I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss service registration. I wanted the debate because, inadvertently, the Government have brought about a real risk of effective disfranchisement of about 250,000 service personnel, or a large number of them, which is mainly the consequence of the Representation of the People Act 2000. It is a serious situation, and I have been shocked by the complacency of many people, including Ministers and especially the Electoral Commission.

I first came across this problem in my constituency, which has two service bases: Thorney island, where the 47th Regiment Royal Artillery is based, and Roussillon barracks, one of the homes of the Royal Military Police. I discovered that 483 service voters registered in Chichester under the service voter scheme in 2000. Now, only 22 service voters are registered under the scheme. I immediately asked how many voters had registered in the usual way, as civilians would register, and was told that Chichester district council could give me figures for Thorney island because it is almost entirely comprised of service personnel, but not for Roussillon barracks. The returning officer said that less than half had registered on Thorney island, compared with a response rate of more than three quarters from the Chichester district as a whole. That is concerning.

I wish to explain briefly how such a situation has come about. Prior to legislation in 2000, members of the armed services would complete a service registration card, which remained in force either until they were discharged or until they took up registration with another authority. The personnel were registered as service voters. Under the Representation of the People Act, which came into force in February 2001, service personnel no longer have to register as service voters. They may register instead as ordinary electors. However, the key point is that they have to re-register annually like everyone else.

When I discovered that as a consequence service voter registration in my constituency had collapsed, I asked the returning officer how the problem could be resolved and to do whatever was required to increase the numbers. Initially, he wrote to commanding officers and, after further discussions with me, he agreed to distribute a leaflet to both barracks, a copy of which I have with me. A few weeks later, it was still clear that registration was well short of reasonable levels, so I wrote to the commanding officers and distributed leaflets to all houses separately. I have my own leaflet with me, too.

As a consequence of both leaflet distributions, registration has risen sharply. After the second wave, with the combined effects of the two, Chichester district council thinks that registration on Thorney island has increased to about 80 per cent., compared with 93 per cent. for the whole district. There has also been a significant increase in Roussillon barracks, but more action is still required. There should not be a difference between the two rates. I believe that house-to-house checks should be considered, even if they are expensive. The electoral registration officer has the power to implement such a measure.

The problem has not occurred only in Chichester, although the rest of the country can learn many lessons from what is happening there. It is clear that there are similar effects for service registration throughout the country. In 2002, 16,289 service voters were registered in Scotland. The following year, that figure had fallen by more than 13,000, a drop of 81 per cent. In England and Wales, nearly 140,000 service voters had registered, but the following year that figure fell by 65 per cent. to 49,000.

I noted the findings of the survey carried out for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in spring 1999, which said that the armed services provide particular registration problems. I agree, but that is no excuse for sitting on our hands. Urgent action is needed at national level. As Chichester has shown, if action is taken, results can flow.

I have raised the matter with Sam Younger by telephone and correspondence, and with my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who represents the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission. He has made it clear that, like me, he is very concerned about the decline in service voter registration. He told me that the Electoral Commission was at work with the Ministry of Defence to examine the extent of the problem of non-registration and to consider what steps could be taken. I would be grateful if the Minister told me what planned action is in train as a consequence of those discussions.

I have great respect for Sam Younger and for the work that he has done to create the Electoral Commission. However, he has, frankly, been very slow off the mark on this issue. In fact, I regret to say that to describe him as having been asleep on the job would be only a little over the top. I can reflect the tone conveyed by the letters that he sent me—or had drafted by his staff for him to sign. In a bland way, he states in the first letter:

"I am not aware of any research that has been undertaken to discover how many service personnel are registered as ordinary electors".

It did not seem to cross his mind that he should conduct that research, which is exactly the job that he has been given. He goes on to say, in a very general way:

"We shall be looking again at how we might get the message home on registration and voting for elections due next year."

That did not sound too bad, but I wrote to tell him that his letter had not allayed my fears and that I wanted to know what firm and clear action would be taken. His second letter really shook me up:

"We will certainly look at the possibility of producing a leaflet aimed at service personnel when we plan for the next canvass to be held in late 2005."

In other words, that will be after the likely date of the next election. That is wholly unacceptable; we need much more urgent action than that.

I have the impression that the Electoral Commission has become complacent about registration. I noted a recent parliamentary question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) about the amount of money spent by the Electoral Commission on getting Britons overseas and young people to vote. Although nearly £750,000 a year is spent on raising awareness among the 5.5 million people aged 18 to 24, just £9,000 is spent on the 3 million to 4 million people living abroad who are eligible to vote. I would be grateful if the Minister could find out, if he does not know already, how much the Electoral Commission spends on encouraging servicemen and women to register. I suspect and fear that that will also be a nugatory amount.

Frankly, the Electoral Commission is paying far too little attention to the crucial matter of enabling people to register. It is given nearly £26 million a year to do its job— three times the amount spent by the Home Office on election-related services, before the Electoral Commission was created. One of its most basic tasks should surely be to ensure that people are registered, but it is not succeeding on that score.

There has been a great deal of talk about exclusion, some of it deeply concerning. However, this issue is the most flagrant and unacceptable example of voter exclusion: it involves service personnel, who are, at this very moment, risking their lives on our behalf in war zones such as Iraq. They are also in Afghanistan, the Balkans and Sierra Leone. In practice, the changes to the procedures for enabling service personnel to register have removed the opportunity for many of them to exercise their democratic rights. Many will find themselves disfranchised at the next election, and that is totally unacceptable.

I should like the Government to reflect urgently on the problem and act on it quickly, taking into account the experience of the action taken in Chichester, where vigorous action was eventually taken by a number of us to increase registration. As a result, the overwhelming majority of service personnel in my constituency will have an opportunity to vote. If we do not take such vigorous action nationally, we will find ourselves in a totally unacceptable situation; people who have been sent into conflict on our behalf will have no say about the Government who sent them. If we cannot sort this out among ourselves in Parliament, it will reflect badly not only on the Government and the Electoral Commission, but also on us.

We should all be grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) has raised this important matter and given it such prominence. He referred to the fact that I speak in the House on behalf of the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission. I emphasise that I do so specifically under instructions from the Electoral Commission, and that on this occasion I am speaking entirely on behalf of myself and my constituents.

In the 1970s, I was heavily involved in the campaign to make it easier for service personnel to vote, because in my first general election I was shaken to discover how many of them were not registered. It was made possible for service personnel to register as service personnel once for their entire service career; it was not necessary for them to re-register every year. The number of registered service personnel increased considerably.

I am convinced that the Representation of the People Act 2000 was intended to make it easier for service personnel to vote; that was certainly the stated intention. When the then Home Secretary, now the Foreign Secretary, introduced the Bill in the House, he said that one of its purposes was to make it easier for various categories to register, including the homeless, mental patients and service personnel. The House then spent some time discussing homeless people's difficulties in registering, but on Second Reading, there was no discussion of the premise that service personnel were to have their registration made easier; that seemed to be taken for granted.

Although the fall in the number of service voters has been unintentional, it has been dramatic in the borough of Gosport, where the number registered to vote has declined from 4,370 in 2000 to 470 this year. We do not know how many of those service personnel have re-registered as ordinary voters on the ordinary register, but my hon. Friend has carried out a valuable service to the House by studying the number of voters in Thorney island, from which it became clear that service personnel had been lost to the register; they have not re-registered.

Where do we go from here? Electoral registration officers, whose duty it is to maintain an accurate register and to ensure that it is as full as possible, should be encouraged to make contact forthwith with all commanding officers of service establishments in their constituencies. Those commanding officers should be encouraged to arrange for a postal voting form and a proxy voting form—a postal vote is of no use to service personnel who are at sea or halfway up a mountain in Afghanistan; proxy votes are very important for those who are out of contact with the normal postal system—to be sent to all service personnel in their establishments. That should be done forthwith and on a rolling basis, and the responsibility for doing it should lie with the Ministry of Defence in conjunction with the Electoral Commission, which I am sure will give advice on specialist matters and assist the MOD in coming to the right conclusions.

The Electoral Commission does excellent work in publishing its documents in seven languages and doing its best to ensure that those who have recently come to this country are able to vote. As my hon. Friend said, it would be absolutely wrong for that excellent work to be compromised by the loss of those who, perhaps, deserve the right to vote more than any other members of our community.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) on securing this debate on the electoral registration of service personnel. I agree that it is an important issue, and I have listened carefully to what he and the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) have said.

The Government have introduced a number of measures aimed at making voting easier for all voters, including service personnel. The Representation of the People Act 2000 introduced postal voting on demand; voters are no longer required to give a reason if they wish to apply for a postal vote. The Act also provided for pilot schemes to be set up to test alternative methods of voting. Since 2000, there have been numerous pilots covering a range of new electoral procedures, including all-postal voting, early voting and electronic methods of voting. In the combined European and local election in June, four regions held all-postal ballots and in those regions turnout was 42 per cent.— double the turnout in the previous European elections. I hope that the hon. Members for Chichester and for Gosport will join me in welcoming that increase in turnout. I hope that we can engage even more people in taking part in our elections.

It may be of assistance to hon. Members if I explain the procedures that apply for the electoral registration of service personnel, as they have changed significantly in recent years, following the Act. As the hon. Member for Chichester said, in the past service personnel have not been eligible to register to vote on the annual voting canvass received by households for inclusion on a local register of electors. They were able to vote only if they had made a service declaration, which, unless updated, stayed in force until they left the armed forces. Those in the United Kingdom could vote in person, by post or by proxy, and those overseas could do so by proxy only. There was no requirement for annual re-registration, and in order to exercise their vote, individuals had to keep their details and voting preference up to date.

In a highly mobile work force, which the services obviously have, that was a lot to expect and the number of registered service voters was no indication of those who exercised their vote. The Representation of the People Act 2000 and the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001 presented service personnel and their partners with a wider range of electoral registration options. They may now register to vote at either their private or another qualifying address, which could be service families accommodation or single living accommodation. Alternatively, they can choose to register to vote by means of a service declaration. In all cases, a fresh declaration must now be made every 12 months, and an annual renewal notification is sent out by the electoral registration officer with whom they are registered.

The changes were considered likely to encourage more service personnel to use their votes and to register with an up-to-date address, whether by means of a service declaration or in the standard way, instead of the one at which they had lived when they first joined the services. The changes also meant that the names of service declarants did not remain indefinitely on other electoral lists long after the people concerned had left the armed forces.

All service personnel and their partners have the option to register as service voters by completing a yearly service declaration form, which should be returned to the relevant local council electoral registration office. When registering in that way, a service voter's qualifying address is the address in the United Kingdom at which they would be living if they were not in the services. The advantage of that option is that their registration remains constant even if they are moved from one location to another on a tour of duty.

Since 2000, service personnel and partners have had other options on how to register as electors in line with civilian electors. If they live at a permanent address in the United Kingdom, either at a private or qualifying address, or at service families accommodation or single living accommodation, a serviceman or woman can register as a conventional voter.

For those personnel and their partners who are posted abroad and who do not wish to register as service voters, there is the option of registering as overseas electors. That facility is available to all British citizens who live abroad but have been registered as electors in Britain within the past 15 years. The disadvantage of that option to service personnel is that overseas electors can take part only in United Kingdom parliamentary and European parliamentary elections. They do not qualify to vote in local council elections.

As hon. Members know, all households in the United Kingdom receive an annual form from the local council electoral registration officer each September or October. That is for confirming and updating the following year's register of electors. Those registered as service voters or overseas electors also receive an annual renewal notification from the electoral registration officer with whom they are registered.

In addition to the annual canvass, provision is made for a system of electoral registration that allows individuals to register at any time of year when they move properties within the same electoral registration area, or to another registration area in the United Kingdom. That, together with the requirement for service personnel to register at least once a year, is particularly useful for our highly mobile personnel, because it removes a major reason for members of the armed forces being refused credit, which is not being on the electoral role at their current address.

Before I deal with the two versions of the register, I should like to address one or two points made by the hon. Member for Chichester. He will be aware that it is for the local authority to determine whether it wants electoral registration staff to carry out house-to-house canvassing. Some issues that I will raise in relation to the edited register will affect whether authorities wish to continue canvassing door to door for electoral registration.

The Ministry of Defence is committed to discussions with the Electoral Commission. In fact, my officials have a meeting scheduled for tomorrow with officials from the Electoral Commission—it is not related to today's debate; it just happens to be tomorrow—to consider some of the issues raised in parliamentary questions and this debate and to consider some of the concerns.

We need something deeper than a commitment to discussions. We have a crisis. On the basis of the evidence from Chichester, the best part of half of all service personnel in this country are disfranchised, with an election about to be held. We must do something about that. With great respect to the Minister, although he has elucidated all the means by which people can register under the new rules, we already knew that, and we want to know what the Government are going to do right now to ensure that service personnel can vote in elections if they are held next May.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, although I do not know what election he is referring to next May. We do not have local elections then in my city, although West Sussex county council may have them. I am not sure that the statistics and comparison of numbers, which he used in his speech, are relevant. I am not sure whether comparing the number of registered service voters since 2000 with the number today is comparing like with like. The 2000 figure indicated the number that chose to vote by means of a service declaration. Many others will have made the choice to register as ordinary voters or overseas voters, as I was trying to explain in my earlier remarks.

