I have chaired the proceedings in Westminster Hall many times, and I have never seen such a great array of hon. Members before me for a debate on such a subject. I have been notified that a couple more hon. Members want to speak, but if Front-Bench spokesmen and others are brief, I shall try to accommodate as many hon. Members as I can.

May I thank you, Mr. Olner, and through you Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to secure this debate on planning regulations for mobile telecommunications masts, which are generating huge interest up and down the country and among colleagues. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick) for being in the Chamber to respond to this important debate.

There is a desperate need to address the many serious concerns about the Government's policies on planning regulations for mobile telecommunications masts. It is ironic that mobile phones, which were created to allow connection and conversation between people separated by distance, have proved how distant the Government are and how incapable they are of listening, even to the most persistent interlocutors.

Each time the Government have gone through the motions of listening to people's concerns, it quickly becomes apparent that no real action has been taken. When the Government claim to accept:

"the importance of ensuring that effective public consultation"—[Official Report, 18 October 2004; Vol. 425, c. 743.]

takes place, as the then planning Minister—the current Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope)—said on 18 October 2004, they also quietly admit that that really means that arrangements are necessary to ensure that development is not delayed.

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister press release on 9 December 2004 said:

"People have a right to know where masts are located."

At the same time, however, the Government go to great lengths to prevent obtrusive new masts from being subject to planning permission.

The then planning Minister continued:

"these planning cases would be more likely to end up as planning appeals . . . because an application had been refused."—[Official Report, 18 October 2004; Vol. 425, c. 744.]

The Government are speaking with forked tongue; they claim to be listening to people's concerns about the effect on health of telecommunications masts, while a planning Minister sends out explicit instructions to councils that they should not impose a ban on mobile phones on health grounds.

The Government are simply not listening. Following the Stewart report, they promised to hold several consultation exercises, but they have clearly not taken enough exercise and must now be shown how to get planning permission for mobile telecommunications masts back into shape.

The Government must not be seen to accept the £22.5 billion third-generation mobile phone licence fees and then ignore the concerns of many worried constituents, yet that is exactly what appears to have happened when an august and unbiased body such as the Library says in its debate pack of 20 June 2005 that Government policy is

"most notable for not giving ground to objectors against masts".

I would be very interested to hear from the Minister about the outcome of yesterday's meeting between the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), and Alan Meyer of Mast Action UK. What flaws in Government policy on planning permission for telecommunications masts did Mr. Meyer highlight in that meeting?

As things stand, the New Scientist of 10 February 2001 predicted that 3G operators will need at least 100,000 new masts to facilitate their service. That figure, however, is based on an assumption that the current system will prevail for some time. That is not the best way forward.

We are much more likely to enjoy innovative solutions if we can give local communities more influence over how the increasing demand for supply is satisfied, and innovative solutions must involve things such as mast sharing and roaming, which operate very successfully on the continent.

Will my hon. Friend say what the telephone companies have against roaming? If it operates well in other countries it must work technically, so is this simply a financial matter for the companies?

I thought about that deep into the night last night. Surely the answer is that we know, because it works on the continent, that the technology works perfectly. Therefore, the first half of my right hon. Friend's proposition must be correct. It probably does reduce competition, but as local people are affected by the number of masts, we should keep that number to a minimum. One way to do that is to insist on mast sharing, where that is practical, and roaming. With modern technology, there is no reason why companies should not charge each other for the use of their masts when calls come through their respective apparatus.

However, under this Government's system, people have little control over developments that, according The Independent of 9 February 2005, can knock 10 per cent. off the value of their houses. They have no means of keeping track of the ever-expanding network of masts, as they would if it were compulsory to register new structures. I call on the Minister to introduce a register of all telecommunications masts. It will then be simple for people to go to their local authorities and find out where the masts are in their areas. That is not an unreasonable demand.

The Government have introduced a traffic light system that takes into consideration communities' previous planning decisions. That suggests that there is some kind of quota system, under which the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will accept only a finite number of planning permission refusals by each authority. That sounds rather like the approach to referendums by some Governments, who seem to think that the question should keep on being put until the voters give the right answer.

