I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the important issue of the future of Hatfield colliery and, indeed, the future of the UK coal industry.

It is ironic and historic that we are discussing the future of the coal industry on the eve of the 20th anniversary of the miners' strike. Twenty years ago, the Tory Government were determined to close down the bulk of the mining industry. The miners at Corton Wood resisted and went on strike, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Twenty years on we have a Labour Government, who face a clear choice: do they stand on the sidelines wringing their hands while the final nail is hammered into the coffin of the UK coal mining industry and thereby finish the job that the Tories started 20 years ago, or do they face their responsibilities and ensure that we maintain an indigenous coal industry and protect the UK's future energy requirements? We will know the answer to that when the Minister responds later this morning.

Hatfield colliery in my constituency is the key to the future of the UK coal industry. It sits on 80 million to 100 million tonnes of accessible, good quality coal, which amounts to about 50 per cent. of accessible UK reserves. Its history is chequered—it was closed just before the privatisation of the industry in the 1990s and reopened with a management buy-out. Two and a half years ago, in August 2001, it was closed again and the receivers were brought in. The then Minister agreed to keep the colliery on a care and maintenance basis until a new buyer was found because of Hatfield's future prospects. The new buyer was Richard Budge and Coalpower Ltd., which set about re-employing the men and trying to give the colliery a future.

The colliery was maintained on the understanding that it would continue to work the High Hazel seam. Everybody knew that there was no prospect of making a profit without the operating aid scheme, but it was understood that the colliery would continue to work the High Hazel seam while it developed into the Barnsley seam. At that point, the Government were discussing ending the operating aid scheme and moving to a coal investment aid scheme.

All was going well until the operating aid scheme ended in July 2002. Agreement was reached to extend that scheme until December 2002, but unfortunately the coal investment aid scheme was not introduced seamlessly—it was not introduced until November 2003, which was a little bit too long for the plans for Hatfield colliery. Everybody knew that working the High Hazel seam would not make a profit, and a short-term cash-flow problem quickly developed.

I am grateful for the Minister's help in keeping the pit open and the men at work from late summer through to the autumn, but there were difficulties. When the coal investment aid scheme was introduced, the offer was not what we thought. I attended a meeting in the Department of Trade and Industry with the previous Minister, where it was stated that coal investment aid would amount to about £110 million and that Hatfield would get about £45 million over three years£15 million a year.

My hon. Friend mentions the meeting where we were given the impression that more money would be available for investment aid. If Hatfield had received £45 million, would it have been sufficient to drive down to the Barnsley seam and access that enormous block of coal—it is the largest UK reserve—from Thorne eastwards?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The answer to his question is that the matter would have depended on timing, and I shall deal with that in a moment.

When the coal investment aid scheme was announced, only £15 million was made available over three years, which was one third of the expected sum, and more than 12 months had elapsed. It is because Hatfield had got itself into short-term financial difficulties and because Government funding depended on match funding from the private sector that the owner put in a bid for match funding that related to the original scheme. Bankers base their decisions on the information submitted to them, and the bid was different from the Government offer. The time lapse made the situation difficult, and it is no wonder that the bank said no. The coal investment aid scheme offers £15 million over three years. To obtain that money, the owners must start the bidding process to obtain £30 million of match funding, which takes time. They cannot just go to a bank and ask for £30 million because various assurances must be made and details must be checked.

The Minister agreed to keep the mine on a care and maintenance basis over November, December and January, but unfortunately there has not been enough time. Unless something dramatic happens here today, the men will be sent their redundancy notices today, tomorrow or on Friday and the pit will close. Will the Minister keep the pit open on a care and maintenance basis to give the owner, Coalpower—or whoever the future owner might be—an opportunity to put together a financial package to exploit the reserves in the Barnsley seam?

The Government have to make a decision about whether we should be involved in deep-coal mining or whether we should import all our coal. I think that it would be dangerous to go down the latter track. The Government underpinned the nuclear industry with £650 million and even agreed to let it have some more money. When we consider the coal aid given in other countries, such as Germany or France, the £60 million that has been made available in this country looks like peanuts. I downloaded some information from the European Commission website and found that in 2002 it had authorised payment of almost €1 billion to France for its coal industry. France has only two pits, yet it is spending €2 billion. Germany is giving €3.3 billion in coal aid and it has 10 pits. We made an application for £10 million, which was agreed, to close Selby.

We didn't.

Well, the Labour Government did. If we are willing to spend £10 million to close down a colliery, why on earth are we not willing o spend a few million to keep the Hatfield pit open, to access the Barnsley seam and ensure a prosperous future?

I am not just talking about Hatfield and the mining jobs there, although that is important; I am talking about the future and about maintaining our indigenous coal industry. Hatfield is not only a good prospect for coal; the Minister knows that there is planning permission and a section 36 permission to build an integrated gasification combined cycle power plant on the site. That sounds complicated, but basically it is a clean coal power station, which does not burn coal but uses it with other technology to generate electricity. That is not all. Such power stations do not merely generate electricity, they capture carbon dioxide and hydrogen nitrates which can, of course, be used in other industries. The waste is inert and can be used in civil engineering.

The use of captured carbon dioxide is the latest in clean coal technology. Experiments are under way in the North sea to use captured carbon dioxide in enhanced oil recovery—pumping CO₂ down into the oil well enhances the amount of oil that can be brought out. There is no reason why the Hatfield plant could not assist us in recovering more oil from our North sea oilfields.

The prospects are even better than that, however. Scientists are developing the hydrogen economy, saying that hydrogen is the new power of the future. An IGCC plant at Hatfield could develop fuel cells from captured hydrogen and produce enough energy to power the whole of the public transport system in the south Yorkshire area. So not only do we have a coal mine with a future of between 30 and 40 years, which would maintain our indigenous coal industry, we have the possibility to build technology on the site that would take us forward by helping us to deal with our Kyoto targets and generate the fuel of the future.

It is ironic that our oldest and most reliable fuel, which we have used for centuries, could help to create and develop the fuel of the future. That is a prospect worth pursuing. I am not the only person to think that; the Americans think so, too. They are pouring about $6 billion into developing IGCC technology. If they are pouring in that amount, surely it is incumbent on our Government to get ahead of the game. We can develop that technology, our engineering industry can get involved and we can start exporting it, or shall we just sit back, watch the Americans develop the technology and buy it from them, no doubt at a premium price, in years to come?

The clean coal budget for the UK is £25 million—I am not sure how much of it has been used to date. I realise that America is a much bigger country and that it has a larger budget, but the Americans are spending between $6 billion and $10 billion—I think they are putting $6 billion into IGCC technology alone, quite apart from what they are doing to develop other clean coal technologies.

We need to start thinking about developing such technologies. Everybody is aware that we shall be burning fossil fuels in this country for years to come, but we cannot keep spewing out toxic emissions, so the future must lie with those new technologies. Windmills are popular at present and, yes, we must develop renewable sources of energy. There is no doubt about that; I agree. The Government should be helping to develop renewable energy sources. However, in reality, renewable sources will produce only about 10 per cent. of our energy requirements. We shall continue to be reliant on fossil fuels for a long time to come. The sensible thing for any Government to do would be to get in there and help to develop that technology.

I was disappointed by the White Paper that the Government published last February. It really was a missed opportunity. Everything I read about coal related to the fact that the industry in this country would end within the next 10 to 15 years. When we look around, we can see that that is probably true. Most collieries that are operating now will naturally be approaching exhaustion by that time, but Hatfield is the exception.

Hatfield has between 80 million and 100 million tonnes of accessible coal, and there is more—those are only the accessible reserves. The plan is to link Hatfield and Thorne collieries, which will give access to even more reserves. The only real prospect for the future is the Hatfield colliery.

We have to make a decision about whether to continue with the colliery, or to walk away from it. The Minister should do everything that he can to ensure that Hatfield stays open in the short term. I am asking him to help and to get involved in developing the Barnsley seam—to get into the new territory, as it were—and the IGCC technology. The Government are responsible for the energy requirements of this country, and those requirements will not be satisfied by renewables alone.

My hon. Friend has mentioned the massive reserves at Hatfield. Is he also aware of the reserves at Ellington colliery? They have already been accessed by the National Coal Board and, subsequently, by British Coal at huge public cost. There are between 20 million and 200 million tonnes of accessible reserves there. Does my hon. Friend think that they should be mined as well?

I do, indeed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point because it brings us to the crux of the question. When we consider the White Paper, it is clear that the Government intend to take us down the track towards being a net importer of energy. How ludicrous is that? We must think about security of supply. It is fine to think about short-term economic gain, but we must also think about the fact that, when people press a light switch, they want the lights to go on, and when they turn their heating on, they want heat. Yet we are planning to close down the indigenous coal industry. We are already burning our natural gas to generate electricity, which is ludicrous. We ought to be burning our gas—a premium fuel—in homes for heating and cooking. However, we are planning to continue to burn it to create electricity, and to build a pipeline across Europe. The Minister has already had a meeting with the Norwegians and possibly even signed an agreement on that pipeline.

So we are going to be importing our gas, and if Hatfield, Ellington and other collieries close down in the near future, we shall also be importing all our coal. Where does that leave us in terms of security of supply? It leaves us vulnerable.

This is a private industry, and the same is true of the railways. When, in the railway industry recently, Connex could not deliver, the Government stepped in to ensure that the service continued. The same was true in relation to Railtrack. It was a failure, so what did the Government do? They picked it up. Here we have a private coal industry that seems to do as it likes and get away with it. Why cannot the Government take the same line on coal as they do on rail, and say that in Hatfield, for example, the private element cannot do the business? All the reserves are there. Why cannot the Government step in, as they did with Connex and Railtrack? That is a very good analogy, and this ought to be done.

I am grateful for that intervention. I can only agree with my hon. Friend. I shall bring my comments to a close now because I know that other colleagues have things to say about the future of the deep-mine coal industry in this country.

It is sensible to have a diverse energy mix. It is also sensible to maintain an indigenous supply, because if we do not do so, we shall be vulnerable in terms of cost and of international terrorism. Let us imagine a situation in which this country had no coal industry and had to import all its supplies. Let us also imagine that we had no natural gas and had to import all our supplies down a pipeline. What would it take for a terrorist to take out a ship coming in across the sea? What would it take to blow up that pipeline?

Not only that; what about cost? We live in a capitalist world, and if someone does not have something and I do, I am going to make sure that they pay what I want for it. To maintain that cost element and to secure ourselves against any international terrorist element, we need to maintain a diverse energy source and an indigenous supply. The Government have some stark choices, and there is no doubt that they are political ones. Do we choose to do what is right for this country and for the long-term future or do we choose short-term economic expediency and hammer home the last nail in the coffin of the indigenous mining industry? I hope not, but at the end of the day, Minister, the choice is yours.

Several hon. Members:rose—

Order. Perhaps I should remind the House that it is common practice during these 90-minute Adjournment debates to commence the first of the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before termination. That would be at 10.30, which leaves us 34 minutes in which to accommodate the five hon. Members who are seeking to catch my eye. I would therefore ask all contributors to the debate to bear that time limitation in mind when making their comments, and when seeking to make or respond to interventions from others.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) on taking the initiative in requesting this debate, because it gives us an opportunity to consider once again the future of the mining industry, and to reflect on this country's energy needs for generations to come. Last year, the Government published their White Paper on energy. From it emerged four goals: reducing CO₂ emissions, maintaining reliable energy supplies, promoting competitive markets, and ensuring that there is affordable heating in every home.

The current mix, as my hon. Friend said, consists of 32 per cent. of our electricity being generated by coal, 23 per cent. by nuclear power, 38 per cent. by gas, 4 per cent. by oil and 3 per cent. by renewables. The maintenance of reliable energy supplies cannot be achieved under the Government's proposals that have emerged since the publication of the White Paper.

The Institution of Civil Engineers, which carried out research on the White Paper and published a report on it, stated that the target of 10 per cent. renewables by 2010, and 20 per cent. by 2020, was out of the question. It said that that could not be done. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether be considers those targets to be achievable. The report also suggested that the Government's objective appeared to be to phase out coal production in this country by 2016. If that happened, it would he a disaster for the mining industry and for the nation. The report also stated that only one nuclear power station would be operating after 2020. That, too, spells out a crazy energy provision policy. In terms of keeping the lights on, future generations will suffer if the proposals outlined in the White Paper are allowed to proceed.

Hatfield colliery has a great deal to offer the future provision of energy. It and the other collieries that are working require the long-term security of a market for the coal produced in this country.

When a delegation of hon. Members, some of whom are here, met the Prime Minister on 17 September last year—the Minister was also present—we pressed him to consider agreeing to the emission limit values arising out of the large combustion plant directive being pursued by the European Commission. We told the Prime Minister that we considered the ELV programme to be in the best interests of the mining industry, and we still do. Although the Government have gone for the national plan instead of that proposal, we ask the Minister to reconsider it and give the mining industry an opportunity to secure long-term markets in the electricity generating industry. I remind him that a majority of electricity generators opted for ELVs.

How could the Government overlook and overturn a proposal that benefited the coal industry and was requested by the electricity generating industry? I have twice written to the Minister asking for a meeting to consider that question, and I hope that this morning he will agree to it. If we cannot get that co-operation with the Department of Trade and Industry, we are left with no option but to go back to the Prime Minister, who said at the time that the Minister should consider the issue and then give us, the miners' representatives, an opportunity to make further representations in due course. I make that plea because it is important that we be given the opportunity to discuss issues of importance and relevance to our communities.

On 28 November 2002, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry addressed the House on the subject of assistance to British Energy, which runs the nuclear industry. She reported that on 26 September 2002 a loan of £650 million was granted to British Energy, and that the Government would underwrite the arrangements secured by British Energy to raise money from bonds. She said:

"The cost to the Government"—

of supporting British Energy—

"will average £150 million to £200 million per year for the next I0 years".—[Official Report, 28 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 489.]

If we are to have fairness, openness and justice within the various parts of the industry, how can the DTI and the Minister say that the support for the mining industry that we are looking for will not be forthcoming? We are not asking for anything like £150 million or £200 million a year over 10 years. A one-off payment of £100 million would help the industry to develop new resources such as clean coal technology, and would aid its survival. That is not unreasonable when one considers what the Government are handing out to the nuclear industry. Will the Minister take this matter seriously and offer us, the representatives of mining communities, the chance to put our case on the future of the mining industry and the development of clean coal technology?

At the beginning of 2003, "Energy Review" said:

"It is surprising that the closure of nuclear capacity is addressed in some detail yet there is no comment about the age of the coal and oil fired capacity."

In other words, according to that report and to the research done by the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Government are writing off the mining industry. We give notice that we will campaign here in this House to retain the mining industry and to develop the reserves at Ellington and Hatfield collieries. We want fairness and justice on assistance for the development of the coal mining industry and the introduction of clean coal technology, which will help to reduce CO₂emissions. I ask the Minister to address those points first, then we can move on further.

I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this extremely important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) spoke about the importance of Hatfield colliery. Twenty years ago the men, their families and their community fought to keep that pit open, and the fight will go on. The debate gives us an opportunity to talk about the future of the British coal industry. Hatfield is important because it gives access to immense reserves—50 per cent. of the reserves in the UK coal industry. These days, it is unfashionable in energy circles to support UK Coal, but I am an enthusiast. There is a place for British coal in the short term, the middle term and the long term. The Minister and his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry, working with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, must take action to secure the cornerstone of our energy policy.

The most important lesson of the energy White Paper, which is a year old today, is security and diversity of supply. I applaud its direction in moving towards a low-carbon economy—that must be right—but we must take the necessary careful steps to get there, and I have doubts about some of the courses of action being advocated. I have always thought that the target of 10 per cent. renewables by 2010 was ambitious; I think that we will get there, but arrive late. The target of 20 per cent. renewables by 2020 is described as "aspirational", although some people call it impossible.

If we cannot achieve those targets, we need to consider other sources of supply. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) talked about the problems in the nuclear industry. It is clear to me that the private sector will not renew the nuclear industry in the foreseeable future. That takes us to gas. By 2006, Britain will be a net importer of gas. The Department's own figures suggest that by 2020, 80 per cent. of our energy needs in the UK will be met by gas, 70 per cent. of which will be imported. In the context of the diplomacy mentioned in the White Paper—the need to make international connections—we need only look at what has happened in Iraq recently. We need to remember the lessons of 11 September. It would be a fundamental mistake to be so dependent on gas in 10 years' time.

There is, however, a wider argument: the coal industry must be compatible with renewables. Renewables, by their very nature, are peripheral and variable. Our renewables targets could be achieved through wind power if it were sustainable, but the wind does not blow all the time. As only coal is flexible enough to meet demand, it is important for the industry to survive in the short, medium and long term.

The industry is doing its bit. It is no longer uneconomic. The UK Coal work force are the most efficient miners in Europe, and they have brought down the price per gigajoule. The company can now compete on the world market.

I applaud the Government for introducing operating aid and, recently, the investment aid scheme. It may be insufficient, short term and too late in coming, but at least it is there, giving us an opportunity to develop new reserves and giving the coal industry a long-term future. It is, of course, a bargaining counter; public sector money brings in private sector money.

The environment is a difficult issue for the industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North suggested, and it will be environmental concerns that kill it. I have discussed this with the Minister before, but I ask him now to discuss it thoroughly with his DEFRA colleagues. If he wants a long-term UK coal industry, he must think carefully about the way in which the large combustion plant directive is implemented. It appears that no final decision has been made, but the Government seem inclined towards the national plan. I understand why, but all the advice given to the Minister and all the research show that if that route is taken, as night follows day the coal industry will close. It will survive only if the emissions limit value route is adopted. If we want to lose 15,000 jobs, or deprive the economy of £700 million, let us go for the national plan, but I counsel my hon. Friend the Minister to be very careful. I know that research has been commissioned and I know that decisions can be reversed, but he must take heed of what I say. He must also consider the long-term issues involving carbon dioxide. We must progress from research on clean coal technology to implementation of that technology.