The simple fact is that there is no way of knowing how many service personnel choose to vote in that way. However, that may indicate that those who have taken positive steps to register as service voters, and whose details are up to date, are more likely to exercise their vote. I am not sure whether there is a "crisis" as the hon. Gentleman says.

We have clear evidence that there is a crisis. In parts of this country discrete areas, where there are bases, are entirely given over to service personnel. In those areas, until action was taken, registration was less than half—including in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Gosport. We know the answer to the question, although the Minister says that he does not; we do not know down to the very last number, but we know pretty much what that number is; it is unacceptable, and we have to do something about it. We want to know now, and service personnel do, too, what the Government are going to do to ensure that all service personnel become aware that a high proportion of them have been disfranchised by the 2000 Act.

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point about disfranchisement by the 2000 Act. Perhaps as I conclude my remarks I can take him through what we in the MOD are doing. First, however, I want to deal with the two versions of the register, because that it is also important. We do not often debate electoral issues in the House, so this is a useful opportunity for me to do so.

The hon. Gentleman is aware that there is a full register and an edited register. By law, only certain people and organisations, including political parties, can have copies of the full register, and it can be used for specific purposes, including elections, the prevention and detection of crime, and checking the identity of someone who has applied for credit—a point that I made earlier, and one that is important for service personnel, who are highly mobile. Electoral registration offices also provide an edited version of the register, which is available for sale to, or commercial use by, anyone, and which may be used for any purpose. Those wishing to have their name left off the edited version must mark the appropriate box on the registration application form, and I am sure that many of us do.

Service personnel and their partners who are overseas or away from their United Kingdom residence during an election may choose to vote by post or proxy. Personally, I do not recommend postal voting, because, as the hon. Member for Gosport said, postal ballot papers might not be distributed until a few days before the election. Those overseas who chose to vote by post should bear it in mind that they might not receive and return their ballot papers in time. In the circumstances, the best way for them to vote is to appoint a proxy. Advice to that effect is included in the instructions sent out by the Ministry of Defence.

Registered service voters or overseas voters are automatically entitled to vote by proxy. Nominated proxy voters are not required to live in the area in which the person who appointed them is registered and can apply to cast their proxy vote by post if that is easier. All ships, units and stations are instructed to give personnel and their dependants, especially those who are overseas, every reasonable assistance to register as voters. Defence Council instructions direct that all new entrants to the armed forces be made aware of the procedures and options for registering as voters. I can confirm that our personnel are also notified of all parliamentary elections.

The Ministry of Defence issues annually a Defence Council instruction explaining the procedures for registration. That instruction is sent to 2,300 addresses, which include ships and shore establishments, all major units and independent sub-units. The Defence Council instruction is in the final stages of revision, and will be republished early in the new year. It will also be made available to service personnel via the Department's website. Obviously, our discussions with the Electoral Commission may determine some of what is said in the instruction.

Since the introduction of the new arrangements, the service register of voters has closed, and historical data are not being retained. We do not seek information from individuals on whether they are registered to vote and whether they exercise their vote; that would be an unnecessary invasion of privacy by an employer. There is therefore no certain way of determining the number of service personnel registered to vote. Nor was there any means of determining, under the old arrangements, what percentage of registered service voters exercised their vote.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a third time. Does not he realise that failing to set out a clear plan of action to deal with what has been uncovered will strike many as blistering complacency? We must take action to get service registration numbers up. It is no good relying on the pre-existing arrangements, which he has outlined for almost 15 minutes and which all hon. Members here knew about already. We need urgent pressure from the Ministry of Defence and the Electoral Commission to get it across to registration officers that they have to get personnel registered. They have to take action, such as has been taken in Chichester. They can and should use Chichester as a beacon for higher registration for the rest of the UK.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the initiative that he took in his constituency. I undertake to write to him with further details of how we might pursue the matter after tomorrow's meeting with the Electoral Commission. I am in no way complacent about registering or encouraging people to vote. I feel passionately that people should vote, and I hope that he accepts that I believe in that basic principle, as does the Ministry of Defence.

I believe strongly that our service personnel, wherever they are serving, must be afforded every opportunity and encouragement to exercise their democratic right to register to vote. The Ministry of Defence will continue to facilitate that process as far as it can. It will work with the Electoral Commission to ensure that our service personnel are made fully aware of how to register and are encouraged to participate in the electoral process, just like any other citizen of the United Kingdom.

I make no apologies for again raising the issue in the Palace of Westminster of the Chaldo-Assyrian community in Iraq. In doing so, I have three main aims: first, to discuss the specific issue of safe haven for the rapidly diminishing, brutalised, tormented Chaldo-Assyrian community in Iraq; secondly, to seek further assurances from Her Majesty's Government in their contacts with their American allies and the Iraqi Interim Government for specific protection for the persecuted Chaldo-Assyrian community; and thirdly—and, in some ways, perhaps as importantly—to raise the profile of a people who are often ignored, often neglected and often not recognised. If I repeat myself occasionally, I shall not apologise, because they are a people whose voice must be heard. They are a people whose plight must be recognised and they make up a community that deserves the attention of all civilised nations on this earth.

I pay tribute to a couple of my parliamentary colleagues who have tabled questions on the issue. I am delighted that I have been joined in this Chamber by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who tabled a question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 4 November, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 17 November. Both questions specifically asked Her Majesty's Government to increase the support that could be given and the negotiation that could be had with their allies and the IIG on such a sensitive subject. I am also delighted to be joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), who has been an absolute stalwart supporter of the Chaldo-Assyrian community. He has attended meetings with me and has many friends among that proud community, as I have.

It may seem odd that, when Iraq is racked by so many different internal and external dissensions, we are talking about a specific community. However, I want to speak about a community that not only suffers double discrimination but faces extinction. The community has a history that is far longer and far more proud than ours. It is under attack to such an extent that it is shrinking from 1.5 million people, to 1 million, to about 800,000. The slow-motion genocide of the Chaldo-Assyrian community in Iraq is happening in front of our eyes. I cannot understand how any person with a drop of civilised blood in their body can stand by and not do every single thing within their power to protect, support, respect and advance the interests of that community.

The media of the world are focused on Iraq. Amid the dust of bombed buildings, the crash of gunfire and the screams of the wounded is a community in even greater pain. The indigenous Chaldo-Assyrian Christians of Iraq are under siege. Their community is suffering expropriation of its land; their neighbours in northern Iraq have illegally expropriated much of the land. To make matters even worse, Islamic militants have specifically stepped up attacks and targeted the Chaldo-Assyrian community. More than 95 per cent. of Iraq's Christians are Chaldo-Assyrians—otherwise known over the years as Syrians, Chaldaeans or Syriacs. As a result of persecution under Saddam Hussein and an escalating anti-Christian attack since the fall of his regime, at the best guess there are now between 800,000 and 1 million Christians left in Iraq.

Many of us here are aware that Chaldo-Assyrians have maintained a continuous and totally separate ethnic identity, language, culture and religion that predates the Arabisation of the near east. Today, the Chaldo-Assyrians speak a distinct language—a derivative of neo-Aramaic known as Syriac. It is the language that was spoken by Christ. Aramaic is almost certainly the oldest continuously spoken and written language. Throughout all the travails, slaughter and genocide, the community has not just preserved its culture, tradition and pride, but preserved inviolate the language that Christ spoke. There are people present in the Public Gallery who speak that language.

The Chaldo-Assyrians are the direct descendants of the ancient Assyrians and Babylonians, who, as Old Testament scholars will be aware, once controlled the largest empire in the middle east. The heartland of that ancient Assyrian empire is in the geographical territory that we now call northern Iraq. The Chaldo-Assyrians were virtually the first people to accept Christianity; they did so in the 1st century AD through the apostolate of St. Mari and St. Addai.

It is widely documented that the Chaldo-Assyrians have suffered greatly in their ancestral homeland throughout the centuries. They have that great pride, courage and continuity, but they have suffered appallingly. The genocide by the Ottoman Turks from 1915 is commonly known as the Armenian genocide, but during it the Chaldo-Assyrian community lost 750,000 people, which was half its population. In addition to the loss of those men, women and children, there was the loss of land. Between 1914 and 1918, the Chaldo-Assyrians fought on the side of the allies. They incurred massive losses and earned wide respect for their courage and heroism. After the war, the British Government promised them an autonomous homeland in Iraq. I regret that that promise was never fulfilled; I do not hold my hon. Friend the Minister personally responsible, but our country once promised that.

The Chaldo-Assyrians were the first people to be massacred by the Iraq military following the Iraqi state's admission to the League of Nations in 1932. In August 1933, the Iraqi military turned their weapons on the Chaldo-Assyrian community and commenced a massacre in the villages located in the current governorates of Dohuk and Nineveh. During that massacre—the second massacre in a very short period—4,000 innocent Chaldo-Assyrians, mainly women, children and the elderly, were butchered in cold blood.

The Ba'athist Government were no more sympathetic. Under Saddam Hussein, more than 200 Chaldo-Assyrian villages, including historical monasteries and churches, were destroyed. Saddam's Government denied the Chaldo-Assyrians recognition as an ethnic minority; instead, they categorised them as "Christian Arabs." They were forbidden to teach the ancient Syriac language, despite their status as Iraq's third largest ethnic group and the fact that they are the indigenous people of Iraq—their presence in that country predates that of any other ethnic group.

In 1984, dozens of Chaldo-Assyrian activists were imprisoned. Three leaders of the Assyrian Democratic Movement—the ADM—were hanged in an attempt to destroy the growing movement for Chaldo-Assyrian rights. I am honoured and delighted to number among my friends—I hope—Johnny Michael of the ADM, which exists to this day despite the persecution that it has suffered over the years.

I hope that during this brief debate it will not be necessary for me to touch at length on the history of the Assyrian people. Most of us know Ashurbanipal and the epic of Gilgamesh, and of that people's many great achievements, such as the invention of writing, postal systems, dry-cell batteries, the wheel and, even, of lager. I simply wish to say that it is a very ancient community with a history that goes back to the dawn of time and that it is now in the darkest hour of its long life.

In northern Iraq, particularly after 1991 when Iraqi military operations commenced against them, Chaldo-Assyrians and Kurds fled to the borders of Turkey. The Iraqi military were prohibited from entering a safe haven established in northern Iraq above the 36th parallel. That enabled the Kurdish people to return to their villages, but many decided to resettle in Chaldo-Assyrian villages. The Chaldo-Assyrians who returned to their villages were powerless to regain their homes, many of which had been in their families for thousands and thousands of years.

At least 58 Chaldo-Assyrian villages have been partially or fully occupied by Kurds: eight are completely occupied and 50 partly occupied. All are in Dohuk province and in areas controlled by the Kurdistan Democratic party, the KDP. I am extremely grateful to Amnesty International for its continuing reports on the situation and on the relationships between the KDP and the indigenous Chaldo-Assyrian people. The KDP has refused consistently to return lands and property to the rightful owners, and, regrettably, has encouraged more Kurds—including Kurds from outside Iraq—to settle on Chaldo-Assyrian land.

My purpose in delineating the situation is not to attack the Kurdish people, who themselves have suffered. However, it cannot be denied—and I pray in aid the work of Amnesty International—that there has been land expropriation and a land-grab on a massive scale, and that that is turning the screw of pain and misery on the Chaldo-Assyrian people. During Saddam's regime, Chaldo-Assyrian lands in the Nineveh plains, their ancient homeland, were taken by force and rented at a strange function known as the annual auction. A large portion of the lands was confiscated and distributed to Iraqi military and intelligence personnel; some of the confiscated land was rented to Arabs or Kurds.

At the annual auctions, the highest Kurdish or Arab bidder was allowed to rent the land for a year. Instead of returning the land to its rightful Chaldo-Assyrian owners, the current Minister of Defence, Hazim al-Shaalan, has sent a letter to the Minister of Municipalities to instruct the Minister of the Mosul governorate to distribute Chaldo-Assyrian land to Iraqi military and intelligence service personnel—a continuance of the policy of the previous Ba'athist regime. The lands in question are in the following Chaldo-Assyrian districts of the Nineveh plains: Telkepeh, Baghdede—a name later changed to Qaraqosh, then to Hamdaniya—Karamles, Bartilla, Batnaye Telesqof, Alqush, Basheqe-Bahzani and Shaikhan. If I have mispronounced any of those names, I apologise.

Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, Chaldo-Assyrian organisations have recorded the killings of more than 100 Iraqi Christians, who are subjected to escalating violence. They are targeted regularly, owing to their distinctive ethnicity and faith. As I said earlier, they are a double minority in their own ancestral homeland as they are both an ethnic and a religious minority. The average Iraqi faces many risks in the unstable situation in Iraq, but Iraqi Christians are up against even more dangers. They also have to deal with the additional threat of attacks from Islamic fundamentalists who want to drive them out of Iraq, kill them or force them to convert to Islam. Iraqi Christians are perceived by Muslim extremists as allies of the west, and face additional problems from their neighbours, many of them Kurdish, some of whom have used violence against the Chaldo-Assyrians or illegally expropriated Christian villages.

