient. That is clearly the right policy, but it has not yet happened and we have heard some alarming tales about population loss and a struggling economy. It has been obvious for many years that an airport is the main infrastructure project necessary to turn the island around, but it has been subject to dither and delay with the result that the island's economy is struggling. We look to the Minister today to give the residents of St. Helena some much-needed hope.

I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing this debate. He was, as ever, characteristically robust in his approach, but he was misguided in his conclusion that the Government are neglecting St. Helena. I completely reject that conclusion, but I welcome the opportunity to set out in more detail what the Government have been doing for the island. There is considerable interest in the House about St. Helena, and during oral questions in October I gave the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) the opportunity to come and have a longer conversation with me. I was toying with ways of offering other hon. Members the opportunity to consider the issues facing St. Helena and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for helping me out.

We heard an excellent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) and an interesting insight from my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), as well as interesting speeches from the hon. Members for Colchester, for Romford (Mr. Rosindell), for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) and for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter).

St. Helena is one of the most isolated of our overseas territories, being equidistant in the south Atlantic ocean between the coasts of Africa and south America. St. Helenians are a proud people and I am privileged to have responsibility for the development issues facing them. I feel somewhat hurt that the hon. Member for South-West Devon might be seeking to take responsibility for St. Helena from my Department just as I am enjoying getting to grips with the issues facing it.

Many hon. Members rightly touched on the innovative spirit, skills and talents of the people of St. Helena. I have not been to the island, nor, as the hon. Member for Totnes said, do I have any immediate plans to do so, but I have been very lucky to have had two full and helpful discussions in London with visiting representatives from the island's Executive and Legislative Councils. I had the pleasure of meeting Councillor Eric George, a senior member of the island's Council, on both occasions. He was accompanied on the first occasion by Mr. John Newman, the Speaker of the island's elected Assembly, and on the second occasion by Councillor Eric Benjamin, another Member with long experience in the Assembly.

On both occasions, we discussed the challenges and constraints of the island's economic development. We reviewed progress towards the development of air access and reflected on the implications of the recent decline in the island's population. We considered the prospects for privatisation of some Government services to free up additional resources and examined the need for further assistance to help with the implementation of a proposed move towards a ministerial system of government, to which the hon. Member for Cheltenham referred. I look forward to further discussions on those and other issues with two other councillors who will be visiting London next month for the overseas territories consultative council.

Hon. Members are right to draw attention to St. Helena's difficult economic background. Indeed, over some five centuries St. Helena's economic fortunes have endured what can only be described as a roller-coaster ride. The real low point came in 1976 when Union-Castle Lines ceased the regular service between Southampton and Cape Town which had maintained St Helena's essential physical access to the outside world for decades.

As the island had no airport, the Labour Government stepped in to ensure that access was maintained, and the Conservative Government who followed rightly continued that. Ever since we have provided St. Helena with a cash subsidy of over £1 million a year to support regular calls by a dedicated passenger and cargo vessel. The present one was purpose-built for St Helena's needs in 1989 at a cost to the Government of some £32 million. It would have been cheaper but for the fact that the company making the vessel went into receivership in the middle of the process. The vessel will reach the end of its economic life by about the end of this decade, and we will have to look at the situation then.

The new ship, which was launched in 1990, represents just part of the Government's consistent and unflagging commitment to St. Helena over the past 30 to 40 years. Our contribution since 1997 alone, when DFID was established, amounts to over £50 million. In addition, during the current financial year, we expect to spend over £10.5 million on a combination of budgetary and technical assistance support for the island community. We have given the St. Helena Government assurances on a number of occasions that our support will continue for as long as it is reasonably required.

We are about to start negotiating a new three-year aid package with the St. Helena Government. It will take full account of their strategic development planning. St. Helenians potentially have access not only to British Government funds but to the European regional development fund. Some £9.5 million has been set aside through to 2007, and that has been earmarked by the St. Helena Government for wharf improvements, rock stabilisation on the wharf and possibly improvements in landing arrangements. I will come on to that in a little more detail shortly.

Our shared goal for St Helena, as it is for other overseas territories that still require our support, is to try to achieve sustainable economic and financial self-sufficiency for the island as soon as possible. In an increasingly competitive global world, however, we recognise that this will remain a major challenge for such a small, isolated island that has a declining population.

Like the St. Helena Government and hon. Members, we remain concerned about the decline in the island's population. St. Helena cannot continue to lose its people at the current rate, even if some have every intention of returning either on retirement or at some future point in their career. We are working closely with the island authorities to find ways of encouraging more Saints to stay on or to return to their island.

What point must the population reach for the island no longer to be economic? Has the Department even considered the possibility of a total depopulation of the island of St. Helena as a cheaper option?

No, we have not. It would be entirely wrong for us to do so. We should concentrate our efforts on what we can do to encourage people from St. Helena to stay on the island. With that in mind, and with the support of the St. Helena Government, we are considering advertising some key posts on enhanced remuneration terms to make them more attractive to St. Helenians. I am thinking, for example, of the post of financial secretary and the post of head of Prince Andrew school.