Across the world—in India, China and Indonesia—we will see the coal industry grow. Coal will remain the powerhouse for industrial growth. Here in the first world. we should be cautious about closing down the industry. We have the technology, we have the expertise, and we have the most efficient miners in Europe. We have a strategy for our energy policy. We must ensure that coal is and remains the cornerstone of that strategy.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) on securing this debate. It is important, and Hatfield is an important colliery. My hon. Friend described it as at the centre of the current coal industry. He also pointed out that this was the 20th anniversary of the miners' strike. At the time of the strike in 1984, there were 170 collieries in the United Kingdom; today there are about a dozen.

Hatfield is indeed at the centre of the coal industry. We expected it to be able to take men from Selby after Selby's closure this spring. We expected that Hatfield would be developed, for it has vast reserves of good low-sulphur coal. Moreover, it is linked with Thorne, whose take of coal on the east side of Doncaster probably makes up the largest reserve in the UK. It is therefore extremely important to the indigenous coal industry. It is also part of a wider industry. It is not always appreciated that the coal industry is still a large industry in the UK, with a turnover of more than £1 billion, that it employs 9,000 men, and that there are probably between 15,000 and 17,000 jobs connected with it. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) pointed out that the industry produces the cheapest deep-mined coal in Europe—yet we hear that the French and German industries draw down much more money for their support.

We are facing another crisis. Since I came to the House 12 years ago in 1992, we have faced crisis after crisis in the coal industry. Luckily we have a Government who have listened, and on each occasion some assistance has been given. This time, however, I fear that the investment has not been enough to enable the industry to continue. We need more help. I hope that even at this 11th hour the Minister will think about that. Perhaps it would be possible to obtain operating aid. It is, after all, important for us to be able to support our indigenous coal industry.

It has been said that by 2006 we shall be importing gas. By 2020, 80 per cent of our energy economy will depend on imports of both gas and coal. It is not always realised that it currently depends on coal, which constitutes about a third of the energy mix. Last year we burned some 50 million tonnes in our coal-fired stations. We need a new generation of such stations. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North spoke of the integrated gasification combined cycle system. I know that the owner of Hatfield colliery was seeking investment to support a new unit based on the new clean coal technology. Such a unit, if successful, might well provide a stimulus for the development of clean coal technology generators that would help sustain the industry.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood put his finger on the real problem for the future, though. He referred to the large combustion plant directive and the Government's approach to it. There are two possible approaches, the national plan and the emissions limit value plan. The national plan would involve one national sulphur bubble. I suspect that DEFRA has considered how it might trade off the bubble with other European countries, which would be a mistake. DEFRA's calculations fail to take account of the cost of the demise of the UK coal industry. The cost for coalfield communities would be terrific. It is therefore important that the Minister and his colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs examine the alternative approach of emission limit value, which would support the UK coal industry. UK Coal estimates that if the national plan is to be the Government's way forward, the industry is likely to he decimated, and could be reduced to 3 million or 5 million tonnes in two or three years.

I therefore urge the Minister to adopt the emission limit value approach arid consider the way in which we could make more investment available to Hatfield, which is the centre of the industry. I get the feeling that if Hatfield colliery closes, others may speedily follow.

It is therefore important that the Minister take on board the combustion plant directive, and approach it in a way that gives the UK coal industry sustainability and makes more investment available, so that Hatfield colliery continues into the future.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) on securing an important debate. He made a powerful speech for Hatfield colliery, which I support. I am sure that many other people, inside and outside the House, would like Hatfield to have a good future.

I want to make one or two brief remarks about the last remaining colliery in the great northern coalfield—Ellington. Just before Christmas, UK Coal announced 70 redundancies at the colliery and placed it in the review process. That news came after information that £2 million of Government investment aid was available and that £1.1 million was available immediately for development in the next two years. The plan was to develop an area called K3 south district, thereby providing four more years of production and employment. Protecting more than 400 jobs in an area of long-term high unemployment is vital.

Ellington supplies a pithead power station, which is owned by Alcan, and provides power to its adjacent aluminium smelter. More than 1,100 jobs are shared between the two industries. Although Ellington relies almost entirely on Alcan for its survival and future, the closure of the pit would have a negative effect on Alcan's prosperity. Alcan burns 1.2 million tonnes of coal per annum—80 per cent. now comes from Ellington. Finding 1 million tonnes of coal at the price that it now pays would be impossible for Alcan. World coal markets are changing rapidly. Ellington colliery could supply Alcan's requirements for the next 20 years.

At great public expense under British Coal and the National Coal Board, tens of millions of pounds were spent on developing roadways to access new reserves to the north of Ellington—some 14 km under the North sea. It is estimated that between 20 million and 200 million tonnes of accessible coal lie in that Klondike under the North sea—enough to fuel a new generation of clean coal power stations.

To realise that, Ellington needs to overcome its short-term problems. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is supportive and has been helpful in recent meetings. Indeed, were it not for the Government's commitment, Ellington would have closed several years ago. I ask my hon. Friend to re-examine another application from UK Coal for further investment aid to Ellington.

It is commendable that everyone at the pit—management and work force—is working together for the colliery's survival. However, I am surprised and disappointed that the company's board passes on its responsibilities to the work force when problems occur. I find that strange. Nevertheless, a critical fault has been identified in any survival plan for the colliery: problems with the coal preparation plant because of a poor design that constantly breaks down and spends many days down, on maintenance. That has led to a build-up of some 400,000 tonnes of unwashed and ungraded coal. It is estimated that an improved plant, costing £2.5 million, will be required to solve the long-term problems of Ellington colliery. I respectfully suggest that my hon. Friend the Minister look favourably on any application that includes such a proposal.

Alcan is the largest industrial employer in my constituency. It has invested heavily so that it can continue on site for at least 20 years. Ellington has the reserves, manpower and skills to produce the coal that Alcan requires. Further investment now would make that possible.

I speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, but I appreciate that many speakers, especially the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), have made a case for the coal industry with far more knowledge than I could pretend to possess. I do not believe that I am alone in being moved last night by the television programme about Hatfield. When I first became involved in policies for the Liberal Democrats 20 years ago, I joined one of the miners' marches that went through London. Although I know that that was a token gesture, it represented how I felt about the terrible position that confronted us under the premiership of Margaret Thatcher.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Doncaster, North on presenting his case so well and on expressing great concern for Hatfield colliery. I appreciate that he is anxious today to ensure that the Minister provides clarity, especially about the proposed £15 million in funding. I shall therefore not take issue with the request for that money, although the Liberal Democrats are worried about the amount of funding that the Department of Trade and Industry has put into various projects over the years. We remain concerned about that, but I shall deal with the details of the specific request that we are considering shortly.

A massive amount of money, which has already been mentioned, has been put into nuclear power. At the end of last year, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced that she would increase the credit facility to British Energy by £75 million. Even worse, many people say that the cost of nuclear energy could rise to £ billion in the next few years because of the need for decommissioning, waste management and the costs of production. Vast sums of money are being put into energy production that is costly and of major environmental concern to many of us. No one here, except perhaps the Minister, would agree that such a use of Department of Trade and Industry funding represents the way that we should go.

At the beginning of the month, the European Commission drew attention to the fact that Britain had crept to the top of the European scoreboard for subsidies, thanks to two big handouts—one to British Energy and the other to Railtrack. That position is not sustainable. All state subsidies to industry should be considered according to the taxpayer's long-term interests and the value that the industries add to society, rather than on the basis of individual commercial or labour interests, so the Minister needs to be asked some questions about that situation.

First, will the coal mine be viable in the long term? Concern has been expressed about the fact that the administrators are finding it hard to attract private investors because of the cost involved in developing a new seam. If such projects are viable in the long run but just need a helping hand to attract investment, should we not consider at least the possibility of loans based on the project's viability, both in this case and in other cases?

Secondly, if the Government agree to fund the maintenance of the mine until a suitable buyer can be found, how much will that cost? If we are to put money into a project, we should have a view about its viability, effectiveness and long-term cost. There is no point putting money in if we will see no result at the end of the day. Of course there is great concern about the future of the £350 million clean coal power station that the pit's former owners were planning to construct next to the mine. Has the Minister any answer to those questions?

The hon. Members who have already spoken, particularly the hon. Member for Doncaster, North, have made some important points about Hatfield colliery holding the key to 50 per cent. of the coal industry's reserves in this country, and about security of supply. The hon. Gentleman has said that we need a clear strategic approach to energy—something that I called for more than a year ago in a previous debate on coal. Above all, we must decide to allow the development of a number of environmentally acceptable forms of energy production, and I very much hope that clean coal can be part of that.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) on securing this debate and on speaking so eloquently on behalf of not only Hatfield colliery, but the UK coal industry. I welcome the chance to contribute to the debate. I intend to say a few words, but to leave the Minister plenty of opportunity to reply to a number of the points that have been made by all the hon. Members who have spoken. In some ways, I feel a little sorry for the Minister because he is perhaps a bit isolated on the issue, inasmuch as there seems to be some concern—as expressed not only in this Chamber today, but throughout the industry—not about the White Paper's objectives, which we all share, but about the lack of direction that, I am afraid, it seems to show. I shall return to that in a minute.

I have researched Hatfield colliery, and very interesting reading my brief on it is. I do not intend to go through that brief because the hon. Member for Doncaster, North has indeed spoken about the colliery and I would not pretend to have anything like his knowledge, but I know that the colliery has an interesting history and, potentially, an interesting future, which depends on which way this country decides to go in its energy policy.

When I took on the shadow Department of Trade and Industry brief some six months ago, I started to look at the issues and it became very clear to me that there was no immediate threat to, or problem with, the security of supply. Of course we had some technical problems in London and the west midlands, when the power was out for nothing more than a few minutes. However, those technical problems were in no way related to capacity and were nothing to do with supply, and it is unfortunate that the two issues got confused.

I am satisfied that in the very short term—this year, next year—there is enough capacity to see us through. That is a dangerous thing to say when we are not yet quite through the winter, but I am assured by those at Ofgem and many other people that there is sufficient capacity now and, indeed, there probably will be for next winter. However, when we look slightly beyond that the situation possibly changes. I share the concern that has been expressed not only by a number of hon. Members, but by people throughout the energy world who seem to be somewhat concerned about the prospect of a possible shortage of supply in the medium term.

What do we mean by the medium term? Well, according to one or two discussions that I had only yesterday with people in the industry who really should know, they are concerned not about next winter particularly, but the winter after that, when demand might possibly begin to exceed supply. Things can be done to secure that supply in the short to medium term, but when we move into the middle-medium term things look a little bit worrying.

As the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) has already suggested, our current mix is about 22 or 23 per cent. nuclear, about 32 per cent. coal and about 38 or 39 per cent. gas, with one or two other bits coming in. That kind of mix—a third, a third, a third, with a desire to increase renewables—is probably not a bad one, but that is, of course, about to change as there are questions about the future of the nuclear industry. I want the Government to give some signs about what will happen to the nuclear industry, which ought to have a future.

I accept that the costs in the past cannot be repeated in the future, but there is no need for that to happen. There is new technology and there are different ways to do things and to handle the waste. I have travelled to Finland—a country that is expanding its nuclear industry and, indeed, finding good, safe and not all that expensive ways to handle and deal with the waste. I think that the nuclear industry has a future, but I am not sure that the Government agree and I should like the Minister to tell us—although I have heard him speak about this before—about his view of the nuclear industry's future. As things stand, I do not believe that the Government particularly intend the nuclear industry to have a future.

If the 22 or 23 per cent. of electricity produced by the nuclear industry starts to fall, how will we make up the difference? Well, let us look at the coal industry, which, as hon. Members have suggested, is under some environmental pressure in respect of sulphur emissions and carbon emissions—a double whammy. That is a threat to the coal industry, and we have to recognise it as such. Of course we have to play our part in reducing emissions, but we ought to remember that the emissions produced in this country amount to about 2 per cent. of world emissions. Although we probably have to play more than our part—that would only be fair—I do not want British industry to be penalised to the extent that we have a power supply crisis.

If the nuclear industry is allowed to diminish and coal is under environmental pressure, so that 32 per cent. might drop, what will happen? Where will our power come from? Well, we have gas. As the hon. Member for Doncaster, North and other hon. Members have said, we are due to become a net importer of gas in 2006. The Minister confirmed that in the House only a few days ago. Therefore the 38 or 39 per cent. of supply that is now provided by gas might creep up to 49, 59, 69 or even 79 per cent. A lot of that gas will be imported, as we have heard.

I am not convinced that the Government have sufficiently advanced the negotiations with countries such as Russia, Algeria and others to enable us to feel secure in the supply of gas, which is so important. Yes, a treaty has already been signed with Norway, but that will cover only a fraction of the gas that we will need to import as we move forward. So where will the security of supply come from?

I am concerned about the fact that we could become over-dependent on gas. We have been over-dependent on middle east oil in the past—we have seen where that gets us—and, to an extent, we have been over-dependent on coal at certain times, which was not a good situation either. What I should Like is a balanced energy policy so that we are not over-dependent on any one source, but the Government have not yet come up with such a policy. They have given no guarantee that they know how to achieve that, nor even that it is their desire.

Of course, we have the prospect of increasing our use of renewables. Everyone who cares about the planet and our ability to continue to generate electricity wants renewables to succeed and increase in importance. However, our targets of 10.4 per cent. of supply by 2010, 15.4 per cent. by 2015 and 20 per cent. by 2020 seem ambitious when we consider that the present target, which is underpinned by an obligation, is only 3 per cent. Even that target has not been met—I think that last year's figure was 1.8 per cent. We are not near achieving even a low 3 per cent. target, so how will we reach 10.4 per cent. in only six or seven years?

I am worried that the Government not only expect renewables to come up to the 10, 15 and 20 per cent. targets, but expect windmills to provide all that energy. I am in favour of renewables, and although I am not against windmills, as such, we should consider how unreliable and inefficient they are. They are expensive to build, they do not last long after they are built, the electricity that they produce is expensive and no one wants windmills to be built near them, so there is a bit of a problem. I encourage the Government to try to increase the amount of electricity generated by renewable energy and to look a little wider than simply getting that from windmills.

I want to leave the Minister plenty of time to reply to the many points made by hon. Members. I once again congratulate the hon. Member for Doncaster, North on not only raising the issue of Hatfield colliery, but giving us the opportunity to discuss energy policy in general.

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) on securing the debate. I pay tribute to him for the absolute and unyielding determination that he has shown while trying to secure a viable future for Hatfield colliery and the proposed clean coal power station that would be linked to it. Without his determination and work over a long period, the prospect of an attractive future for Hatfield may not have existed.

I thank all hon. Members who represent coal mining constituencies who spoke in the debate. Their contribution is important to maintain a wide recognition that coal continues to play an important role in the UK's energy supply—my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) was right to make that point. Coal will continue to be important for a long time to come. I want to refer to the work involved in producing "Manifesto for Coal", which was launched on 3 November last year, because that has been helpful in focusing attention on the issues that face such an important industry.

The UK coal industry provides about half the coal used by our coal-fired power stations, which, in turn, supply about one third of the country's electricity requirements. There is also a big demand for UK-produced coal for industrial use. Coal's contribution to meeting our national energy needs is in addition to its local economic importance in many parts of the UK where it continues to provide good quality employment.

Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), said that we now have the most efficient coal industry in Europe. That is right, and it is important that we celebrate that and draw attention to it. Our coal producers have made big strides to reduce costs to make themselves more competitive with world producers. With world coal prices buoyant, as they are at present, many are well placed to compete on much better terms than previously with producers of coal imported from elsewhere.

We have heard a good deal about Hatfield colliery, so I want to respond to points that hon. Members have made. I understand that the mine at Hatfield was sunk between 1911 and 1917. As we heard, an important and interesting history is attached to the colliery. It has strong support and loyalty from its work force, which is an important part of the reason why we can still talk about its prospects today.

Hatfield colliery received a total of £11.3 million of coal operating aid from the Government between April 2000 and December 2002, of which nearly £4.5 million was paid to Coalpower Ltd. after it took over in October 2001. During that period, and despite such substantial Government support, the mine was not able to generate the income that had been hoped for. It received £867,000 as the last instalment of coal operating aid in March 2003, but the company nevertheless continued to experience financial difficulties. In August and October last year, the Coal Authority released to Coalpower funds that it held on behalf of Hatfield in the hope that that would help the company to finalise the necessary refinancing to secure its future. I was kept regularly briefed on those developments and was keen to do everything that I could to help, so it was with great regret that I learned that those efforts had not come to fruition.

On 3 December, Coalpower Ltd. went into administration. That was judged to be the best option for finding a new owner with the financial resources to pursue the Barnsley seam project, which, with the High Hazels seam all but exhausted, is essential to the mine's future. Once again, with the Coal Authority's help, Hatfield was kept open—albeit not in full production— while a buyer was sought. A possible bid is in development that might lead to an offer that could secure a viable future for the mine. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the bid or raise any undue hopes, but acquisition by a properly financed and funded company with the resources to carry out the planned investment would clearly be an excellent outcome for the colliery, its work force and the Government.

There were plans to develop a power park on part of the colliery site. It was planned to have been completed by 2005–06 and centred on the construction of a 430 MW coal integrated gasification combined cycle power plant adjacent to the colliery. Coalpower had obtained section 36 planning consent for the plant. but it was unable to finance its construction before the administrators were appointed. The project would present major challenges. The combination of technologies that it would entail is untried at present. The zoning of the site in local plans would be a challenge, and there would be a need for an access road to connect the site with the motorway network. Those are all significant challenges, but if they can he resolved an attractive project could undoubtedly take place at that plant.