The Chaldo-Assyrian Christian community is highly vulnerable and under siege. I posit that there is no danger of the Kurds or Arabs vanishing from Iraq, or of their communities there being reduced to a tiny remnant, but there is—this is not alarmist—a real and genuine possibility that that could happen to the Chaldo-Assyrian community unless the security situation vastly improves.

Under article 53(D) of Iraq's transitional administrative law, there is a provision for an autonomous administrative region. In fact, that is guaranteed under that article. The establishment of such an autonomous administrative region would provide a safe haven for Iraq's Christians and, desperately importantly, would encourage the tens of thousands of Christians who have fled for their lives from Iraq—especially in recent months—to return to their ancestral homeland.

I referred earlier to the Amnesty International report. Amnesty has raised a number of cases with Massoud Barzani, the leader of the KDP, including the particularly vicious murder of Francis Shabo and many other unsolved killings. It has also stated that it has received the names of people said to be linked to the KDP's first party branch who are allegedly involved in murders, including that of Francis Shabo. Amnesty describes a great many unsolved assassinations and states:

"Amnesty International has received numerous allegations attributing these killings to special forces within the KDP, PUK and IMIK."

For the record, the PUK is the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the IMIK is the Islamic Movement in Iraqi Kurdistan. Amnesty continues:

"The security apparatus of the KDP, Rekkhistini Taybeti, and that of the PUK, Dezgay Zanyari, are said to have units akin to assassination squads, whose members receive orders from senior party officials. There is also widespread conviction that such unlawful and deliberate killings could not have been perpetrated without the knowledge, consent or acquiescence of the leaders of these two parties".

I have many examples of the slaughter of innocent Chaldo-Assyrians on their way to and from church, work and their studies. As other hon. Members wish to speak, I will not list them, but I assure the Chamber that this is not just a long and bloodstained list, it is, sadly, a list that grows longer by the day.

Amnesty also highlights the KDP's pressure on Chaldo-Assyrians to join the KDP or fly the Kurdish flag. That is part of a continued attempt to marginalise the Chaldo-Assyrians politically and prevent Chaldo-Assyrian organisations from getting support. As recently as July 2004 the KDP in Dohuk and Irbil prevented Chaldo-Assyrian groups and organisations, such as the Assyrian Democratic Movement, the Chaldo-Assyrian women's union, and the Chaldo-Assyrian students union in Dohuk, from being part of the special electoral committee to nominate participants to the Iraqi National Conference, the purpose of which was to elect representatives to the Iraqi National Assembly. The KDP appointed Chaldo-Assyrian representatives employed by the KDP, rather than permitting Chaldo-Assyrians to appoint their own representatives.

The situation is as violent and awful as I have described it, right up to today, which has seen gunmen bomb two Christian churches in Mosul. At least four Iraqi national guard troopers were killed in those incidents. The specific targeting of Christian churches continues, with the unimaginable consequence that a Christian is terrified to attend his or her place of Christian worship. I can imagine few things more utterly depressing in this century than the fact that one cannot pray to one's God in the company of one's co-religionists without the fear of death, especially when one is a part of a community with a history that stretches back to the period just after the death of our Lord. They cannot pray together today without that fear. We must never forget that.

As recently as 9 September 2004 a mortar attack was launched against the inhabitants of the Chaldo-Assyrian town of Baghdede in the Qaraqosh district. In that attack a 13-year-old Chaldo-Assyrian boy, Mark Louis Sheeto, who was completely innocent and whose only crime was the crucifix he wore around his neck and the faith he held true to in his heart, was killed and his mother and eight-year-old brother were critically injured. That is one of a series of attacks specifically designed to drive the community from its heartland and the area where it lives and trades.

In the same month, two 26-year-old Chaldo-Assyrians were kidnapped and beheaded. The beheading was captured on video and the video distributed not among those whose mindless perversion knows no limits and who actually buy such videos for gratification, but among members of the Chaldo-Assyrian community in northern Iraq, in order to drive fear into that community and force its members to flee their ancestral homeland.

On 2 December this year, Leith Antar Khanno, who was 29, was found dead near Mosul hospital. He had been kidnapped two weeks ago. The family could not come up with the ransom. His body was found first, and then his head. Khanno was married with a young daughter.

Perhaps some of us have assumed a defensive carapace when faced with the horror that is modern Iraq; perhaps some of us are less sensitive today than we were a year ago; perhaps some of us, faced with a constant stream of sadistic horror, are less aware and concerned than we once were; perhaps we suffer almost from emotional overload when we see the nightmarish visions and the sick and repulsive videos. However, I do not think that hon. Members present will feel any less worried, concerned, horrified or sickened by such attacks than they were a year ago.

We are talking about a Christian, peaceful community that has never waged war within the boundaries of modern Iraq; a community that has been attacked but never attacks; a community whose defence has been to flee and form part of the great Chaldo-Assyrian diaspora, which now stretches to Australia, Los Angeles and this country. For that community to be attacked in such a way is particularly vicious and unforgivable.

Is my hon. Friend saying that the terrible kidnappings and murders that he has described have happened to people because they are Chaldo-Assyrian, or is he saying that those things are happening to rather a lot of Iraqis, including Chaldo-Assyrians?

I thank the Minister for his question. I do not imply for a second that the sufferings of the Chaldo-Assyrian Christian community are in any way unique in Iraq; what I am saying—and what I can document and prove consistently—is that Chaldo-Assyrians and Christians are being specifically targeted. No group in modern Iraq is being targeted in the same way. There has been one attack on a mosque in the past three months, and 18 attacks on Christian churches. Although there have been Sunni and Shi'a incidents of violence, I suggest that there has been nothing in modern Iraq remotely comparable to the current persecution of the Christian community.

I apologise that I cannot stay until the end of the debate because I have to go to a Select Committee meeting.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for bringing forward the issue. Does he agree that it is sad that there has been very little condemnation from the moderate Islamic community in Iraq of the way in which the Christians and the Chaldo-Assyrians have been targeted? If such condemnation were to start, at least there would be some belief that there is solidarity across religions. We know the fanatics, and what they wish to achieve, but the Muslim community, which is moderate, should condemn what is happening. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees.

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. As I have said, I am grateful to him for the way in which he has consistently raised this issue; I pay tribute to him and give him credit for that.

One thing that I regret most is the fact that the natural allies of moderate Muslims in Iraq—the Chaldo-Assyrian community—have never been recognised on anything other than an individual basis by the voice of moderate Arabs in Iraq. One would have thought that the community would have been regarded as natural allies and that moderate Muslims would have seen a unity of purpose with it. It is a great tragedy that such is the extent of the anti-Christian propaganda in Iraq, it seems even to have subsumed some of those from whom one would expect better.

The British Government, together with the United States, must consider the issue of a self-governing administrative region for the Chaldo-Assyrians, as promised by article 53(D).

My intervention arises from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). Is my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North aware that Iraq's Shi'a Muslim leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, called for an end to the attacks and talked about the need to respect the rights of Christians and those of other religious faiths, and about their right to live in Iraq peacefully? A number of other moderate Islamic leaders have made similar statements in recent weeks.

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has been a still, small, voice amid the storm, particularly since his return to Iraq from his recent operation. However, that statement was made some time ago and there has been very little indication of any diminution in the attacks on the Christian community since. I am happy to pay tribute to him; he is someone with whom one can have rational discourse. However, I do not hear that voice echoed anywhere else in Iraq. That does not make his statement any less important. Sadly, it makes it rather more isolated.

I mentioned the Iraqi transitional administrative law and I ask Her Majesty's Government to consider raising the issue of the self-governing administrative region with the United States and the Iraqi Interim Government. Such a region would provide the safe haven that is so desperately needed. It would have to be situated in and around the Nineveh plains and, specifically, in Dohuk province, not just because that is the ancestral homeland of the Chaldo-Assyrians, but because it is heavily populated by them to this day. I am sure most that hon. Members are familiar with article 53(D) of the transitional administrative law, but, for the record, it states:

"This Law shall guarantee the administrative, cultural and political rights of the Turcomans, Chaldo-Assyrians, and all other citizens."

The history of the Chaldo-Assyrians is both tragic and glorious. It is both proud and desperately sad. One thing that it has repeatedly demonstrated is that the community cannot depend on others to protect it and it has an urgent and vital need for autonomy, in order to protect it and enhance its security. What specific steps have Her Majesty's Government taken to bring about a self-administered region? I also ask the Minister to pressure the KDP, where possible, to ensure that violence, kidnapping and other crimes in KDP-controlled areas are punished.

Her Majesty's Government and the United States should, perhaps financially, support the redevelopment and reconstruction of Chaldo-Assyrian villages and infrastructure and the return and resettlement of Chaldo-Assyrian refugees. They should also give whatever support they can to the Christians of Iraq to enhance their security and protection. By doing so, the British Government would be empowering a force for moderation in Iraq.

We have mentioned moderate Muslim influence and comment earlier, but moderate Muslims, together with Chaldo-Assyrians, are the main bulwarks against the growth and spread of Islamic fundamentalism. If the Iraqi Christian community is reduced, as it might be, to a tiny remnant, it will have no power to oppose the imposition of Islamic law in Iraq. The presence of a live and vibrant Christian community in Iraq adds great strength to the ability of moderate Iraqi Muslims to oppose the spread of fundamentalism.

I cannot believe that Her Majesty's Government would view the plight of the Christian community in Iraq as merely a side issue, peripheral to the major and dramatic events that affect that country. I realise that many people take this matter seriously and I pay tribute to them. We are missing a great opportunity, however, if we cannot support non-Muslims, who are the natural allies of moderate Muslims and who are opposed to the spread of militant, extreme Islam in Iraq.

Furthermore, Iraq will utterly fail to be the leading and positive example of pluralism and democracy for other middle eastern countries to follow if it fails to give strong support to its ancient Christian Chaldo-Assyrian community. It is therefore very much in the interests of our Government and all other Governments who do not wish to see Iraq dominated by Islamic fundamentalism to give their full support to Iraq's Christians.

Her Majesty's Government have rightly claimed that human rights are an important part of foreign policy, and the situation in Iraq shows that our commitment to human rights is not theoretical but utterly practical. The Chaldo-Assyrian community may have a long history of persecution, betrayal, massacre and genocide, but it is still there. We must ensure that in months and years to come no Member stands in this Chamber and talks about the former Chaldo-Assyrian Christian community in Iraq. We also have the opportunity to right a grave historical wrong and fulfil the long-overdue promise made by Britain after the first world war to grant the Chaldo-Assyrians an autonomous homeland.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has described the situation in Iraq today as parlous, perilous and dangerous. The agency urges us not to seek the forced repatriation of those who seek asylum in this country, and in the short term I am sure that we would not wish to do so. In the medium to long term, if we are not to see the end of that ancient Christian community and force for moderation, we must act to support these people who have stood steadfast by us in this country for many years. They have, with their blood, earned themselves the right for us to support them to the utmost of our ability.

A community that has been attacked but has never attacked—that is what the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) referred to in his eloquent, moving and persuasive speech. It is always an honour to follow him; this time, however, it is not a pleasure because of the circumstances. Indeed, it is not really acceptable for someone who uses the English language as poorly as I do even to comment on the hon. Gentleman's performance, but it was quite inspirational.

The history of this dignified, courageous and persecuted people is worth reviewing. The Chaldo-Assyrians have suffered greatly in their ancestral homeland of northern Iraq and southern Turkey throughout the centuries, particularly during the genocide of the Ottoman Turks, which started in 1915 and was known, as the hon. Gentleman said, as the Armenian genocide.

During that genocide, the Chaldo-Assyrians lost about 750,000 people—about half their population—as well as a very large proportion of their land. They fought on the side of the allies and incurred heavy losses in battle in the first world war, and the British Government promised them an autonomous homeland in Iraq after the war. That promise, as we have heard, has never been fulfilled.

In August 1933, the Iraqi military turned their weapons against their own Chaldo-Assyrian Christian citizens and massacred about 4,000 of them in villages in what are now the governorates of Dohok and Nineveh. The Assyrian Democratic Movement and the Jubilee Campaign, representatives of which are here today, are calling for urgent and much stronger support for Iraq's community of about 1 million, which remains besieged to this day.

Christians are by far the largest non-Muslim minority in Iraq, and the Chaldo-Assyrians and moderate Muslims in Iraq are the main bulwarks against the growth and spread of Islamic fundamentalism in that country. That is—the Minister asked about this earlier—the key reason they are being singled out for persecution and driven out of the country. I hope that he will accept at least that fact today. If Iraq's Christian community is reduced to a very small size, it will have no power to oppose attempts to impose sharia law in Iraq. The presence of a vibrant Iraqi Christian community greatly strengthens the ability of moderate Iraqi Muslims to oppose the spread of Islamic fundamentalism. That is in the interests of not only moderate Muslims, but the rest of the world.