Hon. Members have rightly identified air access as the key issue. As the hon. Member for South-West Devon said, the issue has been around for some time. One company submitted proposals to us for establishing air access. We considered them in detail and did not feel that the proposition stacked up at that point. As hon. Members will know from written answers that I have given, in April we launched an international competition to attract further interest in the idea of establishing air access. We have made it clear that the advances in air transport technology make an airport on the island a real possibility, thus opening up much greater opportunities for tourism. The competition has received four expressions of interest, which are being evaluated. We expect to receive the evaluation and share it with the St. Helena Government on 17 December. We will then have to consider its results in detail. I understand the point about the need to progress as quickly as possible. Clearly, we will keep the House informed about what we can do.

If air access can be developed, it will be some time before it comes on stream. We are assisting the St. Helena Government with an important review of the existing scheduling and routing of the RMS St. Helena to try to achieve more time for it in the south Atlantic waters, perhaps with more regular and more frequent calls to St. Helena. Further decisions on that are needed. We are looking again at the issue of the breakwater, which a number of hon. Members have raised and which the St. Helena Government continue to press with us. The hon. Member for Totnes, in particular, raised a number of other issues. I will write to him in detail with the answers.

I have to confess that I am not a great fan of this Chamber, but one of its advantages is that one sees Ministers whom one has never set eyes on before. I am delighted that that does not apply to the Minister who will reply to this debate, with whom I debated some aspects of travellers on the Floor of the House on Monday evening. I am pleased to have this opportunity. I understand that some hon. Members apply for debates in this Chamber and get them willy-nilly. I have been applying for weeks for an hour-and-a-half or a half-hour slot. The debate could easily have lasted for an hour and a half, but I am grateful for the opportunity that I have got.

I have been fortunate enough to be the Member of Parliament for South-East Cambridgeshire for 16 and a half years. Throughout that time, travellers have been one of the most crucial issues. For centuries, Cambridgeshire has attracted travellers, and it goes back to the days when it was one of the leading fruit-growing and vegetable-growing counties in the country and large numbers of casual workers were needed. Interestingly, having just secured the debate, I received from the National Farmers Union a document that it has entitled, "Britain's Rural Outlaws"—I stress that the title is the NFU's. The document underlines some of the problems faced by my constituents and many other country people and rural dwellers throughout Britain. It states:

"Nearly 80 per cent. of farmers questioned by the NFU have suffered at the hands of these 'rural outlaws' over the past five years with the estimated cost to the industry a massive £100 million per year."

It continues:

"Over 20 per cent. reported that they have been the victim of physical threats, over half have had farm equipment stolen and nearly 10 per cent. have had their livestock injured."

The NFU extrapolated those results and applied them to the 270,000 farmers in England and Wales, estimating that the total cost to the rural community of unauthorised travellers could be as high as £98.8 million, nearly £100 million per annum.

The residents association of an area in my constituency called Smithy Fen, just outside the village of Cottenham, carefully listed for me some of the problems that residents have suffered in the past few weeks. It referred to

"Noise: we suffer daily, and particularly from 9.00pm through the early hours of the following morning, the blasting of car/van horns accompanied by loud music on an almost incessant basis."

It then listed

"Obstruction by day and night: cars/vans 'patrol' the area, half a dozen or more at a time, and when it suits they double/triple park thereby obstructing the single track droves,"

which are a feature of the fenland area,

"Speeding: the Fen Droves are narrow and straight. Once farm traffic has ceased for the day the speedsters are out…50, 60, 70mph bursts from Porsches, Mercedes, BMWs…etc. Drove junctions, farmers' storage pads, private driveways are used as skidpans for hand-brake turns…daily occurrences.

Stoning: of cars and tractors.

Bullying: the school bus is no longer safe for residents' children"

and, finally, there was abuse of animals. The residents association said:

"The level of intimidation is such that it is no longer safe to walk the Fen."

Those are not one person's complaints but a document produced and signed by a large number of my constituents who live in the area.

A letter from an individual constituent who has lived in the area for a long time brings a sense of proportion to the issue. We are not talking about scaremongering, or, as is occasionally suggested, intolerance towards those who live another lifestyle. My constituent states:

"Travellers have been on the Fen for forty years or so and there are thirty-three officially approved sites. Not always 'angels'; they fly-tipped, burned-out the odd car, were guilty of some littering, and were not averse to fights and general disturbance, but they largely policed themselves or were properly policed at the appropriate times. In the past they have been guilty of certain breaches of planning…but such breaches were identified and, from memory, quickly remedied. In short, the authorities seemed to have control and such afforded a generally peaceful and mutually respectful co-existence. Earlier this year a large number of Irish travellers arrived…many of the 'olde English' were intimidated into departure, this time the breach was to status quo and as a consequence since the arrivals, and on-going as I write, we endure…littering…roadside damage…noise…joyriding'".