The Government need to remain within state aid rules when considering means of support. I hope that the House accepts that we have done everything that we could within those rules to help to secure the colliery's future. We considered Coalpower's application for coal investment before the other applications that were received. Having done so, we made a formal offer of £15 million of support, in the hope that that would help the company to secure the refinancing that it needed to demonstrate that it could meet the 70 per cent. of costs that have to be provided privately under state aid rules. The company was hopeful that it could do so. When Coalpower went into administration, we authorised the administrators to tell potential buyers that that aid would be available to a new owner who offered a comparable investment project.

The aim of coal investment aid schemes is to create or safeguard jobs in the UK coal industry in areas that are often socially and economically disadvantaged by encouraging coal producers to enter into investment projects that maintain access to coal reserves and help to ensure the medium-term economic viability of those mines. We have a budget of up to £60 million over three years, and bids for the first of three application periods total £131 million—more than twice the total budget available over three years. It clearly was not possible to meet all the bids in full, so it was important when assessing applications to take full account of the benefits that were likely to result from each application. On 27 November, I announced investment offers totalling £52 million, which could secure more than 4,000 coal mining jobs and create an additional 300. Most applicants have until the end of February to accept the offers, and I can confirm that because of its particular circumstances, the period for acceptance of the £15 million offer to Coalpower has been extended to 31 March. It therefore remains available to a new owner of Hatfield if an acceptable bid is received before that date.

I think that I made it clear that we are grateful for the help that the Government have given to Hatfield colliery over the past few years in coal operating aid and for Coal Authority grants from the summer to December. However, does my hon. Friend agree that if it had not been for the huge gap between the end of coal operating aid and the start of coal investment aid, Coalpower might not have experienced short-term problems with financing, and perhaps we would not be having this debate today?

I do not know about that. We were all optimistic once the offer was made. As I said, we made it as early as we could, and we hoped that with the availability of that substantial Government support it would be possible to put together a financing package to make the project viable. We still hope that that is the case, but we are all disappointed that it was not possible to do so as soon as it initially appeared. However, we will keep the offer open until the end of March. I understand that the administrators will maintain a skeleton staff at the colliery until the bid expected in mid-March has been assessed, to make sure that operations can restart promptly if it is accepted.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's announcement about keeping the £15 million offer open. However, can he confirm that the administrators have been instructed to maintain the pit so that it is ventilated, water-pumped and open for business should the company come up with a successful financial package?

That is certainly important. Steps have been taken to ensure that that is the case and operations can restart promptly if the bid is accepted. If my hon. Friend has detailed questions about that, I am happy to consider them.

The offers announced in November included awards to three mines operated by UK Coal, including Ellington, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy), who has spoken to me on a number of occasions about this matter. I can tell him and other Members that I recently met Alcan to discuss the concerns that he has expressed. The other mines to receive awards were Rossington and Welbeck. There are concerns about the implications of those awards for the collieries, given what UK Coal has since said. I am aware that the review process for Ellington is under way, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck said, and is expected to take about three months.

If offers of aid made to these collieries are refused, the funds would be returned to the coal investment aid budget and would be available for reallocation in a future application period. The next period is due to close at the end of May this year. Important points have been made about other issues affecting the coal industry. Eighty per cent. of UK-produced coal goes into coal-fired electricity generation, so the future of the industry is inextricably bound to the future of that sector, which is facing considerable challenges in the years ahead, not least because of increasing pressure from the environmental regulation that a number of hon. Members spoke about.

Of immediate concern, as my hon. Friends the Members for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), for Sherwood and for Barnsley, West and Penistone said, is the implementation of the large combustion plants directive, which will constrain the capability of generators to burn coal mined in the UK because of its relatively high sulphur content. There has been a lot of debate in the coal and generating industries about which of two alternative ways—the emission limit value and the national plan—of implementing the directive is more appropriate, and which option, if not the most beneficial, is the least damaging to their prospects. Coal producers, as we have heard, have clearly stated their preference for the emission limit value option, believing that it offers the best choice for the continued use of UK-mined coal.

The Government considered carefully all the responses to the consultation exercise and announced on 27 November last year that we would submit a national plan to the European Commission. As there may have been some misunderstanding, I emphasise to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton that at the same time we made it clear that we would conduct further analysis of the likely impact of the implementation of the directive so that full account could be taken of the different and conflicting views expressed by the various interested sectors. In other words, at this stage we are not irrevocably committed to the national plan, as further analysis is needed if we are to be confident about which of the two alternatives is the right one to adopt.

We recently commissioned further independent research into expected levels of coal production to 2016, which will help further to refine our considerations. I do not anticipate that we will look at low production levels such as the amount of 3 million to 4 million tonnes that was suggested in our debate—I think that production will stay at a higher level. In the remit for the study, we asked the analysts to report on the potential effect on demand for coal, especially indigenous coal, of other environmental controls that are already in place, in the pipeline or in development and are likely to be introduced during this period. They include, for example, the emissions trading scheme and integrated pollution prevention and control regulations. We will work closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when considering which steps to take, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood requested. In response to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, I am happy to meet again Members who have expressed concern before a final decision is made.

Order. We must turn our attention to the next topic for consideration today.

The topic of this Adjournment debate—the closure of old people's homes—is a sad affair. I shall explain how we reached this point. A couple of weeks ago we learned from the newspapers that the last remaining homes— [Interruption.]

Order. Would people leaving the Room do so quietly, please, and conduct their conversations outside?

My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) and I were not aware of the closures. The news reached us by way of the newspapers. The Journal in Newcastle reported it first. It was a complete surprise to us. Of course, the trade unions and the work force telephoned our offices immediately. I said that I would meet them on the Friday, as soon as I got back from Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck, who had a home in his area that was to close, said the same.

That was one of the saddest days I have experienced during my 16 years as a Member of Parliament. When I got to the meeting at the home, all the staff were there, even those who were off duty. They had all come to see their Member of Parliament. There were tears all over the place. They would all lose their jobs. Somebody was on their way from county hall to try to fix them up with jobs elsewhere—that is how far advanced matters were. Even the old people were crying, because some of them had been turfed out of a home a year previously and were very upset by the prospect of being turfed out again. I understand that they were to be placed in private homes. The council was washing its hands of care for the aged in Northumberland.

We were not very happy with the situation or with the council. There was a meeting at county level the following Monday which my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck attended—I was away that day—at which there were further developments. Voices were raised and concerns were expressed. The next thing we knew was that the closure plan was withdrawn. What annoyed me more than anything was the statement made by the council leader after the closure programme was withdrawn, because it involved the MPs. It stated:

"Our two MPs have indicated they will help to get better funding for the council and we and local residents will hold them to those promises."

That statement was threatening towards the two Members of Parliament, who were only doing their duty. In fact, as I said, we had not been told of the closure plans. That is the sort of thing we had to put up with.

The statement means that whatever the council closes down next in order to make the required savings of £million, the two local Members of Parliament and the Government will get the blame. I do not believe that we can secure any more funding. I hope we can, but I very much doubt it, because in the past two years the local government settlements have been among the best the council has ever had.

I shall try to express the council's concerns as bullet points, without going through all the rigmarole. We all know what this is about: the council wants extra money. It needs to save£7 million in this year's budget. The council says that the underpin cost pressures in social services are £12 million. That is a lot of money. The council goes on to say that the ring-fenced funding has reduced support for the core services. I know what "ring-fenced" means, and I know there is a lot of funding, but the council does not explain how much is ring-fenced. It has not given us that figure. It simply states that the ring-fencing contributes to the pressure and the debt.

The council also says that 60 per cent. of funding in this year's allocation has to be passported directly to education. Whatever happens, 60 per cent. must go to education, and the rest is for the other services. I do not know how the council works out its budget. The councillors sit round the table and work out the budget in their way, but I am not privy to it. But I was a councillor for 19 years before I came to this place, and I remember one year, when Denis Healey was the Chancellor, he was cutting local government spending.

I was chairman of environmental health in Blyth Valley council in those days, and I remember the leader saying, "We have to make severe cuts. I want you—all the chairmen of the departments—to go back to your departments, get to the base budget and cut all the fat you can find. I want the savings reported back here in a fortnight." So I went to the director of environmental health and we started looking for cuts. We decided we did not need to order paper clips that year, or paper or pencils—we went through the whole list. We were due to go to five conferences— the chairman, vice-chairman, various councillors and the officers—but we decided the conferences were not sufficiently important, so we cut them from the budget.

That is what we did in those days. What do councillors do now? I think they just sit there and say, "What's the biggest expenditure? Old people and the adult training centre." I forgot to mention that the adult training centre was to close as well. We have never seen a budget. We have never heard that they attempted to look at the base budget and cut any fat that there might be. If the county council said to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck, "Look, we've cut the fat. We haven't anything left to cut. We are really at rock bottom", I would have no problem with that. I could get on my knees to my hon. Friend the Minister and say that the council had cut its expenditure to the bone.

However, I have to tell the Minister that the council has not told me or my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck that it has examined the base budget and cut the fat, like we did in the old days. I suggest that that is what the council should do, if it has not done so already. There are items of expenditure such as car leasing. I have heard that that involves an enormous amount of money, but I cannot find out the figure. I might have to ask the Minister a question and see whether I get the answer. Another item is conferences. There are conferences all over the place and council members are always away somewhere. There are seminars that they attend. These are all headings. One has to ask for the expenditure under each heading, so that one can add them all up. Then there is training—it must be the best trained county council in the land—and of course there is entertainment.

That is what I call fat, and local councillors—may perhaps not just in Northumberland—should start chipping away at that before they announce the closure of old people's homes and adult training centres. That is only fair to the people they represent, who pay their tax and their rates.

I do not want to take too long, because my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck wants to contribute. The Minister says that he needs at least 15 minutes. I want to hear what he has to say, because I want to know how much short the council is and how much we can get off it, if we can get anything at all. The council says it is in a dire situation. I do not think that it has done enough. I have said what I want to say—enough said. The council might take note of my words; it might not. I know the Minister will try his best. I will not blame him if he says he has no money available, but I hope that he has.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) on securing the debate. I doubt whether he will be offered coffee and biscuits on his next visit to Northumberland county council, but I await it with interest.

The county council recently concluded a consultation process lasting only two weeks on whether to close three residential care homes—two in my constituency and one in my hon. Friend's—and reviewed, with the possibility of closure, adult training centres in both constituencies. Many elderly and vulnerable people were distraught at the thought of moving out of their homes, where they were loved and cared for.

With my hon. Friend, I met staff, residents and the trade unions. We all agreed to oppose those closures and mounted a fairly good campaign. My hon. Friend and I wrote to every councillor in Blyth Valley and Wansbeck, insisting that they vote against the proposals. The county council has since decided not to go ahead with the closures. I commend it for that, but I question why it felt it necessary to make the announcements in the first place.

When that decision was made, the council put out a press release that was both misleading and disingenuous. The impression was given that my hon. Friend and I had promised that extra funding would be available and that the county would hold us to account for that. I can state on the record that that was never said by either of us. We simply said, as we often do, that if we could help in any way, including with ministerial meetings, we would be happy to do so. The county council agreed to put out a statement correcting its original comments, but I have yet to see it in print.

I want to touch on two or three areas of care that are vital, but also extremely expensive. I urge the Minister to press the county council to work very hard to adopt best practice in all areas of care. In keeping with the majority of local authorities, children's services have experienced major increases in demand over recent years. In Northumberland, there has been a large increase in the number of children with disabilities requiring services—more than 300 additional young people since 2000. An extra 25 young people a year require placements outside the county or in secure accommodation.

Although those numbers are not great, I am informed that a place at a secure unit costs £4,000 a week. Perhaps the Minister can extract from the county council how that massive figure is arrived at. Additionally, each year about 16 to 18 young adults with severe and complex disabilities leave full-time education—they require care services whose cost averages £45,000 a year for each person. That is a total of £750,000 each year.

More pressure is applied to adults' services by the Government's expectation that remaining long—stay residents in learning disability hospitals should be resettled in the community. There are 24 residents in Northgate hospital at Morpeth. They all have complex needs and, until recently, they were expected to stay in hospital indefinitely. The cost to the council of community schemes for those people is over £1 million, plus significant capital costs.

The future of adult training centres is of great concern to my constituents, many of whom rely heavily on them to provide essential family respite and support. For those persons using the centres, they represent a chance to contact the outside world and to enjoy the company of others. Their closure would have a devastating effect on family carers with employment responsibilities, a growing number of ageing carers and those caring for people with complex needs.

Almost 500 people are using the adult training centres and demand is growing year on year. Many service users have indicated a strong interest in finding employment and have been helped through either supported education and employment or social enterprise firms, a number of which operate successfully throughout Northumberland. There is a proven need to expand those services, which makes the call for closure even more alarming.

Those are just some of the services provided by Northumberland county council. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley described the need to continue with residential care. Pressure on social services increases year on year; the Government recognise that, and have increased the budget year on year to match it. Northumberland county council conceded that it has had the most generous settlement in its history, so I urge the Minister to meet its representatives to determine the truth.

The people in my constituency want to know that their care homes and training centres are safe and have a future. I call on Northumberland county council to assure them on that and on the fact that, whatever decisions it needs to make, it will protect the elderly and the most vulnerable people in our society. The responsibility lies with the county council; it cannot pass it on to anyone else. It has to make the ultimate decision.

I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) and for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) on their contributions. In particular, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley on securing the debate and bringing these issues to the attention of the House. He is keen to have high-quality social services in his area, and so he should be. He is also keen for the council to get value for money for local council tax payers, and so he should be. I would be delighted to engage with him and my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck in any way I can to help to ensure that they understand what is going on, what the Government are doing and what they can do, and what are the responsibilities of the county council.

My hon. Friends both made the point that, ultimately, devolution to local government means that local government is responsible for making certain decisions. It has to stand up and be counted after making those decisions; it cannot try to fob the blame off on Members of Parliament, who have a role to play in approaching Ministers. Ultimately, however, decisions will be made by local government, and it needs to explain them.

To put these matters in context, I want to make a few points about the money that we have given to social services nationally. Between 1996–97 and 2002–03, resources for personal social services were increased by this Government by 20 per cent. on average over inflation. That is an average real-terms increase of 3 per cent. a year. Last year, this year and next, we have done even better, as we have given 6 per cent. more than inflation to local government for social services. That is a huge increase by any calculation.

Next year, total social services resources for adults are set to increase by 8.2 per cent., or £775 million. That includes a 6.8 per cent. rise in formula spending shares as well as extra resources, which have been provided to local authorities to expand the range of community-based social care services, improve services for carers and raise the quality of the social care work force.

Northumberland has benefited significantly over recent years from that extra investment in social services. In 2002—03, the council's total social services resources increased, on a like-for-like basis, by 6.4 per cent. That followed a 7.8 per cent. increase in 2001—02. This year, Northumberland received an increase of 3.9 per cent. in its formula grant, as well as significant increases in the grants paid by the Department of Health. Next year, Northumberland will see its total adult social services resources increase by a further 9.4 per cent. That includes a 7.8 per cent. increase in its formula grant and large increases in its access and systems capacity grant, its carers grant and its training grants.

That means that overall resources for adult social services for Northumberland have increased from £38 million in 1996—97 to £62 million in 2004—05. That is a whopping 62 per cent. increase. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley acknowledged the generosity of that settlement, and I am surprised that the county council is not joining him by sending letters of congratulation to the Government on the size of that increase. It has done a heck of lot better than most councils around the country—I wish that my council had done that well.

As my hon. Friend said, we have also reduced dramatically the level of ring-fencing on adult social services. In 2004—05, only 2 per cent. of the resources provided for adult social services will be ring-fenced. The council will therefore have the freedom to target extra resources for social services on the areas of social services that are most in need. I am surprised to hear from my hon. Friend that the council is claiming that somehow, because we have removed ring fences, the pressure on social services is increased. Local councils have been pressing for the removal of ring fences—they believe that they need that extra freedom. It is not a pressure on social services but a freedom for them.

Only a year ago, we finished a full review of the formula used to allocate funding for adult personal social services. As a result of that review, we revised the formula introduced this year. During that review, we looked at the extra cost of providing non-residential care to older people in rural areas because of the extra travelling involved, and as a result we doubled the weighting given to sparsity in the older people's formula. That was a measure for which Northumberland pressed and from which it benefited. Overall, Northumberland gained from the changes made to the personal social services formula this year, so the formula will be frozen for the next few years to allow for a period of stability. All those things were done at the request of Northumberland and have benefited Northumberland.

I should perhaps make it clear that the Department of Health was given a fixed amount for social care by the Chancellor at the time of the last spending review. It covered the period 2003—04 to 2005—06. We have told local government what that money has been provided for and how it will be distributed. I have held no money back, so I fear that I must disappoint my hon. Friends by saying that I have no extra money to give to Northumberland—it has it all, and it has done very well out of it. In no way should Northumberland try to blame my hon. Friends for that. The simple fact is that the money has already gone to the county council, and it has been very well done-by. It has more than adequate resources now to start moving things forward. It should not try to blame Members of Parliament if it must make some tough decisions.

We have given a generous settlement to the council, and the council needs to live within that amount. It needs to consult widely about what is needed locally, and to think long and hard about how it should spend the money that we have given in ways that will provide the best possible services for those needing support—exactly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley. I say to both my hon. Friends that I must question whether the council has done that consultation and made that information available, because if two Members of Parliament have not been given the information, what is the likelihood that other people living in the local area have been given sufficient information and consultation on that process?

I have noted my hon. Friend's comments on the passporting of funds to schools, but I would like to point out that education has been well funded and sufficient resources have been provided to enable councils, including Northumberland, to passport the schools funding. Social services funding is separate and is unaffected by the arrangements introduced on education. I also recognise that some of the extra resources that we have provided are required to meet the pressures arising from Government policies such as improvements in inspection, the introduction of the minimum wage and the introduction of criminal record checks. I am not apologetic about any of those measures, however: we have fully allowed for them in the money that we have provided to councils.