Attempts to Islamicise Iraq have grown bolder and stronger since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime. In that respect, the war has been subject to the law of unintended consequences. There have, for example, been numerous reports that Iran is trying to take advantage of the instability in Iraq by exporting its brand of so-called Islamic revolution and sending large numbers of agents to support Shi'ite militias friendly to Iran and radicalise the Shi'ite population. The most notorious Shi'ite militia, the Mahdi army, which is led by Moqtada al-Sadr, is well know to have close ties with the Islamic regime in Tehran.

The Chaldo-Assyrians have been among the first and the most vulnerable victims of the Islamic extremists, although that is not to say, of course, that others have not suffered. Several Chaldo-Assyrians, who were alcohol sellers, were assassinated by Muslim militants, and numerous threatening letters have been sent to Christians telling them to adopt Islamic practices such as wearing the veil and to convert to Islam or face death.

Islamic extremists conducted lethal, co-ordinated terrorist bombings on Sunday 1 August against five churches in Baghdad and the northern city of Mosul, killing 12 people and injuring many more. In the wake of those bombings and other anti-Christian violence, thousands of Chaldo-Assyrians fled, further reducing—some would say decimating—Iraq's Christian presence. Iraq's ancient Christian community is now in danger of extinction or, at least, of being greatly reduced.

Since those attacks, Islamic extremists have struck Christian churches again. On 16 October, Islamic extremists bombed five Chaldo-Assyrian churches in Baghdad, although nobody was injured. On 8 November, bombs exploded at two churches in Baghdad within the space of five or 10 minutes, which shows the level of co-ordination of those attacks. At least three people were killed and 40 injured. That illustrates for the Minister how the Christian community is being specifically targeted in an attempt to terrorise, destroy or drive it away so that fundamentalism can triumph. We must fight against that.

The hon. Member for Ealing, North eloquently described how two further churches in Mosul were bombed and another was stormed by gunmen only yesterday. On 4 July, two Chaldo-Assyrian children—16-year-old Raneen Raad and her six-year-old brother, Raphid—were shot dead at their home by Islamic extremists while their parents were away. The hon. Gentleman also told us about beheadings.

Bishop al-Qas of Amadiya in northern Iraq said that posters had been put up urging Christians to convert to Islam or leave the country. The point we want to drive home today is that Christians need an autonomous region so that they can have security and safety. Chaldo-Assyrian Christians have received threatening letters telling them to support the Muslim rebellion against the coalition authorities and to practise Islam or suffer severe consequences. The recipients of those letters were told that if they did not follow basic rules such as wearing the veil and did not follow Islamic teachings, they would be raped, tortured, kidnapped or killed, or have their houses, along with their families, burned or bombed. Muslim extremists are calling Iraqi Christians crusaders or fifth columnists for the Christian west and the Americans. Three Christian bishops in Mosul have received letters threatening to kill one member of each Christian household—a little biblical reference—as a punishment for women not wearing the Islamic veil.

The British Government and their US ally have often said that one positive outcome of the war in Iraq would be the emergence of a free, democratic country setting a good example for the whole region to follow. On that basis, I supported the Government action there. We have learned a lot since then. Yet, if the rights of the Chaldo-Assyrians, who are Iraq's second largest ethnic group, and its largest religious faction, are not respected, and their security needs are ignored, Iraq will be deprived of a major force for religious moderation, and a significant bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism. That will gravely threaten its chances of ever becoming a leading example of pluralism, freedom and democracy for the middle east.

Therefore, it is clearly in the interests of Iraq, of the British Government and of all those who do not wish to see Iraq dominated by Islamic fundamentalism and all that that entails to give their full support to Iraq's besieged Christian community. Not only have members of that community had to contend with attacks by Islamic extremists, but they have seen the illegal expropriation of their land and villages by neighbouring communities, depriving them of their livelihoods and shelter.

I urge the Kurdish authorities, particularly the Kurdistan Democratic party, to consider the matter carefully and to respond to what I have said, so that the international community can judge their actions. The Kurds are a great race. I deeply respect and admire them in many ways. They are the largest group in the world without their own homeland, and I have spoken in their favour a number of times in the House—on at least one occasion in front of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I see you nodding your assent. I want to be sure that they understand fully the plight of the Chaldo-Assyrian people, and I hope that they will want to be seen to be acting properly—thereby promoting their own cause. If they do not do so, how can they expect the rest of the world to stand up for them in their persecution?

At least 58 Chaldo-Assyrian villages have been occupied—eight completely and 50 partially—by the Kurds. All of them are in Dohuk province in areas controlled by the KDP. A list of the villages is available from the Jubilee Campaign. It is claimed that the KDP has not yet properly responded to numerous appeals from the Chaldo-Assyrians, requesting that it relocate the Kurdish squatters out of the villages. I await its response.

I apologise for the repetition in this speech. Other hon. Members will have received the same briefing as I have, and many are more expert than I am on the subject, but I will always take the trouble to stand up and fight for religious freedom and against persecution around the world. As I am a good friend of the Kurds, I hope that they and the KDP will listen to me. I have supported them on many occasions.

Under Saddam Hussein's regime, Chaldo-Assyrian lands in the plains of Nineveh were taken by force and distributed to members of the military and intelligence services, or rented to Arabs or Kurds after the annual auction, as we have heard. Instead of returning those lands to their rightful owners, the current Minister of Defence, Hazim Al-Shalan, has given instructions for the confiscated Chaldo-Assyrian land to be distributed to Iraqi military intelligence service personnel. That is not acceptable. It replicates the odious Ba'athist regime policies that we are supposed to be eradicating.

The Chaldo-Assyrian Christians are highly vulnerable—they are a community under siege. While the average Iraqi faces many risks in common with them in that unstable situation, the Iraqi Christians are up against even more danger: they have to deal also with attacks from the Islamic extremists from Iran and, for reasons that I have already explained, from those who want to drag them out of Iraq and kill them or force them to convert to Islam.

Those Islamic extremists view the Christians as an obstacle to their dream of Islamicising Iraq, and they wrongly perceive them as close allies of the coalition forces. I urge the allies, particularly Britain and America, seriously to consider setting up an autonomous administrative region, as requested by the hon. Member for Ealing, North—and as promised in article 53(D) of Iraq's transitional administrative law. I want the British to push hard for the return of the Chaldo-Assyrian land and villages in northern Iraq that were illegally expropriated.

An autonomous administrative region for the Chaldo-Assyrians would provide them with a safe haven. That would significantly enhance their security; and the British and American Governments should help bring it about as a matter of urgency in the Nineveh plains and Dohuk province. I would like the Minister to say—or he can write if necessary—that the British Government have taken and will take specific steps to help set up that autonomous administrative region, in line with their promises and with the transitional administrative law.

Now that Britain has influence in Iraq, it should be used fully to protect the human rights of the Chaldo-Assyrians, whose history has been a long succession of persecution, betrayal, massacre and even genocide. The Kurds have suffered similarly, and I hope that they will be especially sensitive to the needs of that severely oppressed minority. The Kurds, above all, should feel the pain of the Chaldo-Assyrians; they should know that they are not a blight against them that needs to be removed.

The Government also have the opportunity to right a grave historic wrong by granting the Chaldo-Assyrians an autonomous homeland. The Government and their US ally also have a duty to enable financial support for the reconstruction of Chaldo-Assyrian villages, schools, clinics and infrastructure in order to allow for the return and resettlement of Chaldo-Assyrian refugees. They should also give whatever support they can to the Christians of Iraq to enhance their security and protection. So far as I am aware—the Minister may correct me if I am wrong—Britain has not yet given direct bilateral aid to those people. I have mentioned before that money may still be available from the oil-for-food programme. I do not know if that is so, but if it is we have a good use for it.

Finally, we need to get the detail right in Iraq. If we do not, we will have failed not only the Chaldo-Assyrian people but the region and humanity.

rose—

Order. I apologise to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), but we have had two very long speeches and we need to start the winding-up speeches so that the hon. Member who opened the debate has the chance of a reply from the Minister.

One of the issues raised by my constituents when I was elected to the House was the persecution of Christians in Indonesia. Some months ago, we held a debate on the Christian community in Africa. Today's debate will not be the last on the subject. The only question is: where next?

The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) opened a debate on the subject earlier this year. I pay tribute to him today for his eloquent speech, in which he spoke of suffering, pride and courage. Unfortunately, there are too many examples. We heard several examples today of Christians suffering in Iraq, and the hon. Gentleman said that he believed that there was a campaign of murder and harassment against Christians in Iraq. When one listens to those examples, one is left in no doubt. The list is long, but if time permits I will add one or two examples.

This is the right time for such a debate—it is the right debate at the right time. Christmas is only a couple of weeks away, and the proposed elections in Iraq should happen next month. We should be optimistic that we are moving toward better times for people of all religions in Iraq.

Before this debate, I was contacted by ministers from two of my local churches, the Rev. Dr. Russell Barr and the Rev. Roger Wiles, who gave me their contributions. One of them raised a question that I will ask the Minister.

Although I am normally optimistic, and this should be an optimistic time, the reality of life on the ground not only sends a chill down the spine, but stretches my capacity for optimism to breaking point. In Iraq we see, on a daily basis, the toll of events—death, destruction, car bombs, military deaths, civilian deaths, kidnapping, abduction and torture—on many people of all religions and of none. The level of suffering and the number of dead due to religion one can only guess, but the Christian community is clearly suffering badly. People are acting in the most despicable ways, and claiming that it is in the name of their God, and that they know that God is on their side. This may not be a religious war, but many impartial observers now see two fundamentalist movements taking up potentially hostile positions.

It is too simple to say that in a world with one superpower, the USA, and with a moral majority on the rise, religion is at the heart of the conflict, but it is foolish not to see the USA's position in relation to the rest of the world as something without a religious and Christian dimension. When any group is so powerful, it should come as no surprise that others feel threatened by a force that was unleashed at a time when we in this House were told that there was a clear and present danger, and that chemical or biological weapons could be unleashed on us within 45 minutes. Unfortunately, we rushed to war when there were no weapons of mass destruction and we were not under a direct threat.

However, those things have happened, and we are where we are—but where is that? How many people have suffered and are suffering? There is no doubt that we are better off without Saddam Hussein in power, but the world is undoubtedly less safe than it was. One only has to look at this building, which has armed guards and is surrounded by concrete blocks, to see that we are not in a safer society.

How many people have died in Iraq? It is difficult for anyone to agree on figures: one body count on the web says that between 14,000 and 16,000 civilians—mostly Muslims—have died, but there may be more. There are also military fatalities, most of whom are Christian. Deaths are now regularly reported in our media in order of importance: we get great detail about the deaths of British and American soldiers, British civilians, individual hostages and contractors; slightly lower down the pecking order come security and police officers; and at the bottom of the heap, we get a list of insurgents.

We rarely hear about the many civilians—men, women, Christians and others. Their religion is sometimes mentioned, but sometimes not. It is shameful how the value of certain lives registers, while others are hardly even counted. It is important to consider how we view the lives of others. Today we are discussing the Christian community in Iraq, which many people feel is as our own, but expressing our views for one community should not diminish our concerns for all people, whether they are of any or no religion.

Estimates of the size of the Christian community vary, but most settle at around 700,000, which is half the figure counted in the 1987 census, so 50 per cent. of them have gone. They now make up about 3 per cent. of the population. The one point on which there is agreement regarding numbers is that people are fleeing on a regular basis. All forms of media—newspapers, magazines and TV—have covered what that community has suffered. Some of the claims are too gruesome to repeat today, but in the past we have heard about villages being destroyed, churches and monasteries being razed, and Christians being deported to Baghdad.

Christians were often victims of the growing abduction industry because they were seen as being wealthy. There have been a number of horrific stories, but one that stuck in my mind was that of a 70-year-old Catholic nun who was murdered in her convent in central Baghdad. She was stripped naked and cruelly tortured before her throat was cut and she was beheaded. There are many other horrifying stories, and I do not think that we need to dwell on them now.

A large number of Christians were kidnapped in Baghdad between April 2003 and last month. Naturally, people are terrified of even going to pray—of coming out as a Christian. When they see a leaflet saying "Convert or Die", as we heard about from the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), moderate people who just want to pray feel that they have to keep their head down and not be noticed. What hope do they have in the face of such extreme views?

We also have to ask whether the American-British intervention has made things worse than before. A number of leading Muslim scholars issued a religious edict that said that anyone who aided the US and British forces would be "condemned to hell." The flight of the Christians mirrors the flight of the Jews. We have an oppressed minority in Iraq and the situation is getting worse instead of getting better.