Those are all the issues to which I have just referred.

I stress that I do not seek to brand the large numbers of people who live a travelling lifestyle as criminal or antisocial or suggest that they engage in such behaviour. They are entitled to live that lifestyle. They have their own law and rules by which they abide and, as my constituent said, people have learned to co-exist with them.

However, my constituents expect travellers to abide by the same rules, and the same criminal, planning and other legislation as the rest of us. I stress that equality of treatment under the law is all that we seek. As a Front-Bench spokesman, I officially welcomed the measures in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, which is shortly to be enacted—the Minister will know whether it has received Royal Assent since Monday night—but they refer to unauthorised camping on private land where the landowner has not given consent. I want to concentrate in this debate on the situation in which travellers are camping on land that they own, or which other travellers own. Travellers are increasingly buying land, legitimately—I hesitate to suggest where the money may be coming from to buy the land, but it usually comes in the form of notes from a back pocket. They buy land legitimately, create hard standings, often install services, and park a caravan.

My hon. Friend is describing exactly what is happening in Startley and Minety in my constituency. These people turn up with disproportionately large amounts of money—goodness knows where they get it from—paying sometimes £25,000 or £50,000 an acre for the sites. Not surprisingly, the farmers sell the land to them. It is a real problem.

My hon. Friend illustrates that the problem is not unique to Cambridgeshire, but is happening increasingly in other parts of the country. I know that other hon. Members have experienced similar situations. Travellers are buying up land; sometimes they then sell it off in smaller parcels. I cannot say where the money comes from; what concerns me is that legally these people know what they are doing. They are very clever, and understand the law and planning legislation. They know that in cases such as these, possession is half the battle. Once they own the site, have created a hard standing and have put the caravan there, they can nearly always stay there.

I shall now narrow the debate to the situation in the South Cambridgeshire district. It is important, because it underlines that, in my area at least, the local authority has done everything that it could be possibly be expected to do—indeed, more than some of my constituents would have liked—to meet travellers' needs. On the last six-monthly count, there were 290 caravans in the South Cambridgeshire district parked on approved, private pitches, and 30 more on approved sites provided by the local authority. There were 104 parked on unapproved sites. Those numbers continue to increase. With a total of 340 caravans on approved sites in South Cambridgeshire alone, I hardly think that anyone could suggest that South Cambridgeshire district council is not fulfilling its obligation.

That brings me to the planning guidance under which the council has to operate: circular 1/94, issued on 5 January 1994 by the then Department of the Environment, headed "Gypsy Sites and Planning". Paragraph 8 states:

"In preparing or amending their development plans, local planning authorities should indicate how they have taken account of their duty under the 1968 Act to make adequate provision for gypsies residing in or resorting to their areas."

Paragraph 10 says:

"It is important that policies for gypsy site provision are set out clearly in development plans…With such policies in place in plans, there will be more certainty for all concerned when planning applications are determined by local planning authorities or appeals are considered by the Secretary of State."

Critically, paragraph 26 states:

"The existence or absence of policies for gypsy sites in development plans could constitute a material consideration in matters of enforcement."

I am describing what has happened in the past few weeks and months. At Easter there was a massive influx into southern Cambridgeshire of what are known as Irish gypsies. They parked in a range of different places, sometimes on unauthorised property, often on private land. I shall not go into all those situations in detail but suffice to say that, after a while, they were moved on. A large number of them descended on the area known as Smithy Fen just outside the village of Cottenham, and they are still there. In some cases, they may have purchased other land from other travellers, but they have parked on land for which planning approval has not been granted.

The result was that the district council served a range of enforcement and stop notices. I have a list of them here; I shall not read them all out, but they all relate to land between Setchell drove and Water lane in the Smithy Fen area. It is not only that travellers descended on the place, parked there, that the council served notices and that they have now been to appeal; they also displaced a lot of people who were there.

Last night, a parish council meeting considered a planning application for eight caravans in the neighbouring parish of Rampton in my constituency. They are for a family of traditional travellers who have lived in Smithy Fen for a long time and have now been displaced. In a statement, the family said:

"We the Price family have resided within a 15 mile radius of Rampton for about 50 years, we are a close family unit and wish to live together collectively. Many in the village know us from the Black Horse public house and Friday's light and life gospel meetings, we have done jobbing work for many local farmers over the years and can supply character testimonials. We understand the fears of the village however unfortunately due to a ruling by a government planning inspector John Roberts on 14/10/03 who overruled an enforcement notice issued by SCDC regarding Pine Lane, Smithy Fen, Cottenham—we find ourselves in an unenviable position where we have a neighbouring travellers site that we did not want and places us in an intimidating and intolerable position, we fear for our property and our safety, it is for this reason alone that we must leave the land which we have considered as home for the past 12 years."