What do those substantial extra resources mean for Northumberland? The council can and should use its substantial extra resources to purchase services at realistic prices, to meet the needs of its residents in any way that it wants. It can increase fees locally, if that is what it needs to do; it can invest in new capacity locally, if that is what it wants to do; it can make the eligibility criteria for social care more generous, if that is what it wants to do; and it can cut the charges that it seeks to impose on people who must contribute to the cost of care at home, if that is what it wants to do. It needs to achieve value for money, however. Wherever it decides to buy care services, it needs to ensure that it is getting a good deal, and that includes where it buys care home places.

I understand that it costs about £35 a week more to keep a client in Northumberland's own care homes than to place that same client in an independent home. The council needs to be certain that that extra cost is reflected in either the quality of care that the client receives or the quality of the home in which the client is placed. It also needs to ask why there are extra costs, and to examine whether those services can be provided more efficiently. It is open to councils, however, to pay a different rate to one provider over another, if, but only if, paying more means that they get more. We want councils to commission the services that they need in an effective way, reflecting best value and the needs of their local community. They must, therefore, carry out a best value review if they have not done so already. Councils should make sure that their services are fair to the people who use them, as service users ought to be at the centre of planning services. Councils have to build person-centred services, and that means new ways of thinking and planning. We must move away from dependency models of care in which "professionals always know best", building a high-quality, well-regulated system that makes independence a real option and puts individuals in control of their own care.

I want to see councils "commissioning for choice" with, at its centre, recognition of disabled and older people as citizens with the same hopes and aspirations for the future as all of us. People want to be able to choose from a full menu of care services: from being able to receive care in their own homes through to extra care housing and residential accommodation. Very few people would choose residential care as one of their first options, and yet so much commissioning activity has been and still is preoccupied with that type of care.

Can my hon. Friend expand on the other point that I should have raised: the modernising or upgrading of homes? The Government have set a time limit., I believe, whereby all homes must be en suite and up to the standard required by 2007. Is that hard and fast, or is it just a figure?

Certainly, we have set national minimum standards, and we have said that we will review them next year to see whether we have got them right. In any event, we have relaxed the physical standards, so I do not know whether the county council is giving my hon. Friend an accurate picture of what is required.

Certainly, however, I advise and encourage the council and my hon. Friends, if I can help to facilitate matters, to look at best practice emerging from other areas, to see what can be done in care homes. If older people are living in unmodernised homes at the moment, whether they are council-owned or privately owned, they are not getting the level of service that they deserve. Some of the current best practice models of care are fabulous. I commend particularly to my hon. Friends and their constituents the extra care model, which I am trying to encourage throughout the country. In extra care, people live in their own private accommodation—usually a flat, sometimes a bungalow—but with all the care services that they need to be able to live independently on the doorstep, either provided by the council, or, if it is a private setting, by a private provider. Such a model means that people can live independently while still receiving the care that they need. As an alternative to care homes, it is incredibly popular. I advise both the council and my hon. Friends to examine those models, and to challenge themselves to see whether their current services match that best practice, and therefore whether modernisation might be appropriate—

Order.

I am enormously grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter in the Chamber. I thank the Leader of the House for agreeing that the sitting be suspended until 4 o'clock to enable those of us who wanted to be on the Floor of the House to hear the Hutton statement to do so.

I must declare a non-pecuniary interest in that I am the Conservative trustee of the Radiation Research Trust. I see the Labour trustee, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), in his seat. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) represents the Liberal Democrats.

I am not a scientist and I come to these matters, like so many colleagues throughout the House, on the basis of constituency experience. I want to mention three key constituency experiences that have helped to inform my concern and are the reason for raising the matter today.

The first happened early in my time as Member of Parliament for Sutton Coldfield, when I became involved in the matter of a mast being sited adjacent to St. Nicholas school in Boldmere in my constituency. I hope that I came to that with a clean mind; I certainly came to it with no prejudice. I observed how the school, together with the governors and parents, sought in a dignified way to raise its concern about the siting of the mast. I also observed the response of Orange and the way in which it dealt with consultation, the school and me as the local Member of Parliament.

As a matter of courtesy to the House, may I explain that I have another meeting to attend at 4.30 pm and that if I do not remain in the Chamber until the end of the debate I intend no discourtesy? I shall read Hansard diligently tomorrow.

My hon. Friend rightly opened the debate, on which I congratulate him, with a reference to his handsome constituency of Sutton Coldfield, which is largely residential, one of the finest towns in the midlands and a royal borough. As the representative of the neighbouring seat of Solihull, which is also largely residential and much like his constituency, will he acknowledge that many of my constituents have similar concerns? They will read this debate and the Minister's reply with great interest.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that he shares many of the concerns that I shall raise.

I observed the perfectly legitimate nervousness and concerns of the governors, heads and parents at the lack of information and the high-handed and arrogant way in which Orange behaved. I became very involved in the discussions and was amazed at how blatantly Orange merely paid lip service to them. I wrote to the chairman of Orange, but to this day I have not received a response. One of his underlings replied. I raised that experience with the then Minister with responsibility for planning, Lord Falconer, who was extremely sympathetic and I know raised my concerns at one of his meetings with leaders in the industry. That was my first experience of the way in which the health concerns of my constituents were dealt with by the industry.

The second event was a meeting last summer in my constituency at the Sutton Coldfield grammar school for girls, which is a fine school. A huge number of members of the public attended. Some had a professional involvement and interest in such matters and some came from much further afield than the west midlands. We had assembled a group of eminent experts to talk. I chaired that meeting and we heard from Professor Laurie Challis, the successor to Sir William Stewart as chairman of the mobile telecommunications and health research group, who made an interesting and distinguished contribution. We also heard from those who were concerned about the health aspects of mobile phone masts and those who were not. Alasdair Philips was also there—hon. Members will be aware that he runs an organisation called Powerwatch—and he made an impressive contribution. I sat and listened to the questions and the presentations for and against mobile phone masts made by that distinguished group of experts. The conclusion that I reached at the end of that lengthy meeting was that research is inadequate. Not enough research programmes are being commissioned by the Government and others, and much more needs to be done.

My third experience took place towards the end of last year. A mast was vandalised early in November in Wishaw in my constituency—not, I am advised, by members of what has become known as the Wishaw protest group against the mast, and not by my constituents. I know the people involved in the Wishaw group extremely well. Many of them have campaigned against the mast for a number of years.

I followed the events closely before and after the mast was vandalised. For instance, once it had collapsed, the group commissioned meetings with Crown Castle and T-Mobile. Two or three meetings have taken place, and I followed what happened at them. It is clear to me—I hope that I am an objective observer—that the meetings were a complete waste of time. The companies raised false hopes among my constituents, and although lip service was paid to making an effort to identify alternative sites, I am satisfied that it was merely lip service and not a serious intent.

We are all grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important subject. There is huge concern about it in Orpington, just as there is in Sutton Coldfield. He mentioned alternative sites. From my experience in Orpington, I know that alternative sites that are often quite practicable are not considered seriously enough, particularly by the inspector and certainly not by the companies in question. I am glad to support my hon. Friend on that.

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That will be the burden of my case for alternative sites.

The Wishaw group's experiences repay careful study. Wishaw is a small hamlet in my constituency. Let me outline what has happened in recent years. Five ladies have developed breast cancer. There is one case of prostate cancer, one of bladder cancer and one of lung cancer, and there are three cases of pre-cancerous cervical cells. One person, aged 51, who has motor neurone disease, has also had a massive tumour removed from the top of his spine. Others have developed benign lumps, and there are also cases of electro-sensitivity. We also have three cases of severe skin rashes, and many villagers suffer with sleep problems, headaches, dizziness and problems with low immune systems.

Eighteen houses surround the mast, at a range of up to 500m, and 77 per cent. of the hamlet has health-related illness, which is believed by those who live there to be the result of radiation from the mast. The outbreak of illness occurred in 2001, after seven years of exposure to the radiation emitted by the T-Mobile mast. Incidentally, there is non-scientific evidence in the village that, since the mast came down, many of those minor ailments have cleared up. Doctors will say that it could be as a result of the removal of the cause of anxiety, but it is an interesting observation.

As I said earlier, I am not a scientist, and I am not qualified to judge the medical responses. However, it seems to me that important questions need to be asked. I have considered them carefully. I hope that the Minister has forgiven me for making available to her a list of 18 questions. I shall now go through them. I hope that she will be able to answer them because it would take us a long way forward.

My first questions are on the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection. Will the Minister concede that on its own, adoption of the ICNIRP exposure guidelines will not fully allow for current gaps in scientific knowledge, particularly the possibility of as yet unrecognised thermal or non-thermal adverse effects at lower levels of exposure? Secondly, the Stewart report stated at paragraph 5.59 that the biological effects can occur at energy levels too low to cause significant heating. According to paragraph 6.44:

"the possibility of harm from exposures insufficient to cause important heating of tissues cannot yet be ruled out with confidence."

Given that the ICNIRP guidelines ensure only that exposure to radiation of the kind used in mobile telephony does not result in an adverse degree of body heating, do the Government believe that the measurements are an appropriate test of the potential risk to health?

Thirdly, will the Government recognise that using a heat-based guideline is insufficient if there are non-thermal effects from radiation arising from the use of mobile telephony? Fourthly, will the Minister explain why the allowed public exposure microwave radiation levels from masts in the UK, based on ICNIRP, are so much higher than Close allowed elsewhere, such as in Salzburg, Italy, Switzerland, Russia, China, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg?

The next questions relate to Government guidelines on planning policy guidance 8. In a letter sent to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 5 June, the chief planning officer of Birmingham city council said:

"I am writing as Chief Planning Officer of the largest local planning authority in the country in response to concerns being expressed to me regarding the lack of clarity in Government guidance on the health implications of telecommunication development.

As Chief Planning Officer, I find myself in a difficult position. Whilst Government guidance makes it clear that health issues can be a material consideration, PPG8 states that it is the Government policy 'to facilitate the growth of telecommunications systems' and that 'the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards. It remains central government's responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health'."

He went on to say:

"With respect this advice, allied with the inconclusive nature of the Stewart Report, provides little help to local planning authorities at the front line in dealing with the increasing number of telecommunication proposals being submitted. I believe that there is a pressing need for urgent further research into the health aspects of telecommunication development together with a review of the existing guidance and regulations on how such proposals should be considered."

That is the opinion of the chief planning officer of the largest local authority in Britain, and I hope that his words will weigh heavily on the Minister and her colleagues.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this useful debate. In my constituency, Mrs. Jane Lee of "Otterton Against Masts" has campaigned successfully to stop Orange erecting a mast in a playing field. The application was also turned down by East Devon district council. Mrs. Lee, Mrs. Charlotte Sanderson and others have already raised about £8,000 locally. There is a High Court case at the beginning of March and Mrs. Lee has been told that if she loses she will be personally liable for £8,000. The system is weighted against the individuals making appeals. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be useful if the Minister could outline how, in the case of an appeal, an individual can campaign successfully and overturn decisions?

My hon. Friend makes a useful point that is much wider than the specific case in his constituency. He flagged up a specific problem that the Minister will have heard, and I will say more on that later.

Does the Minister agree with Mr. Justice Richards' High Court judgment on 22 October 2003, in the case of Mrs. Jodie Phillips and Hutchinson 3G, that people's health fears must be taken into account? Concerning the location of a mast and base station, he found that the question asked should not be, "Is this an acceptable location?", but, "Is it the best location?", and that

"for the purpose of answering that question, one can and should look at whatever alternative possibilities there may be".

Will the Minister urge her colleagues, especially those involved in planning, to ensure that PPG8 is amended to encourage operators to consider fully all viable alternative sites for a mast and base station so that the public are exposed to the lowest practical level of microwave radiation? Does the Minister agree that a requirement for operators to make available to the public a list of alternative locations for masts and base stations would further the Government's aim of

"providing for more discussions between operators, local authorities and members of the public"?

In the recent court case of Yasmin Skelt v. The First Secretary of State and Three Rivers District Council and Orange PCS Ltd. on 26 September 2003, it was conceded that the ICNIRP certificate must not be used as a bar to full and proper consideration of the public's health concerns. If the ICNIRP certificate is to be no more than a document informing people that an installation will not exceed the emission levels set out by ICNIRP, and is not to be read as a block on full and appropriate consideration of public health concerns despite the assertion to the contrary in paragraph 30 of PPG8, will the Government issue planning authorities with new guidelines amending that paragraph?

Will the Minister concede that paragraph 30 of PPG8, which states:

"In the Government's view, if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them",

encourages planning inspectors to act unlawfully? I ask that in the light of the ruling, given by Mr. Justice Moses on 26 September 2003, that a Government planning inspector had acted unlawfully and had

"failed to adequately consider the weight to be given to the health concerns"

because he had followed that advice.

I have some more questions for the Minister on the subject of further research, which is at the heart of my case today. Will she rule out the possibility that increased incidences of sleeping disorders, headaches, seizures, infertility and unexplained clusters of human cancers in the vicinity of base stations can be attributed to the increase in background radiation due to the expansion of the mobile phone mast network?

Will the Minister state how much of the £7.4 million provided by the Government, in conjunction with industry, for a research programme on a number of important health-related issues identified in the Stewart report will go towards research into the possible effects on health as a result of exposure to base station emissions? Does she agree that, given the increasing level of public concern about possible adverse effects on health exposure to base station emissions, the low priority given to that area of research in the mobile telecommunications and health research programme is hugely inadequate? Given the increasing level of public concern, not least in Sutton Coldfield, about cancer clusters around mobile phone masts, does she agree that there should be a study into the distribution of cancers around mobile phone masts that have been in place for 10 years, using the cancer registry data and geographic information system software?

Recent research commissioned by the Health and Safety Executive and carried out by the highly respected professor, Anthony Swerdlow, reveals that interference with melatonin at night could be the cause of an increased risk of breast cancer among night workers. In the light of studies such as the Schwarzenburg study by Abelin and Altpeter, which have revealed that melatonin levels are significantly different after exposure to weak radiation, will the Minister admit the need for further research to ensure the future health of women living near masts?

Will the Department of Health consider setting up an online voluntary register for people who believe that they have been affected by mobile phone handsets and/ or base station microwave radiation? That could be similar to the yellow card system for reporting the side effects of medical drugs. If properly implemented, it would help to provide a useful database of information to assist with the setting of future research priorities. Of course, I understand the need to screen out potential abusers of such a system.

My next two questions relate to Tetra, which I know is of considerable concern and interest to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). On 10 July, in a House of Commons debate, the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety told MPs that concern over the possible health effects of Tetra emissions arose from research in the 1970s and that it had since been "virtually impossible" to replicate those research findings. Given that research findings on this subject, listed in the Stewart report and the National Radiological Protection Board report on Tetra, show more successful than unsuccessful replications since 1980—the most recent successful replication being in 1999—how do the Government explain her claim?

Is the Minister aware that there have been four cases of motorneurone disease in the three-year period since the erection of a Dolphin Tetra mast in Drumcarrow, Fife, in Scotland, despite that disease being a rare condition that affects, on average, only one in 50,000 people? Drumcarrow has a population of around 800. Will the Minister have the high incidence of this life-threatening disease in Drumcarrow investigated in case it is connected with the installation of the Tetra mast, and will she consider whether any findings that result from it should impact on the countrywide roll-out of Tetra?

Does the Minister agree with the following quote taken from an article in the South Wales Evening Post on 11 December 2003? In it, a spokesman for Tetra Airwave mentioned that it was up to the Home Office to decide on the safety of the system, saying:

"The safety of what we supply is nothing to do with us."

Do the Government agree that technology providers have a specific responsibility for the safety of the technology they provide? Will the Minister clarify exactly who is responsible for setting precautionary guidance in these matters? I have given the Minister prior notice of those questions, and I am grateful to her and her officials for considering them.

My constituents have asked me how Airwave can say that safety is not its concern when the suppliers of drugs, such as thalidomide, found themselves responsible for the consequences of supplying them.

My hon. Friend makes a good legal point and, although I am neither a scientist nor a lawyer, it sounds right. Airwave's attitude is not acceptable in providers of such equipment, as he said.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I am sure that every MP has the same problem. Local newspapers, such as the Evening News in Norwich, have taken up the clarion call, and people like me are targeted by Orange. I expect that on returning home I will find a mast in my garden, because I have asked for mobile-free zones. It is said that people like mobile phones. What would they do if they went home and found a mast in their front garden?

My detailed response to the hon. Gentleman and my fellow trustee is best left until after the debate, but I take his point. I want to end my comments, so that other hon. Members can contribute. However, I want to emphasise two key points.

First, I listened to the experts speaking at the meeting in Sutton Coldfield, and I talked to the group in Wishaw, which is composed of highly intelligent, sophisticated people who have looked at the science behind the technology and who asked a series of highly pertinent questions, some of which I have repeated today. Having considered all that evidence, it seems to me that there is an overwhelming case for the Government to accept the need for more research to address the genuine health concerns felt by sensible, rational people.

The Minister will be aware of the Freiburger appeal, in which 2,000 medical professionals in Germany expressed their concern about illnesses that may be caused by the masts. That appeal was originally in German, but it has been translated into 15 languages. It may even be taken to the European Parliament, although much good that will do them. It shows that professional people are increasingly concerned. I have read what the 30 doctors in Crosby said about the matter, and I am sure that the Minister has, too. They said: "These are legitimate concerns." They may be wrong, but we need a great deal of research into that and a much greater sense of effort on the part of the Government. The tiny budget that I mentioned earlier is insufficient. When one considers that the telecommunications industry has paid the Government something like £20 billion or more for their licences, it is right that money should be spent on such research.