We hope—we have to have some hope—that the future rests on basic human rights returning to all citizens of Iraq. Some legislation is now encapsulated in chapter 2 of the transitional administrative law, and that is a good start. The current proposals are the way forward. My party and I did not support the military intervention at the time, but, as I said, we are where we are and we have to move forward. We have to use the proposals to provide a framework to be built on for the future. The framework must show that all Iraqis must be equal before the law and that any discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity, gender or religion will be illegal.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned human rights. Does he believe that it was right for the KDP to appoint Chaldo-Assyrian representatives to the Iraqi National Conference? Should it not have been up to those people to appoint who they wanted and not who the KDP wanted?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, because although we are urging individual groups to select their own representatives, we have an interim authority right now and hopefully once the constitution is in place and there are elections, people's representatives will be the just and right representatives for that group. I honestly do not know whether they ended up with the right representatives, preaching in the right direction. However, that is one of the points that must be taken into consideration when we are considering the way forward in Iraq, so that we have a true democracy. It is not only who votes and who counts the votes that is important, but the system that will be in place. That point is well made.

The current framework can be built on and discrimination can be eradicated. The next step should see the elections in January establish a transitional Government. After that, we should get a permanent constitution and a referendum, with elections by the end of 2005 on the basis of the new constitution. I hope that any problems that arise now will be eradicated then. All being well, Iraq should be in the home straight next year, heading towards peaceful democracy and with the troops possibly even on their way home.

What do the people of Iraq see now? They see continual killing of innocent civilians. They see reports of torture in Abu Ghraib prison. Many have little hope for the future. Although some services are returning, basic supplies and utilities are intermittent. Fear is part of daily life for communities. For the Christian community there is another dimension: they are linked to the coalition forces by religion, because of their ethnicity and their faith. Christians are also seen as well-to-do, with some attacks on them because they are Christian but others possibly because they are seen as a relatively wealthy section of society.

Iraq's Christian community has been heavily targeted in the unrest that has swept Iraq following the invasions, and some have packed up and left. At the start of August, there were attacks on Christian targets in Baghdad and others in Mosul, which have been mentioned by other speakers. As brevity is required, I will leave them out. Will the Minister deal with the issue of people seeking asylum because of their religious beliefs and asylum seekers who genuinely convert to Christianity while in the UK? What position do the Government take on that?

A constituent of mine converted to Christianity, then fled to the UK and feared that he could not return. The local church in my constituency agreed that he was a practising Christian, but the immigration authorities would not accept it. Who makes the decision about whether Her Majesty's Government believe that someone has converted to Christianity?

Tragic events are unfolding in Iraq and some fundamentalists have led a systematic campaign against the Christian community, but all groups—of all religions or no religion—are suffering persecution in Iraq. We can only hope that 2005 will move the game towards an end, and that we can be optimistic for the future of people in Iraq.

The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) has done the House a great service in raising an important issue. The House should be a place where we can champion the cause of persecuted minorities all over the world. In his hands, this Chamber is becoming precisely that, and I pay warm tribute to him for the vivid and articulate way in which he put his case. It is what we have come to expect from him. I pay tribute, too, to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) for making a powerful case for more support for the Christian community. I shall talk about that community shortly, but I want to pick up a couple of points that were made.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) described what we are considering as a war of religion, or at least as being fundamentally to do with religion. Religion often gets a bad press, and we should not lose sight of the fact that all over the world, because of their religion, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews or people of other faiths are going about doing good—building families and communities, and doing acts of kindness, self-sacrifice and courage. Sometimes people—notably John Lennon in his song "Imagine"—consider that the world would be a better place without religion. I do not believe that. The acts of terrorism that are being carried out in Iraq are done by bad people. If religion is used as a motivation, that is an abuse of their religion and is not excused by it.

There is a particular problem with the Christian Church in Iraq, which I shall discuss. However, we must recognise that what is happening is partly a reflection of the post-conflict insurgency in Iraq. The Minister will probably agree with almost everything that I will say, but one thing that he probably will not like nevertheless needs to be repeated: what is happening is partly a reflection of the lack of proper preparation for post-conflict Iraq and putting the country back together again. I have said that four or five times and will go on saying it, because it is essential that the Government learn the lesson. I know that the intervention was American led, but if Britain were to become involved in other interventions in the lifetime of this Parliament or in our parliamentary lifetimes—I very much hope that it will not be—we should learn the lessons of Iraq: we need to ensure that we know what the outcome will be; we need an exit strategy; and we need to ensure that we know how to put a country back together if we take it apart, bit by bit, with bombs, planes and missiles.

I am concerned about the state of the Chaldo-Assyrians in Iraq. We have had two powerful history lessons today about their proud and long history and their contribution to society generally. A good friend of mine, Canon Andrew White, works in the middle east and Iraq and stays in e-mail contact with me. I have been following some of the recent attacks on churches through his reports on the ground. The matter is very serious, and I am concerned about the numbers who have fled. I hope that it is a temporary flight and that there will be repatriation when the country is safer. I am, of course, also concerned about the many who have been killed or kidnapped, the churches that have been attacked and the people who are scared to practise their religions by going to church. In a recent e-mail, Canon White wrote:

"There was further bad news regarding the Christians in Iraq yesterday. A mass leafleting to all the Churches and individual Christians took place telling them to leave the country or convert to Islam."

My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point mentioned that problem. Canon White continued:

"Our church was also attacked yesterday afternoon but the guards shot at the attackers causing them to flee."

Here is the powerful sentence:

"The cries from the Christians of Iraq are increasingly desperate."

That sums up the situation.

We have heard from hon. Members about specific atrocities that have been committed. Such things are happening right now—they are real and genuine. Being a practical politician, I ask myself what our response should be and what we should hope to hear from the Minister in his winding–up speech. Wherever possible, we—the British and Americans—must ensure that we provide as much security as we can on the ground for the Christians who are suffering in Iraq. We must not turn a blind eye to the persecution of that faith minority.

Sometimes, I think that it is not politically correct to be a Christian. There are signs sometimes that we give more space and support to people from other faiths. I want the Minister to confirm—I know that he will be able to—that we are not turning a blind eye simply because it is a Christian community that is involved rather than a community of another faith that might be more attractive in terms of the current British point of view. I think the Minister knows what I am saying—and here comes the rebuttal.

I am happy to confirm that.

I am grateful that we are not turning a blind eye to the persecution of those in the Christian community in Iraq whose voices must be heard.

The hon. Member for Ealing, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point have proposed a specific policy, namely that there should be an autonomous or semi-autonomous region for the Chaldean Christians in Iraq. At this stage, the Conservative Front Bench cannot positively support such a policy, but we are always open to persuasion and ready to listen and learn. I was going to say "open to higher office", but that is not quite true. The reason why such a policy would not be choice No. 1 is that if we were to make provision for a semi-autonomous region in Iraq for the Christians, pressures would come upon us from the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shi'as for the country to be broken down into a series of autonomous or semi-autonomous regions. We would all have to describe such a result as a sub-optimal outcome. We would not want such a situation for two reasons. First, we want Iraq to function as a proper, multi-faith, multicultural and multi-ethnic society. We want the country to be put back together with every community learning to live together, for the sake, I believe, of the Iraqi people. Secondly, what kind of signal would making such provision in Iraq send to the many other countries around the world where there are ethnic and religious tensions between different groupings?

I sometimes look at the history of the history of the world and wonder whether we have ever been able to live together successfully when we espouse strong religious beliefs that are different from those of the people in the next-door community or when there are racial and ethnic divides. However, in this globalising world there is no choice but to make things work, or else the world will simply break down into myriad cantons and become virtually ungovernable. I understand the reason for calling for such a policy, but at this stage I cannot support it.

I wish to ask the Minister some questions before he deals with the many issues raised in the debate. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the new Iraqi constitution will genuinely guarantee the rights of Christians and other religious minorities to full and equal citizenship? Will his ambassador be able to extract a commitment from Iraq's principal Sunni and Shi'a leaders to that effect? Do the Government accept that there is a need to accelerate the rate at which Iraq's indigenous security forces are trained and brought on stream, so that they can offer security on the ground in respect of the killings, persecution and unacceptable behaviour that we have heard about today? What space will there be for the Christian community—for the Chaldo-Assyrians—in the forthcoming election? What particular provision, if any, is being made for them in the assembly that will come out of the elections that, we hope, will take place on 30 January?

I am sure that the Minister will agree that this country, rightly, is a tolerant nation and that we give equal space to people from all faiths. Freedom of religion is one of our fundamental principles and tenets, and that is right and proper. When dealing with the Iraqi situation or with any other nation in the world, when entering into diplomatic relations, when applying diplomatic or trade pressure, and when considering aid provision for any country, should it not also be a fundamental part of our foreign policy to insist on the same freedom of religious expression and worship in each country with which we are dealing that we rightly grant in our own?

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) set out his case powerfully and vividly. He has described the tragic history of the Chaldo-Assyrian people. Having said that, my understanding of the situation today is somewhat different from his, as I hope to set out. We all know that Iraq is suffering general lawlessness and that many people of all faiths and political persuasions, including many of European extraction, have paid a high price for that. It is also true that, in some parts of Iraq, notably in the Sunni-Arab area, west of the Tigris river, attacks have been specifically directed at Christians and churches, as my hon. Friend and others described.

We have recently consulted fairly widely with a range of leading Christians in northern Iraq, however, and we can find no significant support for autonomy; indeed, we found significant opposition to it. One of the Christian leaders in northern Iraq to whom we spoke said that the idea seemed to have come from members of the Chaldo-Assyrian community in exile rather than those who live in Iraq.

One or two hon. Members—two, I think—referred to the position of Britain in relation to Iraq in the 1920s. All I can say is that Iraq's position was different in the 1920s from that which exists today. At that time, Iraq was a League of Nations protectorate, whereas we are now dealing with a sovereign Government, and there can be no read-across from the 1920s to the 21st century.

The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) asked whether Christians would be represented in the Parliament after the election. Well, the Independent Elections Commission in Iraq is certifying 240 political parties that are hoping to register, so it is probably fair to say that no school of thought will be unrepresented in the elections—although it will be for the electorate to decide which will be elected. There have been requests to register from parties representing a broad range of Iraqi society, including Assyrians.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) asked about the position of people who applied for asylum on the basis that they had come here and converted to Christianity and therefore felt that they would be at risk if they returned; I am unsure whether he was talking only about Iraq, or about other places as well. All asylum cases are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and if someone can demonstrate that their fear of persecution is genuine, their case will be considered very seriously. However, I want to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a phenomenon that certainly occurs among refugees of my acquaintance, so I will be surprised if it does not occur in other parts of the country: there is a tendency for them to convert at the last moment when all other options have run out. Naturally, asylum adjudicators and Home Office officials tend to be sceptical about that kind of conversions.

I endorse the point made by the hon. Member for South-West Devon when he said that he wanted to see Iraq functioning as a multicultural, multi-faith society. I think we all want that.

Many of the problems that have been outlined, and certainly the more recent ones, are a legacy of what happened under Saddam Hussein's regime. There were decades of oppression of Kurds, Turkomans, Assyrians and many others. They were forcibly driven from their homes, and many thousands were forced into exile.

All Iraqis, including Chaldo-Assyrians and other Christians, now benefit from the transitional administrative law, which safeguards their fundamental rights, including freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and other basic civil and political rights. The transitional law will continue to apply until the adoption of Iraq's permanent constitution next year. Of course, Iraqis had no such rights under the regime of Saddam Hussein.

We are all looking to the future for all the different groupings, especially ethnic groupings and those based on faith, which we have been talking about today. The Minister mentioned Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, and fine words have been spoken, but what we need to hear in the Chamber today is whether what those fine words describe will be delivered in the future. That is what the Chaldo-Assyrians want to hear; they wish to have a future in the new Iraq and, despite the difficulties that we face, they could have had a better start towards that future than they have had so far.

On that last point, my hon. Friend may well be right. All I can say is that everyone of good will of all political persuasions and beliefs is working towards the same end. That end was outlined by the hon. Member for South-West Devon; it is a multicultural, multi-faith and democratic society in Iraq.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) was a bit dismissive about the fine words, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North was asking for some words. He wanted to hear from representatives of moderate Islam and other sections of society that they, too, condemned the attacks on Christians. The only point that I was making is that some people, including the Grand Ayatollah, have made such statements. It is right that we hope that they make such statements not just once but regularly, and loudly, too, so that everyone, and especially their own followers, can hear and understand the message. However, I think that we have been a little unfair to some of the moderate Islamic leaders who have repeatedly made clear their position on attacking Christians and, indeed, people of other religious faiths.

Reference was made to article 53(D) of the transitional law, which guarantees the administrative, cultural and political rights of the Turkomans, the Chaldo-Assyrians and all other citizens, but contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North suggested, it does not include a reference to a self-governing region. Ultimately it is for the Iraqi authorities to determine the proper interpretation of the transitional administrative law; however, in our view, article 53(D) does not imply the right to an autonomous administrative region for one particular group.

As I said at the outset, as far as I am aware, Christian leaders in northern Iraq—and we do talk to them—have rejected the idea of an autonomous region, saying that it is more popular among Assyrians living outside Iraq than among those who live inside. They fear that such a proposal would make their community more, not less, vulnerable to attack, and I know that that is not my hon. Friend's intention. One leading member of the community recently described the proposal as "very wrong and dangerous".