I hope that the Minister fully comprehends the importance of that statement. They are a traditional travelling family who have lived in Smithy Fen for 12 years—lived in the whole area for 50 years—and they have been intimidated and forced out of their homes because of the influx of other travellers. That would be fine if the planning arrangements supported them in their time of need.

The district council served enforcement and stop notices and the inspector who heard the appeal came forward with his pronouncement. The inspector's report is a complete travesty of anything that could be called justice. He starts by making congratulatory statements about the district council—that is why I concentrated earlier on planning guidance and the need for provision within structure plans for travellers sites. He refers to policy SP 4/6 of the proposed revised structure plan, which

"requires adequate provision to be made for gypsies who reside in or resort to the County."

He refers to the fact that the council produced nine criteria that would have to be met, which had gone through the local planning inspector. He said that there is

"a new policy H29 which allows for caravan sites for gypsies and travelling show people outside the green belt in certain circumstances."

He states that there is no evidence that policy H29 is likely to be modified further, and he notes that

"It would normally, therefore, carry considerable weight."

The report continues:

"The criteria based policy H29 has the advantage of being capable of application to any number of sites, as part of an assessed need or otherwise."

In paragraph 14 of the report, the inspector says:

"The duty lies upon the local authority to assess need and facilitate provision."

I hope that by illustrating the total number of approved sites earlier I have shown that the local authority has facilitated provision.

Somewhat perversely, the report later states:

"The occupiers of the appeal site should not be required to prove that they, or their close relatives, have traditionally or habitually resorted to the area or resided in it."

That is despite the fact that people who have traditionally resided in the area in question have been displaced. Of the appellant families, the inspector, Mr. Roberts, says that

"some of them at least have close family ties with people living on authorised pitches nearby".

If I bought a piece of land to build a home next to a member of my family because I wanted to be near my family, I would not have a prayer of getting planning consent if that plot were outside the village envelope. However, because of some purported family relationship—I have no idea whether it is true that there is one—that family will be given planning consent. Adding to the calumny, Mr. Roberts continues:

"Two publicly owned sites have had to he closed for reasons that were explained at the inquiry, including incidents of disorder."

He continues, perversely:

"In any event, the adequacy of public provision is not a good reason for refusing planning permission for private sites."

I could go on.

The inquiry result and the inspector's report have produced so much anger and distress in Cottenham and the surrounding areas, I cannot vouch that it will not cause further serious problems. There is a large number of other planning enforcement notices and appeals outstanding. I know that the Minister will probably tell me that this case does not set a precedent, but most of us are cynical enough to expect it to. The precedent it sets is horrendous. We could experience a doubling of the 33 approved pitches in this area.

The fact that the inspector approved it is beyond belief. In paragraph 33, Mr. Roberts says:

"I have concluded that the criteria of Policy H29 provide a useful checklist against which to assess the suitability of sites not allocated by the local plan."

In other words, he is supporting the policy of the district council. The council assessed the sites against that policy, and decided that they did not meet the criteria. That is why it served the enforcement notices. As I have intimated, the inspector upheld the appeal on several grounds, so families will now stay there. The Smithy Fen travellers site is now much larger, and will almost certainly get approval to become larger because the appeal is still outstanding.

I shall refer to one letter that I have received today, and I have received a large number. There has been some local publicity about today's debate, and this particular letter is from an individual who was at a meeting of the parish council. He says:

"I despair at Prescott's decision to disregard the wishes and undermine the powers of the district council and the parish council, notwithstanding Residents opposition. I grow weary of the daily erosion of life in this Country as I reflect (not through rose-tinted specs) on the daily changes that affect us all".

That is the heartfelt view of one of my constituents.

I conclude by saying that the whole purpose of planning guidance is to set a framework against which local planning authorities make their own judgments. The case of Smithy Fen and Cottenham fits across the board the planning guidance issued in 1994. The structure plan and the district plan also fit. The council has come up with a number of approved sites and has demonstrated that it is prepared to meet the needs of travellers.

In the case of my constituency, we were faced with a massive invasion by people who knew the law inside out and were prepared to flout it. They went to appeal and have got their way. Now, no one has any confidence that appeals will be rejected. No one has any confidence that anything that is said or done locally by parish or district councils will be upheld by the Government. I know that the Minister may claim that she cannot talk about one decision. However, the impact of the decision is catastrophic for local authorities trying to deal with the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has endorsed—the huge numbers of additional planning applications for land already owned by travellers. The Government have to get to grips with that, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I want to reassure my constituents that the situation is not as bleak as it looks at present.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) on securing the debate—even though it has perhaps not taken place quite as early as he would have liked—and on raising the important issue of gypsies, travellers and the planning system, particularly in his constituency. He will know that there are thousands of gypsies and travellers in this country, many of whom have lived a nomadic lifestyle for generations. Like everyone else they have human rights, which must be respected, and like everyone else they have responsibilities to others, and to other communities. He will know the importance of ensuring that there is no unfair discrimination against gypsies and travellers. Certainly, that is a matter that the Commission for Racial Equality has been concerned about. Equally, he will be aware that settled communities, too, have rights that need to be respected.