When the larger telecommunications masts erected for the railway network are "permitted developments", meaning that they do not need an application for planning permission, and when local authorities have to apply to the Government for an article 4 direction to remove operators' right to put up masts automatically, and then perhaps end up having to give them compensation, local communities do not feel that they are being listened to.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having raised this important issue. Does he agree that that complaint, like a number of his other points, also applies to the Tetra network used by the police, and is he aware that a cross-party conference is being organised in the Boothroyd Room on 19 July from 11 am to 2 pm? All hon. Members who have an interest in the issue will be most welcome, and I hope that the Government will be represented.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having managed to give advance notice of his meeting. I have no doubt that many hon. Members present will wish to attend. He raises the important matter of Tetra masts, which have all sorts of issues associated with them, and which worry many local communities that have such big masts near them. Peter Jones from Actix, which developed new wireless technology for mobile companies, has warned that the number of masts could increase by three or four times. That means that we are slipping into a situation in which people can choose whether to have a mobile phone, but not whether to live by a mobile phone mast.

Many cases that have arisen around the country suggest that that state of affairs needs to be corrected. I draw the Minister's attention to one in particular. It is a sad case. The Merseyside Society for Deaf People in West Derby has found it impossible to overcome the problem of a mast that interferes with hearing aids, because the mast has been given an ICNIRP certificate—that stands for the international commission on non-ionising radiation protection. However, local campaigners are convinced that when such problems occur, such certificates are not worth the paper that they are written on. People feel that they have no control or influence over the masts that affect their environment; communities clearly do not have a large enough role in the consultation process.

I would be grateful to the Minister if he told me how he proposes to remedy the situation. Will the Government establish a national database of masts, as recommended in the Stewart report? When will they make a commitment to publish in full the reports by Reading university and Arup, and by Micro Consultants Limited, so that communities have access to the relevant information? Will they publish the report by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory on epileptiform activity and cognitive performance, so that people's fears about health issues can be addressed?

Health concerns relating to telecommunications masts are not limited to Merseyside. I do not intend to dwell on health issues—that is not the purpose of the debate—but they are important, and must be mentioned. Many of my constituents in the Cotswolds are not only concerned about protecting the beautiful countryside that surrounds them, important as that is, but worried about the risks to schools lying in the radiation of the beam of greatest intensity from masts. They have limited confidence in the precautionary principle laid down in planning regulations and are aware that, as I said, the Government have not published all the reports that they have received on the potential health risks.

My hon. Friend makes a good point about the planning legislation. In fact, planning policy guidance note 8 actively prevents health issues from being taken into account. The framework is also such that all the operator has to show is that alternative sites have been considered. In my constituency in the past week a planning appeal has gone against us because the operator did that, even though the site of the mast is in a green open space and the mast will adversely affect amenity.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. PPG8 enshrines the principle that mast applications should be accepted rather than refused. That presumption should be reversed.

The Government have issued guidelines and information on individuals' use of mobile phones—for those who use pacemakers, for example—but they have not issued similarly detailed information regarding mobile phone masts. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) has said—he must be psychic—the Government have actually prevented councils from objecting to mobile phone masts on health grounds, despite the Stewart report's recommendation that there should be a register of occupationally exposed workers.

As a result of such concerns, it is imperative that local communities be given more power over the location of their telecommunications masts. The easiest way for that to be achieved is to extend the requirement for full planning permission to all mobile phone masts, especially in sensitive greenbelt land and areas of outstanding natural beauty. I called for that in the Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation when we scrutinised the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2001 on 21 November 2001.

The current system exempts masts less than 15 m tall from the need for planning permission. That seems unfair to all those private individuals who have to apply for planning permission for the smallest alterations to their homes, although a neighbour's extension would have much less effect on the environment than a 40 ft tall mast. Indeed, during the 2001 election I came across a case between Corby and Kettering in which a huge mast suddenly appeared within 30 m of a street of houses, and the residents had known nothing about it. When the matter was investigated, it appeared that a notice had been put up on a local bus stop—but of course, few people had read it. That is an unacceptable situation. I put it to the Minister that everybody should be consulted, and everybody in the near vicinity should have a notice put through their letter box.