Secondly, the precautionary principle, which was advocated by Sir William Stewart when he was the Government's senior adviser, is important. We must have proper transparency on alternative locations. Cost is important, but it is only part of the equation. I want the industry to be far more open with people about what the alternative locations are and why it made the decision it did. I want the precautionary principle to mean that, in most cases, it is accepted that the masts should not be placed too close to people's homes, schools and hospitals. I want the information about where the masts are sited made widely available. I recently walked in the countryside not far from my constituency in the midlands and came across a mast that was cunningly disguised as a tree. We must be transparent about where the masts are placed.

I want a change to paragraph 40 of PPG8 to enable the councillors who have to make such decisions to take into account the fears of those whom they represent. At the moment, the process is imbalanced. We need to redress the imbalance in the system. It is too much in favour of phone companies and not enough in favour of local people. Decisions are made through their local councillors, who do not adequately reflect their concerns. The Department, the planners and those in the Government who are re-examining PPG8 would do well to heed the wise words of Emrys Jones, the chief planner of Birmingham city council.

At the risk of being tiresome to those who know the drill in Westminster Hall, I remind hon. Members that it is customary to start the first of the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before the debate concludes. Five hon. Members want to catch my eye, one of whom was a late arrival. Nevertheless, will all hon. Members bear in mind the time constraints when making their contributions and when accepting or responding to interventions?

I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) on introducing the debate. I am pleased to see that the chairman of the all-party group on mobile communications is present. I apologise to the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), for having to leave the debate a few minutes early. I have a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), at 4.30 pm. However, I am grateful for the opportunity to spend five minutes talking about my problems with Airwave, the main organisation behind Tetra, which, I always remind myself, stands for "Trust your enhanced trunk radio systems."

I come to the debate with no alarmist views. In many respects, I have been a defender of the system. In 2000, the police approached me saying that they needed a new radio system. Having been out with them on many occasions, I knew that their existing system was defective and it seemed sensible for them to move towards a much more integrated state-of-the-art technology. From the outset I was supportive of Tetra, but the problem is that the way in which the system was put in place does the opposite to that recommended in the Stewart report, which is based on the precautionary principle. Throughout the report, the precautionary principle is central to its argument.

More inappropriate places could not have been chosen for the two major masts that have been erected in the Stroud constituency. The first was placed on top of Stroud police station. Given that the mast was a police communications system, it may be thought right for the police to be part of it. However, it is the biggest eyesore in my constituency. It is on a hill and it is a dreadful building. The problem is that the police station is a few hundred yards from a school. From the outset, I asked Airwave to examine alternative sites. It reached the conclusion that there were no alternative sites. I have not seen any documentation to that effect. When I suggested alternative sites, I just kept being told that they were unsuitable.

When the mast was put in place, it was agreed that its impact would be monitored. That was in 2001. To be fair, since I raised the matter in business questions, Airwave has sought a meeting with me. However, although I have asked on occasions, I have received no real evidence, one way or the other, about what is happening as a result of the mast. We must remember that the mast is not fully operational yet. It will be some months before it can do what it needs to be able to do for the police to use the system properly.

The Stroud saga was bad enough. However, we needed another mast in the south of my constituency, in the Dursley area. I thought that lessons would be learned from the problems in Stroud. There are a number of places where the mast could have been placed, but it was decided to put it slap bang in the middle of Dursley, on top of the old GPO building and right next to the Dursley tabernacle. The Rev. Simon Helme was inevitably worried and came to see me with Shirley Welsh, a member of his congregation. We agreed to go through the process of seeking clarification about why the mast had to be there and of trying to ensure that the radio waves were monitored.

I was unhappy from the outset. There has been a strong community campaign, which reached a crescendo before Christmas when one lady put metal curtains around her whole house in the belief that that was the only way in which she could deflect the radio waves. It is easy to see that as an emotional, over-the-top reaction. The Green party has been active in alleging links to leukaemia, cancer and so on. Things of that sort happen.

I had a meeting with the chief constable before Christmas, and we were under the impression that the Tetra mast had not been turned on, except on one occasion when it was tested during the course of the Stroud half marathon. On that occasion, there was a full-blown exercise so that it could be seen how the force on the ground monitored the half marathon. I went along with that in confidence, because we did not want the exercise to receive the full glare of publicity.

As I said, I checked with the chief constable and we were both under the impression that the mast was not operational. However, I have a problem because, on 6 January, I received a letter from the chief constable that said that the mast had been operational for some time. It had been used not in the locality, but on the motorway and for other purposes. I was telling people one thing, and then I had a completely different, and very honest, answer from the police, who were also under the impression that the mast was not operational.

On the basis that we are talking about the precautionary element, that process has left me naked in terms of how I approach constituents who have been making allegations and saying, "Well, it's bad enough thinking that we have the mast there, but let's have some clarity about monitoring and testing things out fully before the mast is turned on." It has been turned on for months. That is not good enough. There is now a degree of alarm in the area, and scepticism about the authorities having any control over what they have agreed to. There were reservations in terms of the district council, but because of the needs linked to the mast, those reservations were overcome.

I would like some clarity from the Minister. We are considering the precautionary principle. We have to be open, transparent and honest with people about what is going on. That has not happened with the two masts that I am talking about. I will have another meeting with Airwave. I have to go to Airwave; it does not seem to be keen to come to me. However, if it thinks that the issue will go away, it is mistaken.

I use what happened in my constituency as an example. It is linked to the health issue, because people are worried about their health, and they have every reason to voice those opinions. The response that they have got, basically amounts to nothing. Airwave has refused to attend the meetings that they have held, and I have to say that the police have not been much better. Things must improve; otherwise, people will inevitably demand that the masts are taken down.

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell). Like him, I have many constituents who have experienced problems when there are attempts to place telecommunications masts in highly residential areas in which they are not wanted. We have faced an extraordinary situation over the past few years. There was a proposal to put a mast on top of a hospital in my constituency and another to put one in a school in my constituency. In the villages in my constituency and in Chelmsford, the main town, there have been constant battles as companies, particularly Orange, have sought to put masts in highly residential areas. Such attempts include the latest saga in Linnet drive, where Orange has made a planning application for the third or fourth time.

The people of West Chelmsford are fortunate, in that Chelmsford district council has had a proactive and positive attitude towards local people's representations. Fortunately, in many cases, the council's refusals of applications have been upheld on appeal. However, the trouble is that the companies come back again and again, slightly modifying the plans after listening to why the local authority refused permission. There is something flawed in the current planning regime. It is outdated and does not take into account the changes that have resulted from the greatly increased use of mobile phones, which has necessitated more masts.

The reasons for concern are not always to do with the aesthetics of the masts, although that is indeed sometimes the problem. The problem is the genuine fear of ill health as a result of the positioning of a mast in a highly residential area. The jury is out on that question. Many references have been made in this debate to the Stewart report. Notwithstanding that, the trouble is that there is not enough scientific evidence to prove the case one way or the other. For every Stewart report, there are other reports from around the world that give conflicting views. In the absence of a comprehensive and conclusive determination of the health risks, we should err on the side of caution. The system should be weighted in favour of those who do not want a mast in their residential area.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will not, because we are on a strict time scale.

It is also wrong that many of the companies seem to have a high-handed attitude to their planning applications for masts. Orange has already been cited and the experience of my constituents is similar. Representation is usually made both to the local authority and to the company directly, but there is a sense of frustration in local communities that companies go through the motions of listening to people's concerns, but then do nothing whatever to meet them. More should be done on that.

More powers should be given in the system to include all types of mast in the planning regime and, importantly, to give local people more powers to determine what happens in their communities. The Government have a significant role to play in that, and I would hope that the Department of Health could exert its influence on those Ministers with responsibility for planning matters, to try to further the debate. At the moment, we are perceived to have far too much of a top-down rather than a bottom-up system. I would like there to be more powers in the planning system to allow the genuine concerns, views and wishes of the people who will be most directly affected to influence the decision to erect a mast.

I would also like more consideration to be given to alternative sites to those in highly residential areas. More masts could be put near major trunk roads— thereby placing them out of sight, out of mind in the domestic dwelling context. Far more should be done to make different companies use the same mast, in order to minimise the number of masts required, so that there is one problem in the immediate area rather than two or three, although I accept that that already happens in certain cases.

My ultimate message is that more should be done, because there is argument and uncertainty about the scientific evidence. I welcome the fact that, as a result of the research recommended by the Stewart report, for which £7.4 million has been provided, the Government have widened the research to include base stations. That is a positive step forward. However, in the absence of conclusive evidence, we should err on the side of caution. My constituents in Linnet drive have had problem after problem with the siting of an Orange mast that has so far been refused. Such local people should have greater power and influence in the planning process so that they are genuinely empowered to determine what goes on in their neighbourhoods.

I apologise for letting my mobile phone go off earlier. That was a tribute to the double standards that most of us stoutly maintain on this subject; we make use of mobile phones while deploring the possible spin-off effects of their technology.

I welcome the debate secured by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell). I have six controversial mast applications in my constituency, all of which have generated petitions and protests. The key phrase in the hon. Gentleman's introductory statement was "lack of clarity". The combination of a lack of clarity and frustration causes so many problems for residents, planners and members of planning committees. They simply do not know how to deal with the problem.

Even worse than a lack of clarity is the putting up of masts without planning consent, as has happened in Rogate and East Harting in my constituency. Subsequently, local people have had to put pressure on district councils to try to get those masts removed. That is a wholly unacceptable way to deploy the technology.

Yes, I know. There is a wider issue about the weakness of third parties in planning appeals, but I will not pursue that rabbit down that particular hole.

The uncertainty stems from two issues; the lack of clarity about the science, and planning guidance. On the science, Sir William Stewart did us a considerable disfavour. He considered the science and looked at the physics and the biology and concluded that there was no empirical evidence of any health impact. He considered the examples—the clusters of illnesses that have been cited—and made the valid point that the research was not epidemiological and did not stand up. Having dismissed the scientific evidence, he could have said that there was no risk, as did the chief medical officer in relation to the MMR vaccine. Had he said that, we would have known where we stood, but he did not. He said that there must be a precautionary approach. He did not say a "precautionary principle", which is an environment policy term, but that there had to be a precautionary approach. Most people interpret his words on a common-sense basis as meaning that it is better to be safe than sorry.

Sir William also said—this is important—that we have to be particularly careful with schools, because children have thin skull bones, so there may be extra cause for concern. In saying that, he stated that there was a problem. Clearly, people will interpret his words in a worried way. Local authorities can hardly be blamed when they respond with particular sensitivity to planning protests in respect of schools. In the review of the science that I know the Department has carried out, the scientists did not help us as to whether any clear conclusion has been reached about the new 3G masts, which many argue are more potent and therefore more dangerous.

The second point is the confusion generated by the planning process. As I understand it, PPG8 makes clear that local authorities have to judge applications purely on planning grounds—the aesthetics, or the visual impact—and are not allowed to consider health impact. However, in response to a debate that I initiated on 21 May 2002, the Minister's predecessor said, repeating what has been said in other contexts:

"Our guidance is clear that health considerations and public concern can, in principle, be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission"—[Official Report, 21 May 2002; Vol. 386, c. 274.]

Therefore, councils have been told that health impacts are not relevant, but that public concerns about health are.

I have great difficulty in getting my head round this problem, and planners have difficulty in understanding it. With the best will in the world members of planning committees of all parties cannot understand what is expected of them through the planning process. My own local council, a consensus of Liberal and Conservative members, has taken a stand on a particular case to test the issue. It has taken the case of a mast that beams directly into a school. The planning officer said "We have no grounds for turning it down. There is no planning problem. There are no visual amenity issues." However, there has been a large petition from the school, which closed certain classrooms for fear of the health effect. The council has overridden the advice of officials, saying, "Here there is a demonstrable fear about health. Let's test it out in a planning appeal." I do not know what the outcome will be, but we need clarification.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall take just one more intervention.

I fear that the hon. Gentleman was not here when I made the point. In fact the situation is worse than that. In the High Court judgment in the case of Mrs. Jodie Phillips, Mr. Justice Richards said that people's health must be taken into account. Therefore, there is a complete impasse in the law; we cannot get it right.

I was here throughout the hon. Gentleman's speech, but the comment is helpful. I shall be interested to see whether the planning inspector who hears my local appeal is aware of that ruling and takes it into account.

We need to move on. I want to make a suggestion about the way in which hon. Members' concerns for greater flexibility in siting masts can be taken into account. The Government could help to solve the problem by giving guidance along the following lines. They could say to local authorities, "We wish you to contribute to the roll-out of masts. That is a national obligation. Each local authority, depending on its population, density and topography, should, as it does with housing, construct a certain number of units. However, there is discretion within that as to where masts are sited." If a local authority chose to have a moratorium on masts within 100m of a school, it can do so, provided that it compensates with additional masts somewhere else, leaving councils with discretion over where masts are sited.

If that were to happen, the industry's objectives would be maintained and our constituents' concerns substantially alleviated. I should be interested to know whether the Minister thinks that guidance to councils along those lines—which could then be used as a basis for dealing with planning appeals—would help to deal with the problem.

I apologise for being late and for missing the beginning of the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) on securing a debate on this subject, which causes enormous concern among our constituents. I am still a part-time general practitioner, so I see a number of people who raise with me health issues about mobile phones and, particularly, masts.

Mobile phones are an extremely important part of our society, and the majority of people have them, including quite small children. Therefore, people are using these phones; it is a useful technology. I would not want to do anything that made phones more difficult to use. People make their own choices about using mobile phones and decide how often to use them—I hope with common-sense guidance from the industry.

The problem is that people have that choice; they can choose not to have a phone, not to use the phone or to use it on a limited basis. However, they cannot choose whether a mobile phone mast is next door to them. A mast is switched on 24 hours a day; it cannot be removed from one's presence. It emits micro-radiation the whole time. Our difficulty as parliamentarians in trying to guide people in this matter is the lack of conclusive science. There is a fair amount of science around, but none of it is conclusive.

Perhaps I may use the analogy of medical research. We can give a new drug to 10,000 people and it has no side effects at all. That does not prove that the drug is 100 per cent. safe. It proves that the drug is pretty safe and may be extremely safe, but the next person who takes the drug may get an idiosyncratic side effect from it that turns the science on its head. The scientists would have to say, "We were wrong. This drug isn't 100 per cent. safe, because poor Mrs. Smith has just had an extremely unusual and nasty reaction to it." We can never prove conclusive safety; we can prove only relative safety. It does not matter how much science we do. Unless we have new models of science, we can never totally reassure people.

The other problem is that it is said that the masts radiate energy. It is difficult for the public to separate the radiation that comes from mobile phone masts from the radiation that comes from nuclear materials—which they know for a fact are dangerous—or the radiation from X-rays, which are dangerous if used excessively. It is difficult for many people to grasp the fact. The point is simple. It will be extremely difficult to give people 100 per cent. conclusive reassurance that the masts are safe, so we must take the proportionate approach.

My approach with the mobile phone operators is to say that I am happy to have phone masts in my constituency provided that they are sited in a position that will have the minimum impact on people's health. They are not put near schools or hospitals, nor outside people's bedroom windows. They are put in fields further down the road, or alongside trunk roads.

The mobile phone companies, however, say that that is a more difficult solution. Yes, it might be; but what they usually mean by that is that the solution is more expensive. It is much cheaper to put a small mast on the top of a school than it is to put a more powerful mast covering a larger area near a motorway. It is technologically more difficult, and it is more expensive. We must give local people the right, through the planning mechanism, to make such judgments for themselves.

If putting up proper masts in sensible places costs more, we may have to bear the cost, but people may be prepared to pay that price. If it is more expensive to put masts in more sensitive or sensible areas, the mobile phone companies may have to tell people that their phones will be relatively more expensive. That at least can be debated and a judgment made. The difficulty at the moment is that local authorities do not have the power to be able to say to a company, "Thou shalt not put that mast on that hospital roof" or "Thou shalt not put that mast in the middle of that housing estate." They do not have that right. The Government need to consider that carefully; I believe that people should have that right.

Although there is a huge difference between fear and fact, what really disturbs people is the fear. In the same way that the fear of crime is more real to most people than the experience of crime, the fear of mobile phone masts is probably more real than the fact.

Another feature of the debate is trust and confidence. As we found in the GM debate, once Monsanto made the move, it lost the argument. The way in which such companies behave does not give people trust and confidence, regardless of whether what they are told is factually correct.

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Many companies should take note of it.

In conclusion, the fear of mobile phone masts may significantly outweigh the facts. However, as politicians, we must represent our constituents; we must take note of people's fear because that is what blights their lives. I urge the Government to look again at the planning mechanisms. We should allow people to use their own judgment and, in conjunction with the local council, ensure that mobile phone masts are put where they are safe and where people feel happy with them.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) for obtaining the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on speaking for less than six minutes.

This matter arose in my constituency because of a sudden flood of applications for Tetra masts early last year. Some of them were approved under delegated powers. One was rejected under those powers, but the developer, Airwave., said that it was an emergency; it was allowed to put it up as an emergency measure. That is the first rowel that we must withdraw from developers.

Fortunately, Rod Burman, a constituent, and Richard White of the Isle of Wight County Press organised a public meeting in Woodlands vale in Seaview. More than 250 people were present on Mrs. Burman's cream-coloured drawing-room carpet. They were told by the planning officer that they had to follow Government guidelines. I am pleased to say that there was a muffled explosion from two of those present at the meeting—I was one, and the local district judge was the other—who were rather better versed in the law than the planning officer. The consequence was that Westridge Estates withdrew permission for Airwave to put the mast up. Meanwhile, however, a mast had been erected on the Commodore cinema in Ryde. The problem was that the Phillips case guidance had not been followed—neither Airwave nor the local authority had looked for the best site; they just looked for any site, and permission had been given under delegated powers.