Respect for those rights includes the obligation for gypsy and traveller communities and settlements to comply with the law, including planning law. It also includes the obligation for local authorities and the police to deal with concerns about fly-tipping, antisocial behaviour and the other problems that hon. Members have raised.

Of course, there must be no discrimination against gypsies—but does the Minister agree that there must be no discrimination against local people, either?

Certainly; that was the point that I was making. Just as there should be no discrimination against gypsies and travellers, the settled community of towns and villages that have existed for many years, equally, has rights that should be respected.

Hon. Members will be aware that I cannot comment on the detail of specific planning cases, given the role of the Secretary of State in such cases. However, I shall talk briefly about the current planning system and related issues. Department of the Environment circular 1/94 set out planning policies concerning the provision of suitable locations for gypsy sites, whether private or provided by the local authority. In formulating development plans, local authorities are encouraged to discuss gypsies' accommodation needs with the gypsies themselves, with a view to identifying suitable locations for gypsy sites in plans wherever possible. For many local authorities, especially in rural areas, the identification of specific sites is not easy. Where they have found it impossible to identify suitable locations, circular 1/94 says that they must define clear and realistic criteria as a basis for site provision.

Development plans must take account of local circumstances. Concern is increasingly expressed in Adjournment debates about gypsies establishing sites without first obtaining planning consent, often after choosing inappropriate locations in land-use terms, such as greenbelt land or open countryside, giving rise to enforcement action by local authorities.

Local authorities have a range of enforcement powers for dealing with breaches of planning control. First, they have the power to serve a planning contravention notice, when they require information. Secondly, there is the power to issue an enforcement notice, requiring steps to be taken. Thirdly, there is the power to serve a stop notice, with immediate effect. Fourthly, the authority can seek an injunction in the High Court or the county court to restrain any actual or expected breach of planning control. Finally, there are improved powers of entry to land for authorised officers of the local planning authority.

Powers exist under section 178 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to enable a local planning authority to enter and remove unauthorised development undertaken in breach of an enforcement notice.

Separate issues arise in relation to unauthorised encampments—where the land is not owned by the campers. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire raised some issues about cases of that kind, and the discussions earlier this week about the Anti-social Behaviour Bill and the important improvements in police powers to remove illegally camped gypsies and travellers to authorised sites are relevant here. However, as he confined most of his remarks to planning issues when gypsies and travellers own the sites, I shall say a little more about that, and explain what issues I think we should consider further in the next few months.

The hon. Gentleman is one of many people who have raised concerns about the way in which the current system works. Such concerns have been raised not only by MPs but by the Gypsy Council, local authorities and the CRE. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has set in train a serious programme of work to examine those concerns in some detail.

For example, a serious problem raised by many is that there is not enough site provision throughout the UK. A study carried out by the university of Birmingham suggested that an extra 1,000 to 2,000 residential sites might be needed over the next five to 10 years. Whether those would be local authority sites, or whether they would be appropriate sites for gypsies and travellers to buy where development would be acceptable, many people are concerned that there is simply not enough site provision. We are examining that issue in some detail. The Government have allocated £33 million over five years to improve the sites provided by local authorities, but we continue to examine the issue.

We are also concerned about the nature of the enforcement system. We are conducting a review of the planning enforcement regime, and are due to report our conclusions over the next few months. Many of the cases raised by hon. Members concerned gypsies and travellers who have settled where local authorities have not given planning permission. Those cases give rise to issues that are distinct from the broader planning enforcement regime. Statistics show that gypsy and traveller planning applications are more likely to be turned down in the first place, but more likely to be successful at the appeal stage. There are also links between enforcement and the level of site provision.

We are examining the speed of the planning enforcement system, where planning is inappropriate, and a range of other issues related to enforcement against inappropriate development. Over the next few months, as the work under way in the Department continues, I will be happy to discuss this matter further with hon. Members, based on the experience that they have gained in their constituencies. Many hon. Members have raised concerns, and we must ensure that we get the balance right in addressing this complex issue.

I welcome the opportunity for a debate on traffic noise on the A50 and A38 in my constituency. I was very pleased when, in July 1998, the Government announced their quieter roads programme. That was a good step forward, because for too long, roads were built with materials such as concrete, which, although hard-wearing, was noisy both for local people and for road users.

Naturally, we can all argue for earlier dates, but I understand the need for the assessments that have taken place over recent years, and I know that we must make the best use of resources, by fitting the programme in with maintenance programmes due to take place. However, the A50 and the A38 have both been unfortunate with the assessment process and the timing of the programme. I shall discuss the two roads separately.

The A38, which passes through—indeed, in places, over—Burton upon Trent is, as the Minister will know, a major cross-country route from the west to the east midlands. I first received complaints from constituents in Burton upon Trent and Branston about the noise from the road in late 1998. The northbound carriageway of the road was surface-dressed in August 1998, which appears to have exacerbated the noise problem. According to a response that I received from Lord Whitty when he was Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions, the work was ordered from the contractor in the spring of 1998, prior to the publication in July of the Government's new noise policy, set out in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England". That was the first instance of unfortunate timing.