On that final point, we had such a case in my constituency, next to a school—in fact, it was on a site that the local education authority owned and had let out to the mobile phone operator. The school did not get any of the benefit, and because of the permitted development rights the local community was not consulted. The only person who was consulted was one of the local district councillors, who passed the information on to me, and we wrote to everybody in the area. A huge number of people were concerned, but if we had not taken that action, they would have been in complete ignorance of the fact that that mast was going to be put in place. The lack of openness breeds distrust and concern among local people, where there need be none.

My hon. Friend and neighbour has raised a very good point. The mobile phone industry must be much less defensive and must have more constructive dialogue with the Government. Equally, the Government must listen to local people's concerns. That should be taken into account when the Government come to decide whether they should return power to local communities to shape their own environment, or whether they should continue to give almost unchecked power to mobile phone operators to put masts where they please.

I must make it clear, because no doubt the Mobile Operators Association will be on to me this afternoon, that I do not blame the operators for their actions. They are working in an incredibly competitive field and contribute a great deal to our economy, employing tens of thousands of people. Indeed, when the industry was first created the Conservative Government encouraged it, as we saw the great benefits of such a technologically advanced sector and the huge employment gains, and other benefits, that it would bring. However, there must be more openness and consultation.

The Government have boasted that the present system offers

"a major advantage for mobile phone operators."—[Official Report, 6 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 118.]

That was according to the present Minister for Children and Families, who was Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions at the time. While seeming to ignore rural and urban communities, the Government have created a system that gives operators an automatic right of installation if local authorities delay decision making to take account of all the facts. They have awarded operators statutory undertaker status, allowing them to exercise compulsory purchase powers in collusion with the Secretary of State.

Instead, the Government should deliver on their promise to

"give local planning authorities and local people an idea of potential design solutions for particular sites".

According to the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), when he was a Minister, that would

"help to promote better dialogue and a collaborative approach"—[Official Report, 24 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 1039.]

That seems a very constructive way forward, and in its report of 3 July 2004, the all-party group on mobile communications said that approach could be best achieved by subjecting all masts to full planning permission because that would result in

"a higher level of engagement and subsequent ownership of the process by local communities".

It went on to say that that would also benefit the operators by

"resulting in less objections, less likelihood of rejection of the proposals, and less confrontation between operators and objectors".

From an all-party group, that is a very constructive approach.

I am proud of my party's approach to this difficult issue, which contrasts with the Government's record on telecommunications masts. When we were in government, and before it was realised what the future rate of growth in the mobile network would be, we gave succour to a nascent industry that would employ tens of thousands of people. However, we also introduced a framework of regulations that has laid the basis for what needs to be done today. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 was introduced by a Conservative Administration, and it is now the only significant measure on which the Government can call.

Since 1997, we have tirelessly tried further to improve the regulation system for telecommunications masts. Colleagues have tabled a host of early-day motions and parliamentary questions, and we have offered the Government every encouragement to listen to local communities. We have a set of widely supported proposals for regulations for full planning permission, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) will no doubt elucidate from the Front Bench. We propose a single decision-making process for all masts, regardless of type or location, a commitment to increase local government's control over planning permission, and demands on the industry to demonstrate that proposed masts will not damage the local environment and that options for mast sharing have been extensively explored.

My party's work on the issue continues today. Beyond this Chamber, Conservative candidates such as Stephen Day in Cheadle are standing up for their local communities. On behalf of Cheadle Hulme residents, he is leading a local campaign against a planning application for a phone mast on Anfield road. He has highlighted the environmental—

Order. It is time the adverts stopped and we continued with the debate.

I am simply using Stephen Day as an example, Mr. Olner. He has campaigned against applications for masts in Yew Tree Park road and elsewhere in Hulme, and against applications in Bramhall, Woodford and Stepping Hill. I wish him further success in his campaign.