I am very pleased to say that John Ackroyd is now running an organisation called "No to Tetra", and that followed from a public meeting that I held at the Methodist church hall in Garfield road in Ryde, where a mast is very close to as many as four schools: Ryde school, Five Ways nursery, Dover Park school and Greenmount School. The problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield pointed out, is that paragraph 98 of PPG8 suggests that planning authorities have to allow these things to go up, but there are doubts surrounding the legitimacy of the ICNIRP guidelines, and since the Government base their directives on those guidelines, the doubts need to be cleared up.

First, ICNIRP and the National Radiological Protection Board do not agree on what level of radioactive output is safe. For example, for one type of microwave system 900 W per square centimetre is allowed by ICNIRP, yet the NRPB allows 3,300. Secondly, a contradiction is built into PPG8. I mentioned paragraph 98, but paragraph 97 says that

"health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval".

In addition, the Government have allocated funding for further investigations into the health-affecting Tetra mast, which has actually had the effect of heightening people's concern. Does the Minister take account of people's bad health as a result of uncertainty on the long-term effects of Tetra masts?

Thirdly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield quoted, there has been the Skelt v. Three Bridges case, in which Mr. Justice Moses overturned the planning inspectors' decision on appeal, and on 17 May 2002 the Court of Appeal stated that

"a guidance circular issued by the Secretary of State needed to be kept in mind but was not direction, and also had to be HRA Convention compliant."

The Government planning policy guidance pre-dates the Human Rights Act 1998, which raises two issues: first, the HRA, which applies to public authorities, says in section 6(1) that

"it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention Right"

and article 6 of the convention requires

"a fair and impartial hearing in public".

Without focusing on the public airing of perceived health concerns, a fair, impartial hearing cannot take place, and yet planners believe that because of ICNIRP's guidance and PPG8 they are not allowed to take account of these considerations.

My constituents are genuinely concerned. They write, for example:

"I live within about 200 metres of this mast—

the mast on the Commodore cinema—

"well within the zone of greatest influence, and am now living in constant fear for the health of my five-year-old daughter, my 76year-old mother and myself."

Another writes:

"A Tetra base station was erected only 50 metres from our house and was soon making us feel ill. We were subjected to ongoing radiation from the mast 24 hours a day and suffered a variety of symptoms, mainly being headaches, deep nausea, inability to concentrate, poor memory and general feelings of dizziness and disorientation."

Mr. V. Philpot of Monkton Street, Ryde, says:

"I live and work in Ryde (as does my partner who is heavily pregnant) … I am gravely concerned about the possible health effects of this mast."

Mrs. J.C. Warwick writes:

"I am now extremely worried. I am a mum, I love my son who is only six years old. Since I became aware of the mast and its effects I have become extremely frightened for his health and well-being. I am now so frightened that we spend as much time as possible away from the flat … At night I cannot bear for my son to sleep in his bedroom with the mast just outside."

I have seen photographs, and it is no further away than that wall is from you, Mr. Cook.

"As a result he sleeps with me in my room."

What do we want done? First, we want the Government to make PPG8 HRA-compliant. Secondly, we want a proper system to receive evidence from the public and explain to them, if necessary, how they should keep that evidence so that proper scientific investigations can be undertaken into the consequence of these and other masts. Thirdly, we need a national register of all telecommunications apparatus of this kind. Some of it is concealed, for example in shopping centres. It does not necessarily look like a tree with sticky-out metal bits. Fourthly, we need clear information on public liability. Do the Government or the planning authority approving the development issue the guidelines, or is Airwave legally liable for constructing such devices?

I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) on securing what is obviously an important debate, and one to which a huge amount of information has been brought. I hope that it carries some of the issues forward. Clearly, the debate has been initiated by health concerns, but a number of other issues, such as the planning regime, have been raised, and they need to be considered even more carefully. It is undoubtedly true that large numbers of the public are worried about the potential implications of masts erected near them.

In most of the cases of which I have particular knowledge, people are worried not only about possible health implications but visual amenity implications; often they are most concerned about that. They are worried about possible effects on their homes and about going out every day and seeing something that is often so incongruous with their surroundings.

There are two effects. One concerns health and the other is environmental, and we must take seriously both those concerns. However, I have said to people who have asked me about the issue that the evidence so far is inconclusive. There is no clear evidence of any directly harmful health effects caused by mobile phone masts. The science can be complicated to the non-scientist and there is much confusion, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate). That the word "radiation" can be confused with known hazardous forms of radiation is sufficient for people to feel that they are perhaps being exposed to death rays close to their homes. We cannot ignore that.

The hon. Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) talked about the planning regime and the sense of helplessness that people feel when they are faced with the fact that masts under 15 m do not require the same planning controls as those over 15 m. Even when the telecommunications mast companies apply for masts over 15 m, there seem to be few ways forward for the public to make their presence felt and to have their genuine concerns about health and visual amenity brought to bear.

A few consultations are going on in this country—concerned not just with these issues—that leave people feeling that their views are being ignored. They feel that organisations go through the motions but do not necessarily genuinely engage with people or take notice of points made to them. My experience has been that only when several hundred people have brought their feelings to bear on mobile phone companies do those companies take notice of what people are saying and site the masts somewhere else. That tends to happen when large numbers of people come forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham made the point that the Stewart report asked for the precautionary approach. It would have been nice if as well as slightly muddying the water, the Stewart report had given clear-cut advice that would not have caused any confusion.

I hope that the precautionary approach is applied to schools and nurseries. However, it is difficult to see how governors of schools, who must be consulted when a mast is to be put close to their schools, can put pressure on the process. They can report and say what their views are, but notice will not necessarily be taken. It appears that the planning system takes notice only when concerns and fears about public health are raised, and then not on every occasion. There are concerns about the new third generation masts, although there is no real evidence of health risks. There have been some studies, but they have not been repeated.

The Liberal Democrats believe that a watching brief should be kept. It will never be possible to prove that those masts are safe. As it will never be possible to prove that they are safe, all of the evidence that is and becomes available must be closely monitored and carefully watched.

The Government should take some notice of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's review of permitted development rights, which was published in September. It is a publication of more than 300 pages, which, so far, has been published only on the website. It makes it clear that permitted development rights need to be looked at. I was somewhat reassured to hear that all that stands between the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and changes to the planning legislation on permitted development rights is further public consultation. I hope that that will take place in a timely fashion and will not be left until the next Parliament. It seems that a great deal of good work has been done that could be pursued to bring about the changes that would remove the sense of helplessness that people feel. People feel that they are not being listened to and that things go ahead without their having any real say.

I think that I have just about managed to get through all of the points that I wanted to make. We would like to see the precautionary approach taken seriously and for research to continue. Although it will never be possible to prove that mobile phone masts are absolutely safe, it will be possible to set people's minds at rest that there is no substantiated evidence that they are being exposed to harm.

My own view, and that of others to whom I have spoken—[Interruption.] I apologise to the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) for stopping him, but I think that I am still within my time. My view is that the issues of visual amenity and health and safety concerns meet quite significantly in the middle.

I will try to be brief, because I know that the Minister has 18 questions to get through. That will take a while, so I will try to rattle through my remarks.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) on securing this debate. It is an important issue, and had I not been speaking from the Front Bench, I would have contributed nevertheless. The matter involves my constituents as much as anybody else up and down the country.

There have been several criticisms of various operators. I add my voice to that criticism; my experience of operators has not been happy and has been largely characterised by a degree of unwelcome arrogance, which is unhelpful.

We have had talk of clusters of cancers. I would counsel caution when dealing with clusters, as Professor Challis, who was involved with Wishaw, has said, because we will always get them—that is the nature of statistics. People will inevitably be concerned, particularly when there is a cluster of cancer. The debate is about reflecting those concerns and establishing what the Government will do to address them. Communication, as I am sure the Minister knows, is part of public health. Clearly, we need better communication because people are worried.

The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) voiced his concerns about shabby dealings with a company called Airwave. My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has also suffered from the high-handed attitude of operators. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) was a little more conciliatory, but he commented rather bravely on the Stewart report. Those of us who know Sir William Stewart would be very reluctant to criticise his report. It was a good report that struck a proper balance between the evidence at its time of writing and the recommendations that, given that the evidence was not great, were necessarily equivocal. The reference to schools and schoolchildren had something to do with fears about leukaemia and brain tumours and the sensitivity of the developing neuroendochrine system, which obviously applies to children.

The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) was also cautious about the Stewart report, feeling that it may have muddied the water and that clearer answers would have been preferred. Owing to the necessarily sketchy evidence—I suspect that we will come shortly to the subject of research funding to ensure that in future evidence is less sketchy—the recommendations were going to disappoint those who wanted clear-cut answers.

My view of health is rather more holistic than that of many people; health is to do with well-being. Regardless of whether one believes that radio frequency radiation—RF radiation—in the way that we are discussing it causes tumours, one has to accept that base stations have damaged people's well-being. It is evidenced by our mailbags, by the concerns that people have, by the symptoms that they report and by their general unease.

When we have a loss of well-being on the scale that we clearly have from the masts, it becomes a public health matter and it is therefore to the Minister that we look for a remedy to those concerns. I am aware of the time, but I will be fascinated to hear what she plans to do— addressing not only the 18 questions, but the public health concerns that people have because of mobile phone masts.

In my constituency, we have concerns about mobile phone masts and mobile phone operators. West Wiltshire district council is doing a splendid job of representing the views of local people and using the existing guidance to address their concerns. It is not easy because, as hon. Members have mentioned, the scales seem to be weighted in favour of the operators. Given the precautionary approach recommended by Sir William Stewart, that seems odd. I fully accept that in the Government's amended guidance—PPG8—they attempted to incorporate some of his recommendations. However, most people feel that they did not go far enough.

On a slightly more philosophical note, we must be careful about the science. As I am sure the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) will admit, scientists and scientific inquiry are fallible. One cannot simply interpret evidence directly into public policy; the alchemy is far subtler than that. Most of our constituents have sound good sense, and often it confounds the scientific evidence arid is rewarded in the fullness of time by being shown to be spot on.

The Stewart report found no evidence for harm, but that does not mean to say that no harm was done or can be done. Very often it means that the research has not been done, and the matter has not been sufficiently investigated. That was probably the burden of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield in arguing for further research. We would all support that.

The Stewart report drew an analogy with exposure from handsets. That is problematic because, as the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) mentioned, handsets are associated with acute, short-term, short, sharp exposures. Base stations are not; the exposure is constant and affects the whole body. Therefore, one cannot compare one with the other. In considering exposures, one cannot just look at the dose. It is necessary to consider how that dose is received and for how long it is received.

Some research has been done on nematodes—little worms—in Petri dishes. They respond in a certain way when they are exposed to RF. Some have said that that is evidence that RF causes problems to biological entities. No one can interpolate that directly to the case of human beings, let alone interpolate it to the issue of health. That takes several leaps of logic. Nevertheless, those responses happen; they can be observed and quantified, and that means that they have to be taken seriously. Again, that points towards further research.

This really is a quintessential public health issue. The Minister and her predecessors have dealt with a whole raft of public health matters for many years. It has not been a very happy scene. I am sure that she would be the first to admit that we have had problems with TB, sexually transmitted diseases and other matters. We have an opportunity to grip the issue, and I hope that the Minister will. In particular, I hope that she will answer the 18 questions that have been put to her. With that in mind, I shall wrap up a little earlier, and give her the opportunity to address those questions.

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) on securing the debate, which has been well attended. I completely understand how important an issue this is because of my constituency experience.

Obviously, the matter attracts a great deal of attention from MPs, the public and the media. All hon. Members have illustrated particular difficulties faced at constituency level. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) talked about the difficulty he had with a particular company. My hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) and for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) talked about problems of perception, an issue that permeated the debate; perception versus some of the scientific evidence.

The hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) referred to the importance of people's well-being in these considerations and how planning mechanisms fit into that. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) explained how he had been pursuing the matter on behalf of constituents with some vigour and raised issues that I shall try to address later. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) talked about the problems of his constituents, and the graphic descriptions of the public meetings attended by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) showed the strength of feeling in his constituency.

The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) talked about the responsiveness or otherwise of mobile phone companies. I hope to address some of those issues later because they are similar to those raised by the hon. Member for Westbury on the attitude of operators and how we can deal with them. We are addressing real problems caused by the fact that more people want to use mobile phone technology. In the UK we are in the forefront of that technology, but how does that fit in with people's fears and health concerns?

I am sure that Members will have seen the recent report from the National Radiological Protection Board's advisory group on non-ionising radiation— AGNIR—on health effects from radio frequency electromagnetic fields. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) wrote to hon. Members with an update on our initiatives on that, but this debate is an opportunity to address more of the issues and answer some of the specific queries that have been raised.

The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield set out 18 questions in all, and I shall answer as many as I can. I shall concentrate on the health and research issues that have been raised, as many of the other issues are for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I want refer to a few of them in the context of how they have been raised today, but if I cannot, I will ensure that the ODPM is made aware of the points that were made.

Many Members referred to the Stewart report from May 2000. Its conclusions remain central to Government advice, which is that the balance of evidence to date suggests that exposures to mobile phone radiation below national guidelines do not cause adverse health effects to the general population. It also indicates there is no general risk to the health of people living near base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines. However, there can be indirect effects on their well-being in some cases. As many hon. Members have said, a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies should be adopted until much more detailed and scientifically robust information on health effects becomes available.

The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield asked about the adoption of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection guidelines incorporated into the 1999 European Council recommendation. The ICNIRP and UK national guidelines are based on the comprehensive assessment of current scientific knowledge, including the possibility of harm caused by effects other than heating. The guidelines are kept under review, and a recent report by the independent advisory group on non-ionising radiation, which I mentioned earlier, examined the evidence for biological effects and concluded:

"The weight of evidence now available does not suggest that there are adverse health effects from exposures to radiofrequency fields below guideline levels."

The Government acknowledge that there are uncertainties in the science, and having accepted the precautionary approach recommended by Stewart, we set up a research programme in conjunction with the industry. It has a £7.4 million budget to investigate a number of important health-related issues. The research is mainly concerned with users of mobile phone handsets, as the mobile phone user receives the greatest exposure to mobile phone radio frequencies, but all the research is relevant to investigating possible health effects from exposure to base stations.

More recently, the programme has been able to extend its range of studies to accommodate concerns about exposures from base stations as robust scientific protocols have become available. Two projects are considering emissions from base stations in particular. One is a study using volunteers to investigate whether base stations can be shown to cause symptoms in the short term, while the other is examining the incidence of early childhood cancer in relation to base station exposure.

MTHR, the mobile telecommunications and health research programmer is possibly unique in supporting two projects on base stations alone, and when other UK-based research is taken into consideration, such as the Home Office research programme on terrestrial trunked radio—Tetra—we see that the UK has one of the largest research efforts in the world.

Will the Minister give way?

I cannot. I am sorry, but I have to gallop through these questions.

The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield asked specifically about some aspects of the research programme. First, he asked whether a number of different symptoms could be attributed to the mobile phone mast network. Science cannot rule out the possibility of effects such as sleep disorders and headaches occurring, but such effects can have many causes and can pre-date the installation of base stations. There is no clear scientific evidence that such effects are caused by exposure to radio frequency fields from base stations or that they have increased in recent years. The research programmes that we support are investigating a range of disorders such as those that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

I have already answered the hon. Gentleman's queries on the proportion of the programme being spent on base station research, but I remind hon. Members that base station emissions are low intensity compared with mobile phone emissions.

The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Westbury asked whether a study of cancer clusters around mobile phone masts should be undertaken. Research funding decisions by the programme management committee are clearly based on sound scientific principles. I understand that, in the absence of any clear indication of people's exposure, there would be little scientific merit in such a study; mere proximity is not likely to be a good measure of exposure.

Another question posed by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield concerned melatonin and cancer. The melatonin issue is a complex one, as his questions implied. Research papers on this issue are currently being referred to the National Radiological Protection Board, which has asked its advisory group on non-ionising radiation to undertake a thorough investigation of melatonin effects and provide a report. The report is expected some time next year.

The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield made a helpful suggestion about setting up a register of people who believe that they have been affected by mobile phone handset and/or base station microwave radiation. His suggestion is interesting, but it needs to be carefully managed to protect against abuse, as he suggests. The research committee is keen to encourage people to register with the researchers, who are funded by the mobile telecommunications and health research programme. Volunteers who feel that they are affected in this way are asked to contact the researchers directly through the MTHR website.

I hope that I can answer the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield's questions on Tetra by quoting directly from the report published by the NRPB's advisory group on non-ionising radiation in 2001. It concluded:

"Although areas of uncertainty remain about the biological effects of low level radio frequency radiation in general, including modulated signals, current evidence suggests that it is unlikely that the special features of the signals from TETRA mobile terminals and repeaters pose a hazard to health."

That conclusion was reinforced in AGNIR's recent report, issued two weeks ago.

Several questions have been asked about Government guidelines on planning for mobile phone base station masts. Responsibility for the guidelines lies with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, but I want to make two brief points. Pre-application discussions should be carried out with relevant groups, including residents, and alternative sites should be looked at. Those are clear guidelines. I know that there have been concerns about that that I shall take back to Ministers in the ODPM, particularly on the issue of motorways.

This has been a comprehensive debate. I am sorry that I have not been able to answer all the questions that were raised, but I hope that I have been able to give some reassurance to hon. Members about the research that is being undertaken.

We must now turn our attention to the issue of roads in the Honiton and Tiverton constituency.

For the record, Mr. Cook, I should say that my constituency is Tiverton and Honiton. It would be remiss of me not to correct its title.

I wish to raise three matters to do with roads in my constituency. I have given the Minister prior notice of them; I know that we will have some good answers because I am sure he will be well prepared. The first is an issue that I have raised on many occasions. In fact, I have been raising it since I was first elected in 1992. The A303 runs from Honiton to Ilminster and passes through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), who is in his place. We believe that that road should be dualled.