In 1999, the new surface started to fail due to defective materials. Repairs were carried out at the contractor's expense, using the same materials. I raised my concerns with Ministers and the Highways Agency. I said that although the Government had announced their intention to introduce quieter roads, a noisier surface had been laid on a major trunk road. The difference was even more significant because in 1983, 1984 and 1987, porous asphalt had been used on a section of the A38 as a trial to evaluate the drainage performance of the material. One side effect of the porous asphalt was that noise levels were reduced. Although the northbound test surface was removed in 1996, there was incremental increase in noise between then and 1998, when my constituents complained to me.

Following an assessment of the scheme and the programme for road surfacing, I was advised by the Highways Agency in 2001 that the A38 Burton bypass was included in the programme for the 2003–04 financial year. I have received a further letter from the Highways Agency that says that work on the A38 between Branston junction and Clay Mills is scheduled to take place in the financial year 2004–05. I seek a reassurance that that work will be carried out in the next financial year, and not put back again.

I also ask for clarification on behalf of a Branston constituent, who tells me that he believes that the noise from which residents in the area of the village's main street suffer comes from the road south of the Branston junction. Will the Minister tell me whether resurfacing of that section will also be carried out in the near future?

The A50 is another major east-west route, which runs to the north of Uttoxeter in my constituency. I have received complaints about the noise from the road from residents of both Uttoxeter and the rural area of Leigh, to the west of the town. Again, I have been in contact with Ministers and the Highways Agency about my constituents' complaints for some time. The A50 has been improved in stages over the years, resulting in a great increase in traffic along its whole length. The parts of the A50 that most affect my constituents are the concrete section between Blythe Bridge and the New road—A522—junction in Uttoxeter, and the length between that junction and the Ashbourne roadB503—junction, which is surfaced with hot-rolled asphalt.

I am concerned that in the current programme for resurfacing concrete roads, the Blythe Bridge to Uttoxeter section will not be resurfaced until between 2007–08 and 2010–11. I have also been advised that the length between New road and Ashbourne road will be resurfaced in sections between 2004 and 2008. The Doveridge bypass, which is the section east of Uttoxeter, was opened after June 1988, so it is timetabled to have a quieter road surface applied between 2004–05 and 2006–07. Although I am pleased that the problems of residents of Doveridge in west Derbyshire are recognised, I do not believe that it is right that the Blythe Bridge to Uttoxeter section should have to wait longer than the Doveridge bypass, simply because of when the roads were built.

The opening of the Doveridge bypass in February 1998, along with other major improvements along the A50, resulted in the traffic increasing by 51.3 per cent. between 1997 and 1998 along the whole route. The increase along the Blythe Bridge to Uttoxeter section was even greater, at 57 per cent. The route total has risen from 19,075 vehicles for a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week average in 1997, to 43,132 in 2002. The Blythe Bridge to Uttoxeter section has risen from 15,657 to an average of 36,591.

As the traffic has more than doubled since the upgrading of the A50 was completed in 1998, the noise emanating from both the concrete section and the hot-rolled asphalt section in Uttoxeter has increased dramatically. The way in which schemes are assessed means that the length west of Uttoxeter may have to wait up to six years longer than the length east of Uttoxeter, yet the traffic and noise increase has been the same. That cannot be just or sensible.

I hope that the Minister will reassure me that the timetable for work on the Blythe Bridge to Uttoxeter section will be reviewed to take into account the impact of the improvements on the whole route. This is an exceptional case, and I believe that that should be recognised in the programme of works. I hope that the Minister will also reassure me that a quieter surface will be applied to the length between New road and Ashbourne road early in the period 2004 to 2008.

As I said, I know that everyone hopes that schemes in their particular area will be put at the start of any programme. In the case of the A38 and the A50, however, the arguments for the early relief of the difficulties that my constituents face are strong.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on securing the debate and on recognising the benefits of the Government's policy on quieter roads. I also thank her for her proportionate opening remarks about the Government's need to ensure that work in progress is a priority. Her contribution today, and her correspondence with the Highways Agency and my Department, show her to be an effective voice for her constituents in Burton. Long may she continue to be so.

My hon. Friend wanted to be sure that our approach was just and sensible, which I believe it is, but before I go into the details of the two roads in question—the A38 and the A50—it would be helpful to say a little about the background to the development of the Government's quieter roads programme.

The strategic road network helps to support a healthy economy by providing the backbone for the effective distribution of goods and services and the easy movement of people, but it is not without disadvantages. People who live close to major roads sometimes experience the effects of increased noise, and the expansion of the road network inevitably disturbs the local environment, as my hon. Friend described.