The point that the Minister touches on—the assertion that the community in exile may be making a statement not in keeping with one made by the community in northern Iraq—is of the greatest and gravest significance. Will the Minister give us some suggestion as to who exactly made that statement in northern Iraq? What statement from what group would convince him that the feeling is more widespread that a safe zone is the only way to preserve not just the culture and community but the very lives of the people whom we are discussing?

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I cannot say who made such a statement, because they did so in off-the-record conversations. I have not been back to check the sources, but I know the identity of the people concerned, and they are extremely prominent. They would probably be well known to many in the exiled Chaldo-Assyrian community in this country. There may well be some people in the Christian community in Iraq who would like such an autonomous region; all I can say is that we have not been able to detect them so far. If any group does hold such an opinion it is, in our view—and it is only our view—a rather small one.

Christian Iraqis are well integrated in the autonomous area of Kurdistan, the Kurdistan regional government in Kirkuk and most parts of Mosul, but not of course in the western side of the city, where the situation is difficult and dangerous. In Irbil, some Christians occupy senior Government positions. One is Deputy Prime Minister, another is Minister of Finance. They have a representative in the interim Iraqi Government in Baghdad, who is Minister of Displacement and Migration. A committee has been set up in Ankawa, a Christian village just outside Irbil, to help the resettlement of Christians from elsewhere in Iraq. So far, about 1,000 Christian families have resettled in the areas around Irbil and Dohuk provinces. Another 50 Christian families, mainly from the south of Iraq, have resettled in the Sulaymaniyah province. A further 1,000 Christians took temporary shelter in Sulaymaniyah from Mosul during fighting there in early November, but we understand that most, if not all, of them have returned to their homes in Mosul.

Progress continues to be made, and I am pleased to report that on 6 and 7 December, the first 70 of 170 Assyrian families that had fled to Baghdad in the 1980s returned to their homes in the Faysh Khabur area along the Syrian border. Some 120 Kurdish families who lived there have left, and we expect the remainder of the Assyrians who fled in the 1980s to return, if they wish to, shortly.

We remain concerned by reports that Christians are suffering discrimination in other parts of Iraq. Earlier this summer, we joined Christian and Muslim leaders in condemning the appalling attacks on churches, which, as hon. Members have described, resulted in a number of deaths and injuries to dozens more. We have welcomed the statement from Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani that called for an end to the attacks and indicated the need to respect the rights of Christians and those of other religious faiths, and their right to live peacefully in Iraq. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North will join me in condemning the bombing of the two churches in Mosul yesterday, which was obviously the work of those seeking to divide Iraq's diverse communities and divert the political process.

Our officials in Iraq regularly meet members of the Christian communities and raise their concerns with the Iraqi authorities. The Iraqi Human Rights Minister, Bakhtiar Amin, who recently met my noble Friend Baroness Symons, is particularly concerned about the issue and we have asked our missions in Iraq to continue to monitor the situation closely.

United Nations Security Council resolution 1546 welcomed the commitment of the interim Iraqi Government to move towards a federal, democratic, pluralist and unified Iraq, in which there is full respect for political and human rights. The immediate goal for the interim Government is free and fair national elections across Iraq on 30 January—the date recently announced by the Independent Elections Commission of Iraq. The elections for a Transitional National Assembly will give Iraq's minority groups an opportunity to be represented at all levels of Government in Iraq and we believe that the Assyrians will play their part in the elections. Recent opinion polls make it clear that the majority of Iraqis want to vote.

Members of the Iraqi community in the UK will also be able to vote. The International Organisation for Migration has been tasked with arranging out-of-country voting on behalf of the Independent Elections Commission and preparations, which are still at an early stage, are being finalised.

Iraq's future constitution and state structure remain a matter for Iraqis to debate and to decide in the Transitional National Assembly, which will draft the permanent constitution in 2005, so all Iraqis, including Assyrians, will be able to identify with the values and institutions enshrined in the constitution. We will continue to urge Iraqis to ensure that the fundamental rights of all citizens are protected, regardless of their sect or ethnicity.

The Iraqi people are now set on a course that offers them the best chance to overcome present challenges and the hope for a better future of a free, democratic, stable Iraq. That is the future that all of Iraq's communities, including the Assyrians, richly deserve.

Order. May I invite hon. Members not wishing to stay for the remainder of the next debate to leave quickly and quietly, please?

I am sure not only that there is much interest in the House of Commons in this matter, but that the good people of Lancashire and the rest of the country share that interest.

A very important contract, better known as the cut and sew tender—DC4 BESL/1002—was let. Quite rightly, Lancashire companies—in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and in my own—have been the backbone of the cut and sew contract in the past. Many will say, "Oh, that is not the case, because this went off to Romania." That cannot be denied, because a smaller part of the contract was carried out there, but the majority of it was done in Lancashire. We must ensure that that is on the record. A company called Cooneen Watts and Stone has got the new contract, after many years of it being held by the people of Lancashire. It is crucial to remember that in the Government's hour of need those people worked round the clock to ensure that the Ministry of Defence and our soldiers had the right kit to go to war.

We must address the key issue: if there were a contract for Army rifles in order that soldiers could defend themselves, do we really believe that we would put it out to tender and that people would look at the tender list and say, "This company has said that it can supply rifles cheaper"? One would ask for a sample and expect the company, whose sample rifle or uniform was being provided, to be the future supplier of that item. A soldier needs a weapon with which he can defend himself—a weapon that can be used. Exactly the same is true of a camouflage uniform: if a soldier is going to war, his uniform is to defend him against death.

The right garment of the right quality will last, whether it is washed or weathered. More importantly, when it turns to night and infrared sensors are put on, the soldier no longer looks like a soldier: his image is deflected because the company that supplied the uniform has ensured that the right camouflage has been printed on it. If that camouflage is not right, the soldier becomes a target.

We know that Cooneen, Watts and Stone has absolutely failed to deliver. More importantly, it has hoodwinked the Ministry of Defence. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State rightly said in response to parliamentary questions, it bid for the contract when it was not the company that would carry it out. Not once did it tell the Minister that the contract would be taken over by army factory 3533. In fact, the Minister did not understand the meaning of 3533. I understand why: he was never told.

There is something tragically wrong when the Minister and other Members of Parliament have been hoodwinked. More importantly, the good people of Lancashire may well lose their jobs as a result. If we cannot supply the People's Liberation Army, as we should not, because of human rights, we must ask why on earth a subsidised People's Liberation Army factory should be supplying the British Army. It is totally unacceptable morally. Where does that leave us with respect to our agreements on trade union recognition, because we know that no trade unions are allowed in China? Morally, it stinks to high heaven. More importantly, what rates of pay operate in the factory, which was described as the factory of £1 a week? This is totally unacceptable. The living and working conditions of the employees are unacceptable. Let us say for the record that this is unfair competition.

I believe that we have an opportunity. I ask the Secretary of State to investigate fully how someone can pretend that the sample that they have given is of what will be supplied in the future. Someone in competition with British Aerospace could supply us jets, and we would say, "Not to worry. They are now being built in Chile." They could be built anywhere in the world. That is the danger of what is happening in this case. We must get this right and ensure that the Government address the key issues.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the pledge made by the MOD that it will if possible support British industry will be a hollow one if every contractor is allowed to subcontract outside the UK?

Absolutely; that is key. The contract should not be sent off to somewhere such as China. I can hear the Secretary of State saying, "Part was made in Romania." Of course it was; it always has been. Most crucial to the defence of our soldiers—this should be the most important point—is that the camouflage print and material is made in Lancashire. What we can say about the contract is that the cut and sew camouflage uniform will be made in China. My hon. Friend is right: it should not be. This is totally unacceptable.

At the debriefing for the unsuccessful bid for the cut and sew camouflage uniform contract, company representatives were categorically told by the selection panel that it was unable to take account of past experience, because that was unfair and would create an uneven playing field for tendees who had not previously dealt with the MOD. However, the response to a parliamentary question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) states that the contractors' past performance was included in every pre-contract award evolution process. One is contradicting the other. There is something seriously wrong.

I believe that the Minister is being told one thing, while there has all along been a different arrangement, and a different agreement seems to have been made. I am worried about what is happening in the MOD. In fact, one has to wonder about Warwick. Warwick is crucial; it is the backbone of future procurement. On one hand, the trade unions meet the Prime Minister, have a dialogue and come out with an agreement that Warwick is about protecting jobs in the UK and the future of technology. If such arrangements continue, textiles in the United Kingdom will become a museum piece. That is not acceptable to the people of the UK; it is totally against the interests of Warwick and the discussions on it. The MOD has to respect the Prime Minister and the Government. It is important that its officials learn who is in charge. This is about the protection of British soldiers—their interests should be paramount, and we should expect the best. The best is the uniforms that have been supplied for many years.

Is my hon. Friend aware that when I raised the issue the Minister said that we had acted according to European Union procurement rules, and that every EU country apart from the UK classifies military uniforms as "warlike", which means that—even if they follow those rules, about which there is some doubt—they are subject to the exemption from EU procurement rules for military materials?

That is absolutely correct. We went through this before, when we discussed the roll-on, roll-off ferries that were built in Germany. They were built there because they were not "warlike". We are playing cricket and everybody else is playing rugby. It is time that we woke up to the fact that the uniforms should be classed as "warlike", and the contract should be placed not only to create UK jobs but to protect them. Otherwise, we shall see the closure of a factory and the loss of many UK jobs.

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the allegation that, to qualify for the tender, the winning company used fabric that was printed in the UK, but failed to inform the MOD that it was not from its intended source in China?

That is absolutely right—it is a crucial point and I echo my hon. Friend's concern. I understand that, at this late stage, some camouflage uniform has suddenly been supplied. The joke is that the MOD may test it, say that it is wonderful, and run with it. It was produced in Adlington in my constituency, which has supplied Cooneen Watts and Stone because it is not able to get any of the material out of China. Therefore, the uniforms made in future will not be of the same quality as those provided. That should tell us something. The alarm bells have been ringing for a long time for the rest of us; now they should be ringing in the MOD. We should stop messing about and pull in the contract as soon as possible.

My hon. Friend has not yet raised the fact—if he is coming to it, I apologise—that if the contract goes to China, and it is confirmed, the factory in Lancashire will shut, people will lose their jobs, taxes will be unpaid and benefits will have to be paid out. That all represents additional cost to the taxpayer in this country, which has not been taken into account, and which is more than the difference between the prices of the contract in this country and in China. When we considered competitive contracts under the Conservative Administration, we were allowed to take such costs into account. Should not the MOD have taken those costs into account when awarding the contract?

I absolutely agree. We know that other countries rightly take into account redundancy costs, benefit payments and the loss to the exchequer, and it is foolish that we do not do that. That is a good point. If we broke down the cut and sew contract, we would see that it cannot have been lost by more than £500,000. We know from the number of workers who will be made redundant and the benefits that will be paid that the loss to the taxpayer is much greater than the windfall that the MOD feels that it has made on the contract so far.

It is crucial that we ask questions. Cooneen Watts and Stone was not on the original tender list, but somehow it was placed on it. We know that it does not have a track record. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) suggested that it was the place to go for a wedding dress, but we are not talking about a wedding dress—we are talking about battledress, and we expect the best. We expect the UK to be supplied, but do we really believe that we would have security of supply from China in our hour of need? The answer is no. Are we really willing to run the risk of our soldiers not having the best? I recognise that price is important, but we are not talking about major savings; we are talking about pennies, compared with the MOD's budget. Indeed, there will be a great cost to the taxpayer.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the contract is not changed, there is unlikely to be a UK competitor to bid for a similar contract in the future?

That is absolutely right. We will lose the crucial know-how and the advantage that we have had. Armies around the world have looked at the contract and said, "If the British Army is using these uniforms, they must be the best", and contracts have been won on the back of that. However, all that will be put at risk because armies will say, "If they're not good enough for you, why should they be good enough for us?" The knock-on effect, quite rightly, will be that they pull out. We will also begin to lose the research and development that has taken place in textiles. Who on earth will design the textiles to meet the MOD's future needs? It will not be some People's Liberation Army factory in China. The long-term costs of what is at stake are therefore very great.

I genuinely believe that Ministers at the MOD have not been told the facts or been given the full story. I want them to consider how on earth we get ourselves out of this mess. I also want them to recognise that we believe in the trade union movement and in UK manufacturing and, more importantly, that when the Prime Minister himself makes an agreement at Warwick, everybody should respect it. All of that is now being put at risk.

The Chamber is very busy, and I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I will not take up much more time. I simply want to make it clear to everyone once and for all that this contract must be brought back to the UK and jobs in Lancashire must be protected. It is of the utmost importance that our soldiers have the best kit possible so that their lives are not put at risk for the sake of a few pounds and to save the face of the MOD.

rose—

Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have permission to speak from the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) and the Minister?

He does not have it from me.

I have it from the hon. Member for Chorley, not the Minister.

The hon. Gentleman needs permission from the Minister, too. I call Judy Mallaber.