When the Government took office in 1997, there had already been a public inquiry and I understand that the contract was ready to go out to tender. Since then, the Government have initiated one report after another, all of which seem to have been kicked into the long grass. As yet, there is no progress on dualling that important stretch of road.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining this debate. We are constantly lobbied by the Federation of East Devon chambers of commerce—with whom we have a meeting on Friday—the Devon and Cornwall business council and business men in both our constituencies, who tell us that even if the road between Ilminster and Taunton were dualled, dualling the A303 would still be a priority. One cannot replace the other; one will merely be in addition to the other.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it should not be an "either or" argument. All who know that part of the country will recognise the need to dual the road from Ilminster to the M5 at Taunton. However, that does not detract from the need for the A303 to be dualled. Indeed, transport links were identified earlier this month in a report by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as one of the major barriers to economic improvement in the south-west. Most of the rural south-west was described in that report as a disadvantaged area.

The A303 joins with the M3 to London in one direction, and it is a main east-west route. It is meant to be the second arterial route through the west country. At the moment, we have only the M5. It is wrong that we should be deprived of that second arterial route, as it affects the economic development of the whole peninsula. The Minister, who represents a Plymouth seat, will know that most people who travel to the west, especially businesses looking to relocate in the south-west peninsula, will carefully consider the arterial routes, of which we have only one. Indeed, I suggest to him that people wanting to relocate to the Plymouth area would be most favourably impressed if the A303 were dualled.

It is not only an economic argument; the road goes through an area of outstanding natural beauty. Unusually for such an area, every parish council on the route supports the dualling of the A303. Normally, major road works attract local opposition. People who live and work in the area know how important improvements would be for road safety, an important consideration. Certainly, those who drive along that part of the road that goes through my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon will know that it is dangerous. It is a bendy and hilly road, and is not compatible with today's transport standards. It should be dualled on road safety grounds alone.

We are not the only ones who think so. The fact that the Amesbury to Honiton road should be built entirely to dual carriageway standards was endorsed by the RAC. Having noticed that I had an Adjournment debate today, it immediately wrote to brief me on its recommendations on roads throughout the country, and it shows that the A303 has a high priority.

Since 1997, we have had umpteen multi-modal studies. Goodness knows what has happened to them. Hours have been spent on them, and money has been spent on convening meetings to consider them. The regional assembly has been involved, as has the Department for Transport and the Highways Agency. Consultants have been brought in to consider the issue, but whenever I raise it with Ministers there is always a reason not to proceed. The last time I raised the matter, the Secretary of State prayed in aid the environmental considerations of taking a dual carriageway on an existing route—not a new route—through an area of outstanding natural beauty. It is about time the Government stopped hiding behind the environmental argument. That argument has not been swept aside, but has been subject to a full public inquiry in which all the environmental factors were laid open and considered. The public inquiry endorsed the building of the dual carriageway.

I suggest that the problem is to do not with the environment, but with money. The Government do not appear to have the money. For both road and rail, we have recently seen reports ditched and put to one side. My research assistant was ready to attend a meeting, on 15 January I think, in Weston-super-Mare, because the regional assembly kept saying that the report was due any day. So confident was the assembly of the Government's promised report that it had booked a venue but on the very day before the meeting was due to take place, we were let down again. Are there new spending constraints on the Minister? When will the latest report on the A303 be put in the public domain for discussion?

Does the Minister recognise the economic importance of a second arterial route in and out of the south-west peninsula? Representing a west Devon seat, he of all Ministers must recognise that the scheme would be as important to people living in his side of Devon as it would be to the people living in my side of Devon.

The other thing that I should like to raise is the A373 Cullompton to Honiton road. I have written to the Minister about that and I know he has received the letter; not only did I post it, I faxed it to his private office. The Minister looks askance. When this debate came up, his private office asked me to fax that letter, so I hope that he has received it. Although the A373 is an A road, it links the M5 at Cullompton, at junction 28, to the centre of Honiton, the high street. The Minister will be familiar with the A30 between the M5 at Exeter and Honiton, because it is the noisy road that he is going to resurface any minute now. When that road was dualled, it was recognised that heavy traffic—goods vehicles— would not need to turn left at Cullompton, at junction 28, and cut through on the A373 to Honiton, but that there should be some direction for heavy vehicles being routed down the M5 to Exeter and back up the dual carriageway.

Again, that proposal seems to have been kicked into the long grass. For months and months I corresponded with Devon county council and the Highways Agency in Exeter about the scheme. I am not concerned so much about access traffic, but about the A373 being used as a rat-run. Despite being an A road, it is single carriageway in some places and passes through several hamlets and villages. I have had representations from parish councils in Broadhembury, Payhembury and elsewhere. I have also had representations from residents in Honiton, at the urban end of the road, who say that their houses are so close to the road that heavy good vehicles rattling through cause vibrations and disturbances, particularly in the early hours.

I have had sight of the minutes of a 1999 meeting of the East Devon partnership committee, where all the options for that road were considered and the police made their representation. It was agreed that once the dualling of the A30 was complete, the heavy vehicles should be directed to take what is obviously a heavy goods vehicle route; further down the motorway, off at the slip road and down the dual carriageway to Honiton, rather than along a windy A road through lots of little villages. However, the answer from the Highways Agency in Exeter was that that could not be done because signs on the motorway at the junction advising heavy goods vehicles to continue down the motorway would distract drivers and could cause accidents.

I realise that the Highways Agency might be acting on Government guidelines. On the approach to London, for instance, there are lots of junctions very close together on the M4. In. Devon, as the Minister knows only too well, distances between junctions are many miles; for example, between junctions 27 and 28. There is a straight line of motorway at the approach to the junction at Cullompton. I cannot believe that a redirection sign for heavy goods vehicles at junction 28 represents the sort of motorway hazard that the Highways Agency is suggesting.

Are budgetary constraints preventing the decision from being made? Unless we have a decision, we shall not see progress on the A373. Will the Minister explain why the national guidelines about direction signs on motorways apply equally to motorways running through sparsely populated areas such as Devon and those running through the Slough conurbation? That is not the answer and I hope that the Minister will take a personal interest in the problem.

I have invited the Minister personally to drive along the road and I have offered to drive him, with a cream tea on the way and another at the end in Honiton where there are some excellent restaurants. I cannot make the package more attractive and we would be only too pleased to see him. The invitation is on the table and I hope that he will avail himself of it.

Finally, I want to raise a matter that affects virtually all the roads in my constituency and further afield: funding for maintenance of Devon roads. I know that, technically, that is not the Minister's responsibility, but is part of the local government settlement to Devon county council. However, I gave his office advance warning that I would raise the matter and he will understand why. As the Minister with responsibility for roads, he will have a serious interest in road safety and we all know that the maintenance of roads is a matter of road safety.

Increasingly in Devon, particularly in rural communities and with so-called climate change, more and more roads are subject to flooding, which has a huge impact on the maintenance budget. Devon, a large, rural county, has three times the national average of road length per head of population. We find that in the new formula methodology that the Government introduced last year for calculating the need for road maintenance funding, we lose out because we receive less per mile—I still work in miles, not kilometres, and intend to continue to do so—than other, smaller counties. We share the problem of underfunding of our roads budget with counties such as Yorkshire and Cumbria. It seems strange, going back to the DEFRA report on the need for infrastructure and economic viability in rural areas, that we are penalised for having so many rural roads.

The result of changing the methodology that the Government introduced last year means that, under last year's county settlement, Devon county council had a reduction of 20 per cent. in its road budget, which will be reduced again this year. A small reduction in the allocation per mile results in a funding reduction to the county budget of several million pounds. Will the Minister look again—or urge his colleagues to do so—at the representations made by Devon county council recently in response to the Government's local government settlement?

I shall mention a couple of points from the letter the council submitted on the way in which it assesses different roads. It is clear that the formula change will be an ongoing problem and will seriously affect road maintenance. One can get away with it for a year or two, but an ongoing reduction in the maintenance budget means that big costs will eventually arise when there is no longer a possibility of patching or repairing, and complete resurfacing is necessary. Devon is facing some very large bills down the track.

The Government's formula recognises two categories of road; rural roads and urban roads. The county council believes that that is too simplistic, but the Government say that it is obvious that it costs less per mile—they say kilometres, but I shall stick to miles—to maintain access roads within surburban housing estates and busy stretches on non-trunk principal roads running between towns. However, the proposed formula allocates more than twice as much for roads in housing estates, despite the extensive infrastructure associated with the principal road network.

Additional features, such as lay-bys, rest facilities, landscaping and noise management should be taken into consideration, and the funding model needs to be sufficiently sophisticated to recognise that. The council goes on to explain why that is, using as an example the way in which local authority grant distribution has been utilised in Scotland to make sure that it is fairer system. Scotland gives a good example of what would be fairer in a rural, sparsely populated community, and I urge the Government to consider that.

We all know that there are pressures on all parts of the county budget, not least in social services and education. Ultimately, when there are pressures on those two important areas, it is always the road budget that is cut back to meet the county's statutory obligations. That is very important now; the county needs to set a budget and has already made representations to the Government. A word from the Minister to his hon. Friends might help to relieve the problem, not just for this year's settlement, but for the ongoing maintenance of Devon's roads.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on securing this debate and giving me an opportunity to respond to some of the issues that she has raised. I can think of no better way of whiling away an afternoon than by having a cream tea with her on the A373 or thereabouts. I am sure that our offices can arrange that.

Let me begin by stating that the Government are committed to sustained and long-term investment to improve local transport as a key element of our 10-year transport plan. In December 2000, we announced that £8.4 billion would be made available to implement local transport plans across England in the next five years. That funding will help to deliver the Government's vision of a high-quality transport network that meets people's needs and offers more choice to individuals, families, communities and businesses.

The hon. Lady gave the impression that some of that money has not gone to Devon, but Devon will benefit from that investment. Over £9.2 million will be made available to Devon next year for capital investment in integrated transport. That is over £1 million more than this year, and is a 14 per cent. increase. That rise in capital investment has been matched by an increase for the county to maintain its roads. This year, we gave Devon £14.5 million of capital investment for its roads, which we have increased to £16.5 million for 2004–05. We have made a further £1.6 million available for the strengthening of the Bideford Long bridge. The hon. Lady must agree that, contrary to the picture that she has painted, generous amounts of money have been made available to Devon, which, I say to her delicately, are far greater in real terms than Devon received when her party was in government.

I understand the hon. Lady's concern that the level of revenue provided to Devon through the formula spending share does not adequately reflect the length of roads that the county has to maintain. I accept that Devon is an unusual county in that it has many small roads; one hon. Member described it as having more roads than Belgium. I do not know whether that is true, but it certainly has a high proportion of roads to the population. I hope that the hon. Lady appreciates that resources must be distributed to authorities based on a consistent assessment of their needs. The formula provides more resources to the roads that are used most and, more particularly, to those roads used by heavy goods vehicles; obviously, the heavier the vehicle the greater the damage to the roads. The new funding formula was agreed with the Local Government Association.

I now turn to the hon. Lady's concerns about the volume of heavy goods vehicles using the A373 as an apparent short cut to Honiton and beyond from junction 28 on the M5, and to her request for a sign on the M5 advising HGVs to use junction 29 and the A30. I fully appreciate the safety concerns. I also understand that such traffic may disturb local communities along the A373, and that the road is not of an appropriate standard to take some of those HGVs.

The Highways Agency endeavours to ensure that motorway signing benefits all users in directing them to the most appropriate routes to their destination. However, that must be set against the need not to overload the road user with information that may benefit only a few road users. That creates distractions that can result both in a disturbance of traffic flow and have a negative impact on road safety. That is particularly important on motorways, with the higher speeds at which traffic passes, irrespective of the distance between junctions.

The Highways Agency is not aware of having given any prior commitment to advisory signing. If the hon. Lady has evidence in that regard, I would be pleased to see it. The agency's position has always been to consider positively any request to improve signing if it is supported by sufficient evidence to ensure that increased advisory signing will be effective.

Devon county council has made available some information on traffic flows on the A373. That suggests that the opening of the dualled A30 has not resulted in a significant reduction of heavy goods traffic using the A373. However, that evidence in itself has not been sufficient for the Highways Agency to erect additional signing at junction 28, as it does not indicate the nature or destination of the traffic flow.

To know where and how we might sign appropriately, we need more information as to the destinations and where the vehicles come from. There may be other routes. For example, if heavy vehicles are coming from the Bristol direction, it may be more appropriate to get to Honiton using the A358 instead. It may be more appropriate for other signing to be used. We need better information.

If Devon can provide additional evidence on the origin and destination of some of the vehicles, the Highways Agency will be happy to consider it. I assure the hon. Lady that I will take a personal interest in that. If, for example, the evidence showed that heavy goods vehicles were coming from further north up the M5, it might be more appropriate for them to take other routes. However, it needs to be borne in mind that signing does not necessarily mean that the vehicles will use the A30 in preference to the A373 because as well as seeing the signs, the driver will have a map in his cab and will often use the quickest route. Devon county council would have to take other measures to restrict the use of the road; it would not just be a matter of using signs.

If a goods vehicle came off prior to that junction, it would go through the Blackdown hills, an area of outstanding natural beauty. I think that the Minister is suggesting that those coming from Bristol would end up on the A303. I hope that he will bear in mind what I have said, because we seem to be between a rock and a hard place. It is no good telling us that the A303 does not merit dualling if he is now saying that it might be a good idea if more heavy vehicles travelled on it.

I am saying that we can put up signs, but in the end drivers will make their own choices. The route that the hon. Lady suggests is substantially longer, with all the environmental impact that that would have in terms of extra fuel. The journey involving the A373, for example, is about 10.6 miles instead of 23 miles. Of course, drivers will make that choice. For the signing to have maximum effect, the local highways authority might need to consider additional measures on the A373 and ways of enforcing them. For example, as it is not a primary route, weight restrictions could be considered, but those are matters for Devon county council to consider, and I am sure that the hon. Lady is taking that up with the council. I repeat that the Highways Agency is happy to consider a request if it can be supported by additional evidence of traffic volume and by the information on origin and destination to which I referred.

Let me now deal with the A303 and A358. I am well aware of the views on this matter. There has been enormous discussion at local level and in this place about those roads. I represent a constituency much further down the line in Devon. We in Plymouth do not consider ourselves to be in west Devon; we consider ourselves to be in Plymouth, but there we are. The issue is important for economic development, and we recognise that it is important to have two routes for the growing holiday traffic going into Cornwall.

Hear, hear.

My hon. Friend takes a close interest in such matters. She is much further away from the area—nearly 100 miles—but the issue is still significant to her. I know that she constantly takes an interest in these important matters.

In our 1998 White Paper, "A new deal for transport: better for everyone", we announced a new approach to the assessment of all transport infrastructure. The assessment is much broader than was the case before. We are talking about multi-modal studies. Our new approach involves considering all modes of transport. In "A new deal for trunk roads", we adopted a strong policy presumption against new or expanded transport infrastructure that would adversely affect environmentally sensitive areas such as national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty, except when there was an overriding public interest in the development. I think that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, who knows the area well, would accept that that is a right and sensible policy to adopt.

The London to south-west and south Wales multi—modal study—SWARMMS—considered the two main corridors into the south-west: the M4-M5, and the M3-A303. A number of improvements were suggested in relation to the A303, including the improvement at Stonehenge, which the hon. Lady knows about and about which we have already made an announcement.

The SWARMMS consultants recommended that the four schemes east of Ilminster—Wylye, Chicklade, Sparkford and the Ilminster bypass—should go ahead, subject to some amendments following the reassessment. The A303 to the west of Ilminster—the Ilminster-to-Marsh, and Marsh-to-Honiton schemes— was also assessed and some changes were recommended. The hon. Lady will be only too aware that that route, which runs through the Blackdown hills—an area of outstanding natural beauty—was examined by a public inquiry in the mid 1990s and an alternative was proposed. That involved diverting the route from the Southfields roundabout along the A358.

However, there are some difficulties involving the junction between the A358 and the motorway, which could become seriously congested. We are considering some of those issues carefully. The SWARMMS study considered both alternatives and found that things were not as straightforward as they appeared.

The hon. Lady will know that, under planning policy guidance note 11, the Government now involve the regional planning bodies in determining needs and priorities for major strategic transport investment. Following discussions in December last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State accepted the main recommendation that the whole of the A303 between the M3 and the M5 at Exeter be upgraded to a dual carriageway to form a second high-quality strategic road corridor into the peninsular. We are the first Government to have accepted that. He asked the Highways Agency to prepare the four schemes east of Ilminster for entry into our targeted programme of improvements.

On the two options west of Ilminster, in the same announcement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked the Highways Agency to carry out further work on the feasibility of the scheme involving the A358 and the connection with the M5 at junction 25. We are talking about something that is clearly crucial to the viability of the alternative. We agreed that the regional assembly would have the opportunity to comment on the work before a final decision was made. However, I have to say that the work is extremely complex. I have considered the matter carefully. The work has taken longer than we expected but it is nearing completion. The Highways Agency will prepare a summary report that outlines the findings to help the regional assembly in its considerations.

I know that the hon. Lady feels that this is a long process that goes over old ground, but it is important to get the analysis right. An area of outstanding natural beauty is involved and the schemes are extremely expensive. Budgetary considerations are important and we must consider the cost of these schemes. The other, somewhat unexpected, factor that has come to light in the past 18 months is the increase in traffic in and out of Devon and Cornwall. After the BSE difficulties, we are seeing an increase in tourism in Cornwall. We have seen a growth in traffic along the route to Cornwall, which has made us consider the decision more carefully. I hope that we will be in a position to submit the work to the regional body.

I thank the hon. Lady for raising the points. If I have not covered some matters, I shall be happy to correspond with her.