A balance that satisfies our economic and environmental needs must be struck. Indeed, much can be done to minimise any negative impact on the environment. I often say that the Highways Agency is the second largest planter of trees in this country—second only to the Forestry Commission—so we do take environmental matters very seriously.

The Government recognise that traffic noise is a concern for many people, and in the White Paper, "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England", which was published in July 1998, we gave a commitment that

"In future, whenever a road needs to be resurfaced, we shall ensure that the most appropriate noise reducing surfaces are used for those areas where noise is a particular concern."

I am sure that that will be of comfort to my hon. Friend.

In March 1999, we announced sift criteria for identifying the most serious and pressing cases, and a ring-fenced budget of £5 million a year for dealing with the most serious cases in which practical, cost-effective noise mitigation measures could be found. The criteria are as follows. First, trunk roads must have been opened before June 1988, but priority attention is to be given to locations affected by roads that have remained unaltered since October 1969—the qualifying date for the first introduction of noise mitigation measures. Secondly, current—that is, 1998—noise levels immediately adjacent to the road must have been at least 80 dB. Thirdly, in the case of roads opened or altered after October 1969, noise levels must be at least 3 dB greater than predicted for the design when the road was being planned. The aim was to address people's disappointment that the noise levels mentioned during the planning process were different from those experienced when the road was eventually opened.

In November 1999, a list appeared in Hansard under cover of a letter from the chief executive of the Highways Agency, showing the most serious and pressing cases to be studied to ascertain the most practical and cost-effective solutions. That became familiarly known as the "Hansard list". By the time of the Government's 10-year plan, published in July 2000, the Highways Agency had been set the target of installing quieter surfaces on more than 60 per cent. of the trunk road and motorway network, including all concrete stretches, by 2010–11. That will benefit approximately 3 million people living within about one third of a mile from such roads.

The Government's trunk road noise reduction policy over the period of the 10-year plan can be summarised as follows: a noise mitigation programme costing £5 million a year to address sites that meet the "Hansard list" criteria; resurfacing all concrete roads with quieter materials; and resurfacing black-top roads with quieter materials when normal maintenance is required.

About 5 per cent. of the trunk road network at some 70 different locations is constructed with a concrete surface. Clearly, given the scale of the problem, the work cannot be completed overnight. To ensure that cases are dealt with in order of priority, we have established criteria to be used to phase in the work over the 10 years. That will also ensure the effective use of resources and minimise disruption to road users.

In October 2001, the Government announced the criteria to be used by the Highways Agency to determine the priority for different parts of the network to be resurfaced by 2010–11. I shall set out those criteria. Where possible, the application of quieter surfaces will fit in with normal maintenance needs. Priority will be given to sites where treatment will benefit the greatest number of people. Works will be carried out in such a way as to minimise disruption to the general public and users of the trunk road and motorway network. Priority will be given to roads opened since June 1988 where noise levels have turned out to be significantly higher than was predicted when they were planned.

Following the announcement, the Highways Agency continued study work to identify schemes that satisfied the criteria. The fourth criterion was introduced because the extra noise arising from concrete surfaces remained the most significant factor causing excess nuisance from traffic once we had rectified the under-prediction attributable to underestimating traffic growth in assessments made before 1988. The agency also identified 17 roads with concrete surfaces that had been open since 1988, and undertook a programme of noise surveys to identify those that satisfied the fourth criterion. Following completion of that work, the Government announced in April 2003 a timetable for removing all concrete surfaces on the motorway and trunk road network by 2010–11. The report on the surveys of the 17 lengths of concrete road was placed in the Library.

In the first phase, between 2004–05 and 2006–07, more than 11,500 homes throughout the country will benefit from reduced traffic noise, and journeys on those roads will, of course, be quieter for motorists, too. Priority for the first phase of the work has been given to the schemes where resurfacing will benefit more than 100 properties per kilometre or, if the road was opened after June 1988, where the current noise level is 3 dB greater than predicted. That is equivalent to the noise increase expected from doubling the volume of traffic on the road. Of necessity, the arrangements are somewhat complex, but they are designed to ensure that the resurfacing work is carried out as equitably as possible.

My hon. Friend raised specific points about the A38 and A50 trunk roads, and I fully understand her concerns about the resurfacing of the A38. Because of pressure to undertake urgent maintenance elsewhere in the region, since 1998 we have had to carry out minor works to keep the surface of the A38 intact. My hon. Friend referred to that. The section involved is between Branston and Clay Mills, to the west of Burton on Trent, and is known as the Burton bypass.

That section of road does not have a concrete surface. Various forms of an experimental quiet surfacing material, now known generically as porous asphalt, were put on trial there between 1984 and 1994. The experimental sections, which were about 100 m long, were spread over a length of about 4 km along the southbound carriageway between the junctions at Branston and Clay Mills. The northbound carriageway was mainly constructed with conventional hot-rolled asphalt.