As the Chair of the all-party group on clothing, textiles and footwear, let me say that the industry is hugely important.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do hon. Members have to seek permission from the Minister from now on to be able to contribute? Does that prevent them from intervening on other hon. Members?

It has always been the case that an hon. Member needs the permission of the hon. Member who sought the debate and the Minister to make a speech, but they may intervene.

This is a very important industry; indeed, more people work in it than in the automobile industry. However, it has been under huge pressure and strain, and the development of the new area of technical textiles and a high level of research and development are key to its future. Army uniforms are a prime example of that, because the UK is very much in the forefront of developing smart fabrics. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry sees that as hugely important for the industry. The decision on the contract not only seems to have been carried out in a strange way, but demeans and undermines our ability to develop the new styles and techniques that will take the industry forward. That is to be deplored.

Does the hon. Lady accept that the security of supply and the quality of the product is important, just as the hon. Member for Chorley said? It is not just about protecting UK jobs; it is about protecting UK soldiers. Do we really think that there would be a debate in the French Assemblée Nationale about procuring clothes from abroad for the French armed forces? It does not sound important, but it is. It is strategically important. If the rest of Europe treat the matter differently, we should do likewise.

I agree. Anybody who has talked to families or people who have been abroad with the Army about the nature of its equipment and the range of different places, climates and environments in which it has to operate knows just how important it is to have the right equipment and uniform and how essential it is that we keep the ability to provide that within this country. That is vital, not just for the future of the industry, but, as the hon. Gentleman says, for the safety of our soldiers.

Those were the only points that I wanted to raise, because I wanted to leave time for the Minister to respond.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) for securing the debate and for providing me with opportunity to speak on this important issue.

It is clear from the number of hon. Members who have turned up that this is an important matter and there is no doubt about the heat that it has generated. As a result of that both, the Secretary of State and I have met various interested people, including trade unions, hon. Members and representatives of some of the industries involved to hear their concerns at first hand.

Let me say from the outset that we have carried out a careful examination of the issues that have been raised and I refute the allegation that Ministers have been hoodwinked. Hon. Members have the right to say what they think about Ministers, but we have the right to say—not because we are fragile—that that charge is unwarranted and not borne out, as the intensity of effort and examination that has gone into the matter shows. Everything is second checked, looked over again and trawled over and officials are brought in and questioned intensely when such parliamentary interest is raised.

I cannot accept that we are being conned by the professional civil service. People say, "What is the motivation?" Is some other issue being raised, or is some allegation underlying all this? We are talking about professional civil servants who carry out their job to a high standard and know that all their decisions are subject to scrutiny and, when a parliamentary issue or a concern is raised, those are trawled over and examined again.

We are not suggesting that there is some underhand method. It is simply that the people in the Ministry of Defence are looking for the cheapest price and our argument is that doing so, in this instance, may harm the interests of the British nation and the British Army in particular.

I will deal with that as I go on. The word used was "hoodwinked", as if there were something else happening. I want to refute and rebut that.

The Secretary of State and I have gone through the issue and examined it in detail and we have come to the firm conclusion that there are no grounds to change the original decision to award the contract to Cooneen Watts and Stone Ltd.—CWS—which is a consortium comprising Cooneen Textiles Ltd. and Watts and Stone. I strongly reject any suggestions that that contract award will provide the armed forces with substandard uniforms and clothing. All clothing items for the armed forces are designed and procured to strict specifications, and contracts are closely monitored.

The issue is that if there is a tender, the sample that is provided will be the one that is used for the future. The sample used was not provided by the factory in China. The fact that that factory cannot produce what is being requested of it must put a question mark over its meeting the future needs of the British Army. There will be worries if the product cannot be developed to the same standard. We need an answer.

I shall come to the issue of the testing regime.

Let me deal with the view that combat clothing is warlike in nature and should be similar to a rifle or any other piece of military equipment. Article 296 of the European Union treaty provides exemption for some defence procurement, usually on the basis of national security considerations. For many years, the custom and practice have been to undertake military uniform procurement on a competitive basis, without exemption, to secure the best value for money—not the cheapest price, but the best value for money. It would be inconsistent, even perverse, to change that approach when the Ministry of Defence is active in the EU consultation—the Green Paper on opening up the defence procurement market to provide more opportunities for UK small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe.

We are trying to create a better and more open climate in Europe for British industry. What is being argued is that we should close the door because of one part of the British industrial sector. One can imagine the potential impact that that could have elsewhere as we try to open up Europe so that other parts of British industry—the manufacturing base and SMEs—get the opportunity to trade in a more open market.

Although many of us believe that fair competition in Europe is good, we do not believe in the option in this case. British industry cannot compete with that subsidised company, because of the pay and conditions of the staff in China. Will the Minister address that issue and tell us how many European countries are giving their combat clothing contracts to companies outside their borders?

I do not have that information to hand, although it can be made available. However, I make the point again: we are trying to open up the European market, not to close it down. The logic of what has been argued is that, from a British perspective, we should close that market down.

indicated dissent.

Hon. Members can shake their heads, but I am trying to explain that we are negotiating to try to create a more open market so that there are more opportunities for British industry and business in Europe. If we go for the type of approach suggested, that would be used against us. People would say, "You are now adopting opposite practices to those you have applied over the years." The approach that I have described is not new.

A number of issues have been raised, and I deal now with the procurement structure and the way in which contracts are put together. I shall come to the issue of China if time permits, but countries that appeared on the list of all the bidding companies included, in different shapes and forms, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania, Sri Lanka, Dubai and China. The idea that there was a sole British manufacturer seeking to place all its output in the UK sector is simply wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley accepted that, although almost as if it were a side issue. The company that he was talking about does some of its work in Romania.

All the other companies that bid were also looking at placing the work for the contract elsewhere, outside the United Kingdom. That is the reality that we face, and there is nothing new about it. That is standard practice, not only in that procurement stream, but in high-street procurement.

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, as we have to clear up the difference. All of this cut and sew contract goes to China. We said that the majority of the cut and sew contract was done in Lancashire—that is the difference. The problem of claiming that we are going to open up the European market is that all that says is that that market should follow Britain's example and go to China.

No, it does not. That would depend on how the countries in question decided to construct their procurement processes. I am saying that other areas of excellence in the UK find it difficult to get into that market at the moment. We are trying to negotiate an open approach. I should have thought that if this is about British industry rather than one sector of British industry, that was a high prize to pursue. It is an important element for us to take into consideration. However, that is not the motivation. The current approach is not new. It has for years been custom and practice for us to do things that way. We would have to change our approach to redefine our clothing industry.

As for the Chinese aspect, because of the way we monitor contracts the defence clothing project team recently visited the subcontractors in China as part of the contract management plan. That was at the request of the prime contractor and is part of the confidence building and communications required in a new partnership. The visit report validated the key aspects of the CWS tender. That was an intensive examination of one part of the supply chain. The team saw no cause for concern about the standards employed, and the report submitted to me stated:

"The team is convinced that the quality of garments that will be manufactured in China for this contract will fully conform to our specification and that there is no reason to doubt the Prime Contractor's ability to meet its contractual obligations."

It continued:

"The team confirms that CWS understand their responsibility to manage sub-contractors. Furthermore, they are obliged to monitor ethical standards, minimum ages of employees and environmental obligations."

All that was examined for the plant in question.

However, we are in a slight difficulty because the company itself is exercising its contractual rights not to disclose its supply chain. Other companies do that—for very good reasons. They do not want to open it up to their competitors. If they build a good relationship they will want to preserve it, and they have the right, within the contractual arrangements, not to disclose it and to ask us not to disclose it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley and other hon. Members will be aware that there are court cases pending in this context. Some of the matters could verge on being sub judice, so I am constrained in my approach. Two hearings are to take place in January. Some of the issues will be judged in court; let us see what happens. There has been one attempt to use the judicial process, and the original application failed, but the company, exercising its legal right, decided to find other legal arguments. All that is healthy, although it certainly ties up a lot of Ministry of Defence time, but the matter will be exposed in open court, and it will be decided, in the eyes of the law of the land, whether there has been any breach of obligations.

Were Ministry of Defence staff shown any samples during the visit that the Minister mentioned?

I am sorry; I missed that.

I was asking whether whether any samples were shown to Ministry of Defence staff during the visit.

Two independent assessments were carried out by independent test facilities in China. Both found that the quality was matched, and that result was replicated at two test facilities in the UK. There have been four tests of the garment, which found that it was satisfactory. That is why we are satisfied about compliance in this contract.

We have two minutes left and I have been generous in giving way, so I have not covered all the issues. Some of those that have been raised are only months away from being ventilated.

Will the Minister give way briefly, on that very point?

No; I want to make a point about technology. The way the issue has been argued, it is as if we are dealing with leading-edge British technology, but we are not. The technology is 1970s technology and is widely available in the international marketplace. There is nothing new about what we are dealing with and what we are trying to do.

There are many red herrings in this debate. People make allegations and assertions. I urge my hon. Friends to return to and interrogate their sources and ask why they are raising the issues in the way they do. They should do what they ask the Minister to do: put to the test the contract and the companies that are raising the arguments.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the withdrawal of pension books and some issues associated with the roll-out of direct payments. Last week, I met the parliamentary panel of the Greater London pensioners forum and its chairman, David Dombey. GLF members expressed concerns about the withdrawal of the pension book and the impact it was having on pensioners throughout London. I said that I would apply for an Adjournment debate to air their worries. This is just one of those times when a debate comes along much quicker than we expect it to, and, given the timing of the changes in respect of pension books, that is probably a good thing, too.

According to figures supplied last year by the Department for Work and Pensions, more than 350,000 pensioners in London used the pension book to collect their pension. About 5,000 such pensioners live in my constituency. This afternoon is not the first time I have sought to express worries about the new arrangements for paying pensions. I have previously asked Ministers, especially the Leader of the House, about the exception service and the implementation of the Post Office card account, both of which issues have been brought to my attention by constituents, especially the Sutton seniors forum and Age Concern Sutton.

My purpose in wanting today's debate was to clarify the Government's intentions, especially in respect of the 140,000 or so pensioners who have, to date, not responded to letters sent by the Department asking how they want their pensions to be paid in future. I believe strongly that pensioners should be able to keep receiving their pension payments via the pension book, if they wish. It should be a matter of choice for them, as individuals. However modern the direct payment system and however good it may be, the fact is that some people do not want their pensions paid that way. Their choice is being reduced, not increased.

Three options were outlined in the Department's letter to pensioners advising them of change to pension payment methods. I am sure that the Minister will be only too familiar with them, but I shall rehearse them for the record. The options are: placing pension payments into existing bank or building society accounts; opening a separate basic account with a bank or a building society for Post Office payments; and the Post Office card account itself.

Members of the Greater London pensioners forum have said that many pensioners in London have not been fully informed about the changes that have taken place and those that will take place. It has not been made at all clear to pensioners that, in effect, a fourth option is available to them—the exception service, which involves the payment of pension by cheque. Pensioners in such circumstances will be sent a cheque to their home address that they can take into their post office to cash, like a giro. To all intents and purposes, it sounds similar to the existing pension book system.

The Department's leaflet "A Guide to Direct Payments" makes no mention of the exception service. It is not presented as an option in that document. There is no reassurance for those with worries about how they will manage a Post Office card or bank account. There is nothing to explain what the alternative might be. Instead, in response to the question posed by many people, "What if I don't think I can manage an account for a direct payment?", the leaflet simply suggests that they contact the Department.

Originally, the Department stated that that fourth option would be open to pensioners only when they could not use one of the other methods. However, it has now confirmed that pensioners who do not opt for any payment method will automatically be transferred to the exception service when the system changes from next April. The literature made available to pensioners does not explain that, as a result of which many feel unnecessarily anxious that, if they do not choose an option, their pension will stop all together. That anxiety led the Greater London pensioners forum to raise the matter with hon. Members just last week. It seems that the Government are determined to get the maximum number of pensioners on to the cheapest possible system for delivering pension payments. That is causing upset and worry. I would like the Minister to say what the Government are doing to communicate more clearly that fourth option—the exception service—to pensioners.

There is also concern about the home visits that Pension Service staff make. The purpose of such visits is ostensibly to be helpful and to give advice and support over the decisions that people need to make about payment methods. However, some elderly and vulnerable pensioners find the visits distressing, no matter how courteous staff try to be. It would be helpful if the Minister could say something about the purpose of such visits and which groups are being targeted for them, in terms of age, disability and so on.

A number of problems with the new system are coming to light. For example, there are difficulties in setting up Post Office card accounts. In answer to a parliamentary question in June, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), said:

"We recognise that some customers may find the process difficult, but we have made it as simple as we can. We are considering ways to make the process more customer friendly and simpler to operate."—[Official Report, 7 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 19W.]

Amen to that.