To conclude, this is an important and sensitive issue, which the Government clearly need to address. As you said yourself, Mr. Olner, this morning's attendance in the Chamber demonstrates that the issue is of huge interest to colleagues and to all our constituents. We owe our constituents a duty to get things right, and they deserve to have their environment and health protected. We live in a democracy, so they should be fully consulted on the application process, and the Government need to listen to their concerns.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on raising this subject. Many people are concerned about it, and we need to keep the way in which we deal with applications under review. To that extent, I agree with him, although I am not sure that I would want to go on a tour of Britain, particularly to places where there might be by-elections. Nevertheless, he gave a balanced account of his concerns.

Last Friday meeting I attended a meeting in my constituency and in a village called Ince Blundell. A number of applications have been made over the years to site masts in the village and in the nearby village of Thornton, causing widespread concern among local people. I shall start with a few comments about that meeting before moving on to the planning system.

The meeting was addressed by, among others, a gentleman called Dr. Highland, who describes himself as an associate fellow at Warwick university. The hon. Member for Cotswold avoided the issue of health and the planning system, but I am sure that he would admit privately that, although people sometimes express concern about the visual impact of masts, their concerns are often about health.

Dr. Highland gave a PowerPoint presentation, to which, I noticed, a disclaimer from Warwick university was attached. I sat and listened carefully. I became quite alarmed that someone who claims academic eminence could present anecdote as evidence, when the two are incompatible. With a wave of the hand towards the end of his presentation, Dr. Highland said, "And of course, all of those who disagree with me"—Government scientific advisers of one kind or another—"shouldn't be listened to because they're either paid by the Government or they're in the pocket of the telecommunications industry."

I raise that example not to attack Dr. Highland under the cloak of privilege, although that might be the perceived effect of what I have just said, but because I am concerned that a lot of "punk science" is being perpetrated, which alarms people. The issue is serious and needs to be addressed, but the Stewart report is being dismissed in certain quarters, for whatever reasons, which is making people frightened about issues close to their homes.

I do not say that there is no problem. The Stewart inquiry was methodical and thorough, and it concluded that we cannot be absolutely certain that there is no health problem. We should therefore proceed cautiously. The collection and analysis of scientific evidence should continue, and should be properly funded and taken seriously by the Government.

My other point is that, in a sense, we should probably not be having this debate, on these terms. Most people are concerned about health issues; however, I am not sure that the planning system is the right way to deal with those concerns, although a completely redesigned planning system might be able to cope. The planning system was invented, as it were, in the 19th century as a result of concern about the squalor in which people lived and its contribution to poor public health. The system has evolved over the past 50 years or so, but it can no longer properly deal with such problems. If people are genuinely concerned about the siting of a mast because of its visual impact or for other reasons, that will be a planning issue, but I contend that most people are worried about public health.

rose—

I shall give way in a moment to the hon. Member for Cotswold, whose debate it is.

The point is that visual and planning matters are secondary to what I perceive to be the public's main concern, which is uncertainty about public health.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) made clear, PPG8 specifically states that the planning authority is not allowed to take health issues into account. If it were rewritten so that health issues could be taken into account in certain circumstances, the situation would be different.

The point that I was making—I apologise if it was less than clear—is that irrespective of any guidance issued by the Department, I am not sure that the planning system is the way to deal with public health. For one thing, most professionals in planning departments simply do not have the qualifications to evaluate public health issues. They could perform an evaluation through the local primary care trust, but what would it be based on? It would be based on known science, and we know from the Stewart inquiry that that is less than clear.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will give way once more, but the more time I take the less there will be for others.

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that there should be a statutory consultation process involving health and safety experts as well as the local planning authority? If so, is that the position now taken by Her Majesty's Government?

The hon. Gentleman should know that the reason I am speaking from this position is that although I support most of the things that the Government wish to do, I do not speak for them. I am making a constituency speech. With his customary wit and elegance of language, the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), will state the Government's position.

If the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) will bear with me, he will understand in a moment the central point that I am trying to make. Suffice it to say that even if the guidance to which the hon. Member for Cotswold referred a few moments ago was withdrawn and changed, the planning system would still not be properly equipped to deal with that class of issue.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I will give way—but for the last time.