The original reason for the experiment was to test the effectiveness of such material at reducing spray, which was a problem on the road because of the relatively high number of heavy goods vehicles that used it. It was realised that the porous surface, originally designed for airport runways to stop aquaplaning, might be useful for roads, but might also deteriorate rather quickly. Because of wear and tear over the 10 years, most of the trial surfaces had to be replaced with hot-rolled asphalt, which generates considerably more tyre noise than the new porous asphalt.

The resurfacing undertaken on the Burton bypass in 1998 was necessary to restore its skid-resistance. The most cost-effective treatment selected was surface dressing, as the underlying carriageway construction was sound. It was inevitable that restoring the surface roughness would increase noise to some extent. However, surface dressing is recognised as a treatment with a relatively short life, and in due course, it would be necessary to undertake some major works on the carriageway and replace the whole surface layer.

I am pleased to say that, as part of the normal maintenance programme, this section of the A38 is included in a major resurfacing scheme between Branston and Clay Mills programmed to take place in 2004–05. That is subject to the availability of funding—and my hon. Friend knows that we have been generous in funding our roads. I can confirm that the work will go ahead in the time scale that she described. It will include the provision of the quieter road surface that she asked about, which is likely to reduce traffic noise by as much as 30 per cent. That will be welcome to her constituents, some of whom live close to the road, particularly in the northern section. I hope that that is a sign of good news on the horizon for my hon. Friend.

The announcement by the Secretary of State in April 2003 listed the concrete section of the A50 between Blythe Bridge and Uttoxeter among those scheduled for resurfacing in the period between 2007–08 and 2010–11, subject to the availability of funding. My hon. Friend expressed concern that the Blythe Bridge to Uttoxeter section was treated differently from the Doveridge bypass, which was listed among those to be treated in the preceding three-year period. I assure my hon. Friend that that was not the case. The resurfacing of the Blythe Bridge to Uttoxeter section has been prioritised on a consistent basis with all other concrete sections, according to the criteria outlined earlier.

Doveridge bypass is scheduled for resurfacing before the Blythe Bridge to Uttoxeter section. That is because the Doveridge bypass, which was opened in 1998, meets the criterion of having been opened after June 1988, and having a noise level 3 dB greater than predicted. The section from Blythe Bridge to Uttoxeter, which opened in 1985, does not meet that criterion. Furthermore, resurfacing would not benefit more than 100 properties per kilometre.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the increase in traffic has been greater, if anything, on the Blythe Bridge to Uttoxeter section? I accept the way in which things were worked out using the criteria. However, I would suggest that the effect on the ground is that the section of road between Blythe Bridge and Uttoxeter has noisier concrete than the Doveridge section. I do not want to push Doveridge back at all, but we should look at the case again. When a road is made up of sections built at different times, as the Uttoxeter to Blythe Bridge section is, the increase in noise may be equivalent to the increase in noise when traffic more than doubles, as it has done on the Doveridge section.

I accept my hon. Friend's point. I undertake to examine the recent surveys to reassure her that the matter has been dealt with consistently. Although we try to be fair, those further back in the process always feel a little hard done by, which I accept because the stress and anxiety caused by noise make them impatient to get the work done.

The Blythe Bridge to Uttoxeter section was considered for noise mitigation measures under the criteria announced in March 1999 to identify the most serious and pressing cases that merited further detailed study, which was promised in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England". Because the A50 from Blythe Bridge to Uttoxeter met the sift criteria, a detailed study was completed in April this year. The study revealed that the wide scatter of affected properties makes replacement of the concrete surface the most appropriate treatment to address the noise issues. Given the nature of the road, I think that my hon. Friend would agree that other mitigation measures would have a marginal effect on the properties; the road needs a different surface.

Is it possible to examine pockets of properties along the Blythe Bridge to Uttoxeter section to see whether specific areas would benefit from planting? For example, Leigh's residents are affected by the noise from the A50.

I imagine that that work has already been done. I undertake to examine the survey to see whether a proportionate amount of money can be spent. Obviously, we do not want to spend money disproportionately, because that might push back the programme for resurfacing the whole road. If there are particular hot spots and we can deal with them economically, however, I will be happy to examine them. I think that my hon. Friend accepts that the answer is getting the road resurfaced, and when that happens, many of the other measures will become otiose. It was decided that resurfacing would be achieved within the commitment in the 10-year plan for transport, and priority was assigned according to the criteria that I have described.

It is too early to provide a more specific indication of when resurfacing may take place within the time frame set out by the Secretary of State for Transport in his April statement. However, I assure my hon. Friend that the Highways Agency will keep her informed as its detailed in-year programme develops. Although mitigating noise from trunk roads and motorways is a complex subject, I hope that she agrees that the Government are doing all they can to ensure that we have the fairest system that will benefit the greatest number of people over the next few years.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this matter, because noise from roads intrudes on people's lives. It can cause a great deal of upset and makes people angry. That is especially true when traffic grows, which has clearly happened in Burton; Burton's economy is thriving, which means more vehicles on the road. I will make sure that my hon. Friend gets full and proper answers to the questions that she has raised.