Someone who wants to open a Post Office card account has to take the following steps. First, they have to receive a letter from the Government telling them about the changes and informing them of the three options. Secondly, the person calls the Government's helpline. Thirdly, they receive a welcome pack from the Department with a personal invitation document. Fourthly, they have to take the personal invitation document to a post office, which will send the application back to the Department. Then another welcome pack is sent with the account and personal identification number. Finally—the sixth stage—the person has to fill in the original form and return it to the Post Office. There seems to be a bias towards take-up of direct payments into bank and building society accounts. Indeed, Postwatch has said that the

"application process requires the customer to retain and assimilate documents they receive at different stages in the process. Duration between receiving these different documents is often quite long. It can be confusing and is potentially off putting."

The message that the process seems to be sending is that the Post Office card account is not the best kind of account.

Postwatch makes it clear that postmasters are being encouraged by the payments system to push ordinary bank accounts instead of Post Office accounts, which is quite striking. Under the terms of the card account sub-postmasters receive 14p per £100 withdrawn. That means that £3,214 will have to be transacted in one hour to generate just £4.50, to cover the cost of the counter clerk, minimum wage and such overheads as national insurance and sickness absence.

By contrast, sub-postmasters receive 12.5p per transaction from the independent banks that are members of the scheme, regardless of the amount being transacted. Therefore, to earn £4.50, only 36 transactions, of any amount, are required each hour. The chairman of Postwatch, Peter Carr, put the matter this way:

"These margins are dangerously thin but given the choice the sub postmaster would elect to dispense cash to bank customers rather than Post Office Card Account customers."

In other words, it is against the interests of postmasters to encourage a transaction that will make them worse off, so they are likely to discourage such a system too.

There are also concerns about accessibility to the new arrangements. Currently, a pensioner can allow anyone to collect their pension on their behalf. Under the new system, a pensioner can nominate a person to collect their pension on their behalf. That person will be sent a card and PIN for the purpose. However, there is no provision for a pensioner who falls ill, as we all do from time to time, to ask someone to pick up their pension if they have not already made those nomination arrangements. Similarly, pensioners who rely on a number of different carers to pick up their pension, as is all too often the case, will not be allowed to carry on doing so.

Part of the answer to such concerns is the exceptions service—it could also be described as the cheque system—which is intended to enable people to cope with such circumstances. However, what happens if the cheque that is paid through that service is lost in the post or severely delayed, perhaps on a bank holiday or over the Christmas period? Indeed, the Post Office seems to be struggling a bit now in that regard.

In answer to a parliamentary question, the Minister for Pensions said:

"Procedures are in place to ensure that, where a cheque is late or goes missing, the customer receives a replacement payment as soon as can be arranged. The action to be taken will depend on the individual customer's needs and circumstances and might involve a home visit if that is the most appropriate solution. Our aim is to ensure as far as possible that a customer does not suffer hardship."

However, he concluded:

"The arrangements are under review."—[Official Report, 17 November 2004; Vol. 426, c. 1662W.]

It is unclear what is being reviewed, or what the time scale is of that review. It would be useful if the Minister could shed some light on the nature of that review and when it will be concluded; that would certainly help members of the Greater London pensioners forum.

If pensioners receive a cheque through the post, they should be able to cash it at a post office, but that will surely require some ID, such as a driving licence or passport, and most pensioners who are unable to manage an account are unlikely to have those documents. That point has been put to me by pensioners' groups.

I understand that the current cost of the weekly payment by order book is about £1.10. According to a written answer in November by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Gravesham, the average cost of the cheque will be £1.35 after next March. The cheque system is more expensive than the current order book system. Those who cannot manage an account will be paid by the cheque system, but that is more expensive than the current book system. Why is it not possible to retain a pension book for those purposes?

The withdrawal of the pension book has contributed to a significant reduction in the number of post offices, especially as, in the past, a large chunk of their business relied on the payment of benefits and pensions. That has had an impact in my constituency, where the Post Office recently proposed the closure of six post offices as part of its area plan. It has already closed, or proposed to close, three of them—those at Angel hill, Church Hill road, and Oldfields road. They are still consulting about three more—those at Belmont, Cheam and Stonecot; they are in limbo because of these difficulties.

It is hard for many of my constituents to take the Department's latest leaflet seriously when it reassures them that they will be able to collect their pension at their post office: first, because those post offices will probably not be there, as so many of them are closing; and secondly, because they can only do so if their bank has an arrangement with their post office.

I want to end with a few questions and points for the Minister. The cost of the cheque is £1.35 compared with £1.10 per payment for the pension book; even at this late stage, therefore, the Government should reconsider their plans to scrap the pension book and allow existing pensioners to carry on with it. They have come to know and love it, and it gives them a sense of security. The information the Department provides for pensioners about payment methods must spell out all the options, including the exception service. Why is that being omitted from the details that pensioners get to see, unless they start ringing up and asking questions? It should be made clear which banks and building societies will allow pensioners to get their money at a local post office. That should be part of what people consider in their decision making. If they are enticed into having a direct payment into a bank account, they should know whether that bank has an arrangement so that they can take the money out at a post office, if one is still open.

The lengthy and complicated application process for the Post Office card account needs to be simplified. Can the Minister say a bit more about where the Department has got to in simplifying the process? There also needs to be more information and safeguards, so that pensioners who use a Post Office card account and forget their PIN can still access their pension money. What is being done to address that gap in this system's armoury? There must also be flexibility in the system to allow pensioners with a Post Office card account to authorise someone they trust to collect their money, not just a previously nominated person; otherwise, how does the pensioner who falls unexpectedly ill get his or her pension?

For many, the pension book is the right way of collecting their pension. It gives them a sense of control over their money and lives. It gives them the peace of mind that they want. That peace of mind is priceless, yet the Government seem only too willing to take it away. Pensioners want to keep their pension books. They feel that they are being asked to pay a heavy price for the changes that are now going forward. It is those concerns, expressed by many pensioners in my constituency and across London, that led me to seek this debate. I look forward to the Minister's response.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing this debate. He raised a number of issues and asked a number of questions about the withdrawal of the pension book. Given that our time may be more limited than usual, I may not be able to address them all, but I will write to him about those matters that I cannot cover today.

The move to direct payment, part of which is the withdrawal of order books, will increase customer choice; it will help to address the financial exclusion that blights the lives of so many of our constituents by giving them access to the financial services that the rest of us take for granted. That last point is particularly important, but it is often forgotten.

Over the last year, I have met a number of the interest groups that represent our customers. Help the Aged, Age Concern, Mind, Citizens Advice and the Royal National Institute of the Blind have all helped us to put together a way to progress with the move to direct payment, and all welcomed our attempts to bring more people into the financial mainstream. Indeed, Citizens Advice last year published a booklet called "Beyond Bank Accounts: Full financial inclusion". The foreword to that booklet stated:

"The government, the banking industry and the Post Office should be commended for the progress they have made in establishing Universal Banking Services. The ambition to enable all people to own the most basic of financial services—a bank account—is one we share."

Last week, the Chancellor reiterated his commitment to halving the number of people without a bank account, who are therefore trapped in financial exclusion. The move to direct payment is an important part of that process.

I came into politics to combat poverty and social exclusion, so I must admit to an element of frustration when I hear people seeking to criticise our attempts to extend financial inclusion to all citizens. There is an element of nostalgia for the drab days of order books and giros, but that is far removed from the reality that has left 3.5 million people excluded.

There is one aspect of the withdrawal of pension books about which I am particularly concerned—the withdrawal of pension books from pensioners by the thugs and thieves who steal an average of 100 books a week. We are not talking about the old days when each order for the basic pension was worth £67. Nowadays, each order book can be worth at least £2,000. That is a tempting prize for the criminal. That is why so many pensioners realise that direct payment into a bank account is a much safer and more flexible way of receiving their funding.

More than three people in every four now have their benefits and pensions paid into an account, and the figure in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is up to 80 per cent. higher than the national average. Overall, it is what customers want. A total of 18 million people now have payments made into their accounts. Independent research commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions shows that 93 per cent. of people who have changed to direct payment are happy to receive their payments in that way; and less than 1 per cent. of customers say that they want to abolish direct payment and go back to the order book.

Once people have made the change, they realise how much more convenient and safe it is to receive their money in that way. If it is the policy of the hon. Gentleman's party to return to order books—if that is what he is telling the House—he should tell us where the party will find the £400 million needed to do so.

The Minister did not, I fear, listen to my reasons for making this speech, in the sense that I seek to address the specific concerns raised with me by pensioner groups. I am not here to make a partisan political speech about whether my party is in favour of retaining the pension book to the exclusion of all else. Of course, that is not the party's position anyway. I hope that the Minister can respond to my concerns about the 140,000 people who have not yet responded to the call to change the method of payment.

I certainly will address those points, but I think that it is helpful to have it on the record exactly what the party's policy is. When we hear representations in the House about the wickedness of moving away from order books we will bear it in mind that there is no plan to return to them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell the pensions organisations in his constituency that that is his policy.

It is important to remember that many current and basic bank accounts can be used at post offices. I know that the hon. Gentleman has had concerns about post office closures in his constituency. He asked about the information available. That is contained in leaflets produced by my Department, which list clearly the bank accounts that can be used at post offices. The fact is that more than 100 million banking transactions have been made in post offices since April 2003. That has to be the future of the post office network, into which we are investing £2 billion. We understand just how important that network is to local communities.

The hon. Gentleman made the point that the Post Office card account is, in his view, difficult to open. I would ask him to talk to the 4.2 million people who have already gone through the process and opened a Post Office card account, 80 per cent. of whom say that opening a POCA is an easy process. For some people, it will not be a simple process. We have to address that to ensure that those people can get access to their money and can get it paid in a way that is appropriate for them.

Most people recognise that order books, which came in with ration books, are an outdated means of providing people with their benefits or pensions. The world has changed considerably, and if people have their benefits and pensions paid into an account they can access some of the advantages of financial inclusion that the rest of us take for granted, such as discounts on their fuel bills and the convenience of being able to access their money through a cash point or over a counter at a supermarket as cashback, as well as at a post office and at a bank.

We have emphasised all along that we want people to continue to collect their benefit and pension at the post office. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in a campaign to make sure that people understand that they can continue to do that. We believe that it is important that people understand that the move to direct payment does not involve a move away from the use of the post office if that is what they wish, although they have the choice and convenience of the other options.

The hon. Gentleman raised some important questions about the cheque payment system, which he described as a fourth option. It is not a fourth option. It is not the best option for most people; it is perhaps the only option for some. We have worked hard with organisations representing the groups that I have mentioned—the elderly and people with disabilities, for instance—such as the RNIB and Mind, to ensure that we can devise a system that gives people flexibility and ensures that they receive their money. Customers do not need to apply for the cheque method of payment; we will make sure that if people have not given us bank account details by the time the order books are finally phased out, they will be paid by cheque.

We will make sure that, having called and written first to let people know that we are coming and respecting their wish if they do not want us to visit, we will provide home visits for those customers who need face-to-face help with the process of accessing their money through cheque payments or by another mechanism.

The hon. Gentleman raised the question of what would happen if the cheque were lost in the post or did not arrive. The cheque method of payment is well established; we have used cheques to pay benefits for many years, going back to 1968. We have well tried and trusted contingency arrangements to make sure that people will get their money. I hope that he will report back to his constituents and those pensioner organisations with the reassurance that under no circumstances will people be left without their money. We will make sure that people get access.

The cost of the cheque system, I have to say, is quite considerable. If 2 million people are paid in that way initially, we estimate that the cost will be about £1.35 for each cheque. Frankly, I would prefer that money to go into the pockets and purses of the pensioners rather than into the cost of administering a cheque-based system, but that is the extent to which we are prepared to go to ensure that people who cannot operate an account can access their money in a different way.

Nine out of 10 people have said that changing to the modern accounts has made a real difference to their life. It has given them extra convenience, extra control over their money, and extra security against the thieves whom I mentioned, who so often create the tragedy of withdrawing pension books from pensioners on the street. We recognise that changing a long-standing system such as this one is bound to create anxieties, but our recent research shows that people find the new accounts easy to operate and are satisfied with the way in which the system is working.

In conclusion, we are making sensible changes.

May I repeat one question that I asked the Under-Secretary but which he has not yet had a chance to address? How will people with a Post Office card account who fall ill unexpectedly, as we all do occasionally, but who have not made arrangements for someone else to collect the money, be able to collect their pensions in those circumstances?

People in those circumstances have two choices. A normal bank account may be more appropriate, as it is more flexible and other people can access their account on their behalf. If that is not possible, however, they should contact the office that usually makes their payments, and we will ensure that alternative arrangements are made. Someone else can collect their pension or benefit for them, or we can find another mechanism, perhaps through a home visit, to ensure that they get their money.

So we are changing the way in which payments are made, and are doing so through consultation with the organisations representing the most vulnerable of our customers as well as the others. However, I return to the point that I made at the beginning: although this is a change to a long-established system and we understand the anxiety that that creates, we do need to make this change if we really are serious about combating the financial exclusion that blights the lives of so many of our constituents. We will help people through the process of change, and we will do everything that we can to explain why we are making the change and how people can accommodate it.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue in the Chamber this afternoon, as it gives me an opportunity to respond in part to his questions. Given the limited time that we have available, I suggest that I write to him with detailed answers to his other questions.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Four o'clock.