I thank my hon. Friend; he has been generous in giving way. Part of the problem is that the Government are not objective observers. My hon. Friend will know that they are deliberating on the firelink proposal, the future communications system for the fire service. I hope that the Government will consider minimising the number of new masts, should any be needed. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree the Government have a vested interest.

My hon. Friend has made his point and I do not intend to respond; perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will do so. However, given people's concerns, and given the uncertainty about the public health issues involved and the science behind them, there is, as my hon. Friend said, an argument for minimising the use of masts through mast sharing and roaming, to which the hon. Member for Cotswold referred. I imagine that we could minimise the use of masts to quite a large degree.

I do not have any data on the subject, but that seems to be the most useful way forward. However, if sharing and roaming is to happen, it cannot be driven by local authorities, because it will in part be outside local authority control. It cannot be confined within local authority boundaries. I would like the Government to take a fresh look at that, and to try to work out a system with the industry whereby the use of masts is minimised through mast sharing and roaming. However, that must be co-ordinated centrally; it cannot be left to local authorities, because they do not have the necessary powers or the scope to do so. If we adopt the appropriate precautionary principle, there must be an agreement between the industry and the Government and a definite plan and strategy to make it work.

In the absence of clear scientific evidence about the health effects, the appropriate way forward is to co-ordinate precautions nationally to minimise the use of masts. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, who is always eminently reasonable, will think about my comments and consider whether we can deal with the matter better in future.

Let me first congratulate the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on securing this debate on an important issue. I want to touch on three points: local consultation, permitted development rights and the inclusion of health implications in the planning process.

I know—not just from my mailbag, from my email inbox and from knocking on doors—that this is an issue in my constituency. Using the new pledgebank.com website, I recently set up an online pledge to organise a public meeting in my constituency about mobile phone mast applications if at least 20 people showed an interest in attending. The speed at which the required 20 people signed up to the pledge shows the level of interest in the issue ,at a time when there is apparently little appetite for old-fashioned political engagement at public meetings and suchlike. That meeting will take place later in the summer, and I hope that representatives from mobile phone operators will attend.

That meeting will be useful, because there has been a lack of consultation. One mobile phone operator who wants to site a mast in Bearsden recently agreed to meet local residents for consultation, but only if there would be no more than 10 residents at the meeting. That is not my idea of adequate consultation.

We all recognise the need for mobile phone masts. Most of us, and most of our constituents, use mobile phones and enjoy the benefits of convenient communication. The key is to ensure that the masts are sensitively sited, and that requires meaningful consultation at the start in local areas.

Hon. Members will be aware that Scotland is often a pioneer leading the way, and so it is with the planning process for mobile phone mast applications. South of the border, phone masts of a certain height can be erected without reference to local communities and planning authorities, and that is a recipe for disaster. No wonder people feel powerless and without a voice. I urge the Minister to look at the Scottish example, where planning permission is required for mobile phone masts of all heights, to see whether lessons can be learned.

However, ensuring that the erection of masts has to go through the planning process is not enough. My constituents feel frustrated that there is inadequate scope for their views to be heard, and local authorities still do not have adequate decision-making powers on applications. One example, on which the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) touched, is that the impact on health cannot be used as a ground for refusal. Yet many people's concerns about phone masts relate directly to the impact on health, especially the health of their children.

The 2004 Stewart report recognised that whatever the health implications, children are more at risk. Government advice is that children under eight should not use mobile phones. Parents are understandably concerned by the mixed messages. The daily radiation produced by a mast is often compared with the number of minutes spent talking on a mobile phone—yet although parents are told not to allow their children to spend many minutes talking on their mobile phones, they are expected not to be concerned about the health implications of nearby masts.

Further research is clearly required—for example, to ascertain the radiation effect of clusters of phone masts in a local area. That will become more important, as 3G technology requires more masts, so people will live close to several. Land contours should also be taken into account when measuring radiation levels. It is not much good siting the radiation at ground level when the top of the mast beams into upstairs bedrooms where children sleep.