I am pleased to introduce this debate on the regeneration of former tin mining communities. I chose the title deliberately. There are often debates in the House on the regeneration of coalfields and, even more on specific funding packages for coalfields. In the coming months, we are expecting a report from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee on coalfield communities. It was when I and others in Cornwall heard about the investigation that we realised we were lagging behind other former mining areas in the country, the heart of which is the Camborne-PoolRedruth area in my constituency.

By way of a little history, I wish to remind hon. Members that, in its heyday, that area was a powerhouse of the industrial revolution. The steam that drove British economic might was developed by our most famous son, Richard Trevithick. The first gas lamp was lit in Redruth. It is no exaggeration to say that Cornwall was the genesis of the modern industrial age. The technology and brilliance of Cornish engineering were transferred to the coal mines and propelled this country into being the workshop of the world.

At its height, Cornwall boasted 2,000 mines and was a world leader. However, just as Cornwall led the world into the industrial revolution, it became one of the first victims of globalisation. Discoveries of tin and cheaper production costs in Malaysia led to a painful, protracted decline—not the shock closure of the coal mines. As a result, Cornwall was England's poorest county by the time I was elected in 1997. Low wages, low aspirations and high unemployment, much of it long term, were the economic climate. Only one mine remained and it, too, has now closed.

Of course, 1997 was when Cornwall's wider fortunes began to turn. The election of a Labour Government has seen unemployment cut by more than half in my constituency. That is one of the largest falls in the country. It is in low-income areas, such as Cornwall, where the national minimum wage, tax credits and extra support for families have attacked poverty and broken the cycle of economic and human depression. Again, thanks to the Government, Cornwall has received the boon of objective 1 funding and a raft of Government investment, which exceeds the meagre offerings of years gone by.

Now we look to the future with optimism and the belief that we can make Cornwall an economic powerhouse once more, focused on the area that I represent. However, we cannot afford to be satisfied with the work thus far. Cornwall remains a poor county. According to current estimates, if the funding formula remains the same we expect to be eligible for objective 1 funding for a second time. Wages still remain far below the national average.

Like former mining areas elsewhere, we have a large proportion of economically inactive people. Poor health, particularly among older males, reflects our mining tradition. The number of people with limiting long-term illness well exceeds the national average. A cluster of wards in my constituency falls into the 10 per cent. of the most deprived wards in the country. A study in 1998 that estimated gross household incomes showed that mean household incomes in Camborne North and Redruth North wards were the fourth and fifth lowest in the country.

We are, in effect, a post-industrial area that is in need of assistance. We may not have mined coal, but our need is as great as those areas—if not greater still. Unlike other parts of the country, we did not have the infrastructure or capacity in the private sector to step into the breach. We are peripheral, with transport links that are improving, but we cannot change geography. Other local industries, such as agriculture, tourism and fishing, have their own problems. Indeed, a report published last week by Oxfam showed that, on average, Cornish farmers receive £7,500 in European Union subsidies, while more prosperous farmers in other areas can add one, two or even three noughts to that figure.

I believe that our area should receive the same commitment from the Government and their agencies as other former mining communities throughout the United Kingdom. The industrial legacy is the same in my constituency as in other parts of the country affected by coal. The only difference is that we mined tin, not king coal.

Last year the Camborne-Pool-Redruth area became home to one of the Government's 12 new urban regeneration companies. Camborne-Pool-Redruth Regeneration brings together key local agencies and partners to support a focused, integrated regeneration strategy for the area. In real speak, the intention is to turn the area around and create a new future. The partnership brings together local authorities, the south west of England development agency, English Partnerships and the Government office for the south west alongside local business and education leaders.

By setting up CPR Urban Regeneration, the Government have recognised the distinct and urgent needs of this area of Cornwall. I should tell my right hon. Friend the Minister that I served on the shadow board of the company as vice-chair, and I am a current member of the board. We do, however, need some help. Our ability to attract private investment to the area to work with the local partnerships, schools and public agencies will be key.

Our mining heritage is a significant and a limiting factor. Hundreds of miles of mines stretch under land and sea. As someone put it to me recently, there is a perception that the whole area is full of holes. This is not helping us to attract the private sector, because there is concern about the costs hidden beneath the ground. A great deal of land is in need of remediation work, especially near the surface workings and near the oldest and largest shafts. Work has been done, but we have not tackled the problems below the surface.

There is also an associated risk of potential subsidence because of mine workings. A regular and desperate story in our local newspapers and in my surgeries is of householders waking up to discover that their garden has disappeared into a great hole. Recently Cusgarne school, also in my constituency, had to be abandoned for some months after a former mineshaft swallowed up the recreation ground. A significant additional cost for prospective home owners in my constituency is the mine survey, to see what may lurk beneath the surface. The problems underground are a daily and recurring issue. This concern affects businesses as much as householders. For businesses considering relocation to the area, there is a real concern about what lies beneath, and that once we start digging, who knows what we may find?

For that reason, I am keen to explore the drawing up of a comprehensive remediation strategy for the area. By making use of the expertise in the county, such as the Camborne school of mines, and the expertise and experience of others in the country, we could tackle this problem head-on. We know how former coalfields have re-used land, such as in the transformations at Glasshoughton, Grimethorpe and others. Can we not use their expertise and skills alongside the specialist knowledge of our own mineral industries to do something similar in the Camborne-Pool-Redruth area?

English Partnerships has already identified and bought key sites in the area for development on an ad hoc basis. As we know, it is advising the Government on a national brownfield strategy. However, Government policy for contaminated land, as distinct from merely brownfield sites, understandably focuses on the risk to human health and the environment, rather than land for development. I believe we must go further—we need a comprehensive strategy to tackle the problems in the ground, to make use of expertise and experiences elsewhere, to map the problem and to look to fund remedial work.

Tackling the problems in the ground will also tackle the perceptions in the air. We could say to the private sector,"We are a former mining area, we have had contaminated land, it was a problem, but this is what we are doing to tackle it. We have found those holes, we know what is beneath your factory or industrial site. Where there is land that must be treated, we will treat it. Now you can invest with us with confidence." That could be worth its weight in gold, let alone tin and copper. I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider funding an exemplary pilot project to stabilise the land, to be undertaken by the Urban Regeneration Company. In that way we can attract new businesses to the area.

We have had good news of late. CompAir UK, which was formerly the main manufacturing company in Camborne, closed just before Christmas after 200 years in the town. That was sad. However, we are pleased that two new manufacturing businesses—Quaife and OEM Fabrications—have moved on to the CompAir site and are creating new manufacturing jobs, using our skills and becoming part of the area's renaissance. Today we have been successful in securing a call centre for regional trading standards, thanks to the Department of Trade and Industry, which listened to our lobbying. That will bring a further 50-plus jobs to the area. I am delighted to say that instead of going to over-saturated Truro, they will come to the URC area. We are working on that. The day before that there was the announcement that Furniss, a food producer based in the URC area, had brought in the receivers and 150 jobs were under threat. We have a mixture of good news one day, and not such good news on others. There are real issues to tackle.

We hope that the new companies are the first of many to take advantage of the incentives that are available to do business in Cornwall. The Government have cut stamp duty and provided tax relief for companies cleaning up land. If we had the resources to build on those initiatives and deal with the land issue, we could overcome a significant barrier and create an environment that inspires confidence. Then the investment will follow.

There is a similar story with housing. I know that the Minister has looked carefully at the situation in Cornwall. As I have said in person, and in letters, we are lucky that there is land for new housing in the Camborne-Pool-Redruth area. The Minister is well aware of the political interests around affordable housing. Building on post-industrial land is considered less attractive than in other areas. We lack the capacity to create competition among suppliers to attract them to the Camborne-Pool-Redruth area; the profits to be gained from high-value executive homes in more prosperous towns are too great. Even though the developments in popular locations by the coast, or in over-developed Truro and Falmouth, may be controversial, enough of them get through to keep the builders happy. However, that does not solve the area's housing problem or get investment to the industrial heartland of the Camborne- Pool-Redruth area where it is most needed. There is a vicious cycle that we must break.

If we can find the right balance of incentives, we can offer the Government solutions. We do not just have questions—we have answers and solutions to long-standing issues of land, the environment, housing and prosperity in an area with some 50,000 people. There are many differences between west Cornwall and the UK's industrial heartlands, but we face many similar problems. However, there is one big difference: while those areas have benefited for many years from coalfields programmes and coalfield regeneration, our needs have been overlooked.

This Government have done more for Cornwall than any other Government. I say that on the record with every confidence. I hope that by accepting the case for the needs of the former mining community, we can go further still. I urge the Minister to consider making the former tin mining communities of Camborne-Pool-Redruth eligible for the funding and support packages that are provided under the coalfield regeneration schemes. We would not only benefit from the funding streams that are available, but tap into the wealth of experience that has been generated and ally that with local knowledge. Will the Minister fund a comprehensive study into the remediation of former tin mining communities?

It is wrong that Cornwall should fall behind other areas in the country, yet we have evidence that that is so. We shall hear this year about our bid for world heritage status. The engine houses and the industrial legacy are still there because the area was not regenerating. When other parts of the world were knocking down that legacy and rebuilding, our buildings remained on the skyline.

In other parts of the country, the Coal Authority has made great strides in cleaning up discharges from mines. The Camborne school of mines and the Environment Agency have done much in Cornwall, but it is estimated that at least 100 discharges will have to be cleaned up to meet EU water standards by 2015. It sounds a long way away, but the clock is ticking on the clean up of those discharges. We have yet to undertake even the survey to assess the work. I recently met the Minister for the Environment, and he is discussing how to address the problems of water discharges with colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry.

There is a river in the CPR area of my constituency called the Red river, so-called because of the mine discharges. Surely, like the mines beneath the ground, it could and should be reinstated. Would it not be an obvious first win for everyone as we tackle the tin inheritance?

We are a long way away from the coalfields, but our need is as great and our potential as exciting. Will the Minister fund a comprehensive study into the remediation of the former tin mining communities to ensure that we have learned the lessons from the recent coalfields experience? It is a fair request; we should be treated like other mining communities, and our industrial legacy should be tackled.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) on securing the debate and applaud her assiduousness in bringing the needs of her constituents to the attention of the House.

Falmouth and Camborne may be geographically distant from London, but my hon. Friend ensures that it is never far from Ministers' thoughts. In a previous ministerial capacity I visited her in her constituency and, in my new capacity, I hope to visit again shortly.

I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend welcoming the number of initiatives and the level of funding being introduced to west Cornwall and, in particular, to the former tin mining communities of Camborne, Pool and Redruth. I was delighted to hear the good news about recent investments in the locality.

The south-west is a diverse region. Its high-quality built and natural environments have tempted many to locate there and its economic and employment levels have been high in recent years. However, the long-term decline in traditional industries such as tin mining and fishing, especially when combined with the peripherality and rurality of Cornwall's geography, has created pockets of deprivation. Communities have suffered from limited economic opportunities, low productivity, a low skills base and a lack of affordable housing.

The Government are determined to ensure that these areas are not overlooked, even if they do not conform to the idea of classic inner-city deprivation. The concept of sustainable communities—our drive towards creating places where people can, and want to, live and work— is as relevant to Camborne as it is to Manchester or London.

In order to achieve sustainable communities, certain conditions need to be in place. Communities need economic prosperity where businesses are located and growing in order to provide jobs for the local work force and they need a local work force who have been trained to have the right skills to do the jobs.

In addition, people need to be able to live in homes of a decent standard that they can afford, and they need to live in a pleasant and well-designed built environment that does not encroach on their green spaces. That is especially true in places such as Cornwall where the rural setting is such an important element of its attraction. Other infrastructure such as transport, hospitals and schools must also be in place for such communities to work.

The Government have consistently supported prosperity, growth and regeneration in Cornwall and we have undertaken a wide variety of initiatives, from match funding objective 1 projects through to grants from the neighbourhood renewal fund to help improve housing, raise school standards, reduce crime and improve health in deprived areas. The whole of Cornwall is eligible for regional selective assistance to companies, and it is also a health action zone. There is also an education action zone in the Camborne-Pool-Redruth area.

We all recognise the challenges of achieving economic prosperity against the background of the decline in traditional industry and the peripherality that I have already mentioned. That is why the south west of England development agency has identified Camborne-Pool-Redruth as one of only five priority areas of investment in the south-west. It has already provided about £10 million for projects in the area.

Early successes such as the Tolvaden energy park, which received a Building Research Establishment environmental award in 2002 and was the first development of its kind to receive that sort of recognition, have been followed by other projects such as the Treleigh industrial estate in Redruth. On brownfield land at Falmouth the development agency is helping to develop the Ponsharden—[Interruption.] I shall sit down at this point to be corrected on the pronunciation of these wonderful Cornwall names.

The Minister might care to know that they are Treleigh, Ponsharden and Tolvaden.

I am delighted to be corrected. The Ponsharden site is now under construction and will provide marine-related work space and a park-and-float facility for the town. Of course, the jewel in the crown is the combined universities of Cornwall project, which has seen the investment of nearly £60 million of Government and European Union objective 1 programme funding and is expected to provide a step-change in developing the local economy through teaching and research facilities that link directly with the growth of specific business centres, such as marine and earth sciences, design and media. I am aware that the CUC is already forging ahead because a niece of mine happens to be studying media studies and is living in fabulous Falmouth.

I appreciate the case that my hon. Friend makes about the similarities between the decline of coal mining industries and that of the tin mining industries in west Cornwall. However, the coalfield programme was set up as a result of the coalfield taskforce. Its funding streams were ring-fenced specifically around coalfields, and have already been allocated to a large extent. Nevertheless, there may be lessons learned by the coalfield taskforce that are applicable to communities in Camborne, Pool and Redruth, and we shall endeavour to ensure that those lessons are appropriately disseminated to stakeholders in the former tin mining communities in west Cornwall.

We also need to look at the specific issues that face those communities and not try to import models for regeneration from elsewhere if they are not applicable to the conditions in a specific area. I am aware that my hon. Friend met my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment recently. He undertook to investigate the implications of her suggestion that the Coal Authority might take on responsibility not only for abandoned coal mines, but for other sorts of abandoned mine. It will be for DEFRA to take that process forward. I would not want to pre-empt or second-guess the results of that investigation. However, I would like to say a little about land contamination later in my speech.

As I have said, a great deal of regeneration activity is taking place in the Camborne, Pool and Redruth area. In order for the changes to be sustainable, they have to be considered strategically alongside economic development and skills and training. Such regeneration also needs to be clear about its connectivity to other areas of economic activity in the region and how the businesses created in Camborne complement rather than compete with others in the south-west.

That is why regional development agencies were created; to be regional drivers of economic development and regeneration and to ensure that the extent and type of economic activity across the region works in balance and in a joined-up way. That approach is already working for Camborne, Pool and Redruth. The development agency, working with together with other key partners such as English Partnerships and local authorities, has been essential to the creation of the urban regeneration company CPR Regeneration and, as my hon. Friend stated, she sits on the board of that important body.

My hon. Friend mentioned the excellent work of that body in driving forward an ambitious £150 million investment programme. Around two thirds of this investment is expected to come from the private sector, with the remainder from the public sector over the next 10 years. It will be one of the largest urban renewal projects in the country, driving the regeneration of up to 150 hectares of land with the aim of creating more than 4,000 jobs and raising wages in the area by 15 per cent.

I take my hon. Friend's point about the nature of land contamination in former tin mining communities but I cannot undertake to fund a pilot project to stabilise land nor to fund a comprehensive study into remediation of former tin mining communities. However, I want to suggest a way forward. My hon. Friend will know that the purpose of an urban regeneration company is to work towards a co-ordinated approach to the problems and opportunities in its target areas. Although its principal focus is to engage the private sector in an agreed physical and economic regeneration strategy, hat strategy must be in the wider context of tackling the problems and identifying the opportunities of an area.

Thus, if the URC board, which consists of the regional development agency, English Partnerships, local authorities and others, considers that the work that my hon. Friend describes is a priority for the physical and economic regeneration of the area, it is open to the board to fund that activity. However, the bodies must be allowed to determine the priorities for themselves. It would not be appropriate for central Government to impose requirements upon them.

My hon. Friend also said that economic growth is likely to put pressure on an already problematic housing situation. The south-west suffers the particular problem of fast-rising house prices combined with low indigenous income. That creates serious problems in terms of affordable housing for key workers and others. There is only limited opportunity to build on brownfield land to control urban sprawl. The south-west also has a high proportion of homeless people, the third highest in England in 2001–02.

Under the sustainable communities plan, we set up regional housing boards to ensure the delivery of our housing policies in the region. The south west regional housing body is developing a regional housing strategy, which has already identified as its priorities the creation of more housing, particularly affordable housing; improvements in private sector housing occupied by vulnerable people; and the delivery of decent homes. I am delighted to report that, at £83 million, the housing settlement announced by the body last autumn in recognition of the south-west's special housing pressures represents a 30 per cent. increase over previous allocations.

I am aware that the URC regards housing for local people as one of the key challenges that it must tackle as part of its overall regeneration of that part of the county. I believe that, by working closely with the local authority, the regional housing body, the RDA, English Partnerships, the Government office, the Housing Corporation and other partners, the URC will be able to play an important role in bringing together the expertise and funding streams that will deliver sustainable housing solutions. I also agree that the role of the private sector is extremely important in securing appropriate levels of affordable housing in new developments.

Although the detail of agreements between planning authorities and developers must remain matters for local negotiation, the Government are anxious that the agreements should deliver as much new affordable housing as possible. That is why we are consulting on changes to planning guidance that propose that local planning authorities set targets for affordable housing and identify sites where it will be expected and in what proportion.

I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me that this is an exciting time for west Cornwall. There are real opportunities, not merely for handling the impact of decline in traditional industries but for creating an economic renaissance in the area that will result in truly modern, dynamic, sustainable communities.