Perhaps most importantly, the precautionary principle should be applied in these cases. East Dunbartonshire council, like many local authorities, recently had a policy of not siting masts near schools, but that policy was overturned on appeal. However, the Government's own documents state that the precautionary principle should be used. I refer to the sustainable strategy document entitled "Securing the Future", which was written in March and, I think, launched today. It says that policies should respect five principles, one of which is "Using Sound Science Responsibly", which is defined as

"ensuring policy is developed and implemented on the basis of strong scientific evidence, whilst taking into account scientific uncertainty (through the Precautionary Principle)".

I welcome the Minister's comments on how he sees that idea fitting into the planning process for mobile phone applications.

In considering future action on the issue, I would urge the Minister to be bold and not bind the hands of those making planning decisions. Removing permitted development rights would be a good start, but it is not enough on its own. Local planning authorities must have the tools to examine all the issues relating to mobile phone masts.

We are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) for raising this subject today. I think that the electors of Cheadle, too, will be interested in the extent to which Conservatives have shown concern for their interests. I am grateful to be called to speak, Mr. Olner, because we have a splendid array of Conservatives on these Benches, which shows our interest in this subject, and our concern about it.

In my constituency there is a very good organisation called ORAM. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] It does have a pleasing similarity to my own name, and I do recommend it, because it stands for Orpington Residents Against Masts. Its purpose is perfectly clear. It has done a considerable public service in my constituency by raising the issue through public meetings, drawing up petitions about masts, investigating the facts and calling on experts. In one case—this shows a non-party approach—a Liberal Democrat spokesman was invited. It has shown considerable concern—the concern of ordinary people—about the subject. This is not just a matter for Members of Parliament or councillors, but one about which ordinary people are very concerned.

In my constituency nine applications for mobile phone masts are now going through the system; that is a large number. From time to time, residents get concerned about the reasons given by the mobile phone mast operators for those new constructions. For example, one mobile phone mast has just been allowed on appeal after being refused by the local authority, Bromley council. The reasons given in a letter to one of my constituents who was concerned about that were as follows:

"Synergy, Planning and Property Consultants have informed us that the masts are needed for drivers on the A21 wishing to access their home computers."

It is illegal now to have hand-held phones in cars, and very few people have hands-free phones in their cars. Moreover, the A21 is on a red route, where people cannot stop. The reason cited seems rather curious to me, and it seems rather trivial to my constituents.

My experience in Putney, working with the Southfields Triangle Residents Association and residents associations in West Hill and the rest of Southfields, is very similar. Last summer Orange submitted eight planning applications for mobile phone masts within a one-mile radius, and it seemed to me that it hoped that ultimately one of them would be accepted on trivial grounds, and so long as one got through, it would have achieved its objective.

We need to examine the planning process to stop this bully-boy tactic of mass applications in the hope that one will succeed. It is interesting to hear what my hon. Friend says about residents standing up against the process. One of the by-products of the eight Orange submissions was that they did a great job of reinvigorating our local community. There are far more people in those residents associations now than there were this time last year, before the applications were made. That shows that people are deeply concerned about the matter, and they are right to be, because they do not have the facts and data. I believe that local councils should have more ability to reflect those concerns in their planning decisions—

Order. That is lengthy enough for an intervention.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for a lengthy but pertinent intervention. She is quite right: not only residents, as evidenced by the activity of ORAM in my constituency, but councils are increasingly concerned about the planning system. The hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who has now departed the Chamber, said that the current planning system did not allow councils to act in the best interests of residents. That is the problem.

Bromley council will be writing to the Minister, following a decision of its development control committee and its report on the planning arrangements surrounding applications for mobile phone masts. The committee is interested in two points, one of which was raised by the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) in relation to the situation in Scotland, where Scottish people have done very well. The point is that all masts, whatever their height, should be taken into account in the whole planning system.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if planning permission were required for all masts, that would encourage mast sharing? One current problem is that mobile phone operators say that they cannot share masts because there has to be a certain distance between their equipment and the other operator's equipment—

Order. That, too, is a lengthy enough intervention.

Thank you, Mr. Olner, for rescuing me from that additional lengthy intervention.

Orange wrote to me about the issue of considering all masts under the planning system. It said:

"our experience clearly demonstrates that the public's concerns are not with the planning process."

I disagree. When the public learn about the sketchy nature of the consultation that is allowed, and of the planning process, they are very concerned. As the old saying goes, never overestimate people's knowledge—but never underestimate their intelligence either. When they get to know about the subject, they are very concerned.

In connection with what the hon. Gentleman said in his intervention, Orange also said:

"Full planning would not give local authorities any more power to refuse applications or communities any greater say in the site selection process."

I think that it would. The fact that mobile phone mast operators would have to go through a planning procedure would give local authorities the extra negotiating powers and leverage that they do not have at the moment, whether for site sharing or for considering other sites. Often other sites can be considered, but because of the ease with which the companies' preferred sites get through the planning system, they are not.

The advantage of going through the planning process is that full local consultation would have to take place. There would be adverts in the local papers and notices to all those concerned, and there would also be an opportunity to appear at the planning hearings of the local council. In that way, local democracy and people's participation in it would be enhanced.

I agree. The other aspect of that point is that my council is calling for a lengthy consultation period. As my hon. Friend knows, the current period is 56 days, and eight weeks is not that long for organising a consultation exercise. There is always dispute about how widely the consultation should range, and it takes time to work out who should be involved.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there may be a case for investigating the possibility of something similar to environmental impact assessments, with a consultation period of 16 weeks rather than eight weeks? Clearly this is an environmental matter.

That is a good point, and perhaps the Government will take it into account when they reply to Bromley council. The present period is too short for any realistic consultation. Often, people find themselves right up against the deadline without having had the opportunity to consider residents' concerns fully. I hope that the Government will take the letter that they receive from Bromley council seriously. I shall follow it up myself.

First, I should like the Government to do more research into the health aspect of the issue; I have not gone into that, because of the number of people who want to speak in this debate. There must be more such research, and the Government should take a lead. Secondly, I should like them to consider the planning guidance that they issue to local authorities, and at least to change the current regime and make it more sympathetic. I look for a positive response from the Government to the concerns exhibited by the council in my constituency.

rose—

Order. Five people are indicating that they want to speak. I intend to call the Liberal Democrat spokesman to sum up at 10.25, so I ask those who participate to be brief. Thank you.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on securing this debate. It is no surprise that the Chamber is so full, because the issue is of huge concern to everybody. In Guildford it is probably the single biggest planning issue. I think that I receive more letters about mobile phone masts than anything else. The applications rain down on us daily—and if it is not an application, it is an appeal. The concern of residents in my constituency, in places such as Bramley, Shalford and Chilworth, is that there is always either an application or an appeal going through.

The issue does not seem very complicated to me. In May 2000 Sir William Stewart called for a precautionary approach, and in January 2005 the National Radiological Protection Board, chaired by Sir William Stewart, again called for such an approach. Sir William also said:

"This approach should be adopted by all involved in this area—including government".

It appears that absolutely nothing has happened.

We need planning regulations that allow local people not only to have their say, but to have what they say listened to and acted on. Mobile phone companies put huge resources into the planning process, while local people feel that their hands are tied behind their backs. They feel disempowered and disillusioned with the whole process. The word "consultation" has been so devalued that it is held in contempt by many people, and consultation is often seen as a patronising process that allows nobody to have their voice heard. It is crucial that we allow residents' health concerns to be addressed through the planning process. Local councillors feel exactly the same. They also feel that their hands are tied behind their backs.

The balance and the presumptions in the process need to be shifted. Sir William Stewart first urged a precautionary approach in 2000, and after all this time, I urge the Government finally to address this issue.

I shall speak briefly, both to congratulate the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on securing the debate and to underline and echo a number of the points that have already been made by hon. Members.

There is cross-party concern about this issue, which has been raised today on behalf of a great many people who feel that the balance has not been struck in a way that is right, fair or sensible on issues of planning control and public health in connection with telecommunications masts. I wanted to take part in the debate because of an application that recently came before my local authority, the London borough of Sutton, relating to Fieldsend road in Cheam. Unfortunately it was determined and decided by officials without making its way before a committee of members because, despite the objections of a number of my constituents to the mast application on the grounds of both planning and health considerations, it was not de-delegated by local councillors.

I support those who have already spoken in favour of changing the planning arrangements so that all masts are brought within the ambit of planning control in the fullest possible sense. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech) is right to stress that having full planning control would give us the opportunity to exercise greater control and influence over the possibility of mast sharing, because of the scope for negotiation and the chance to raise that matter in the planning process. That is entirely missing now.

I was heartened by what my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) said about what already happens in Scotland. I hope that the Minister will indicate in his reply why to date the Government have not decided that England should follow the lead of Scotland—and, indeed, Northern Ireland—where such matters are dealt with through the full planning process.

I also wish to reiterate the point about the lack of peer-reviewed science in this area of public policy. Can the Minister say a bit more about the timetable for the publication of such research, and also what work is being done on the effects of masts and base stations on public health, particularly in respect of genetic predisposition and possible age-related effects? It is clear to my constituents and to me that the Government have talked a great deal about the need for a precautionary approach, but planning law does not allow for one. Many of my constituents believe that health should be a much greater consideration than it is at present.

I am delighted that we are having this debate, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively to it. Many of my constituents feel let down by and shut out from the process. They want their voices to be heard and to feel that the planning process is working for them, rather than in the interests of mammon.

I am here to express some of the concern and anger felt by a great number of my constituents who have been affected by mobile phone masts in recent months and years. In many ways, they feel powerless to get any action when an application is made to put a mobile phone mast in the vicinity of their homes or of other services that they may use.

I am in an interesting situation, as my borough council, Basingstoke and Deane, has been held out as a model authority for its use of the code of conduct in that respect. Despite that, there is still the feeling among local people that they are not getting their point of view across. Our local council works closely with mobile phone operators, but my constituents feel that their concerns are not heard, whether because of the short time—eight weeks—that is allowed for the discussion process, or whether because the issues that they feel are important are simply not taken into account.

It may be useful to consider a very real and current problem in my constituency. The mast under discussion will actually be sited in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young)—on the Kingsclere road in the Newbury road roundabout area—but it will directly affect people in my area. The plan is to erect a 15 m telecommunications tower with three antennae. There have been numerous letters of objection from local residents about visual intrusion, anxiety about health effects, spoiled views of the countryside—the area borders some beautiful Hampshire countryside—the fact that other masts are already located in the area, and, importantly, the fact that the proposed mast would be too close to residents and to schools.

A local ward councillor, Mrs. Sue Peters, has taken up the cause and has been expressing the concerns of local residents directly in the council. The proposal is to put up a mast some 45 m from property and 180 m from a special educational needs school for children with severe learning difficulties. Hon. Members may be aware that the National Radiological Protection Board issued a warning this year about the location of such masts near such schools.

Despite the deep concern, the application has been recommended for approval. Frankly, little account has been taken of the concerns that have been expressed by local residents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) said, councils are not always able to act in the best interests of their residents. There is an urgent need for a review of planning matters governing mobile phone masts. Residents feel powerless, local elected representatives feel that their hands are tied behind their backs, and mobile phone operators are operating within a code of conduct and within legislation that does not take account of the issues that are most important to my constituents.

I look forward to hearing the Minister's views. There is a need for an urgent review, for a requirement for full planning permission for all mobile phone masts, for accountability on the part of local councillors for their decisions, for residents to be able to participate fully in the making of those decisions, for councils to be allowed to take health concerns into account and, importantly—particularly in my constituency, where house building is still going on at a rapid rate—for planning for the future. In the new communities in my constituency, land is not allocated for masts. We should do more to predict the system's future needs, and should plan mobile phone masts as part of infrastructure development.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold mentioned the comments in New Scientist—

Indeed, New Scientist was interesting. Is my hon. Friend taking into account the vast numbers of new masts of the new generation that will be built, which is a matter for even greater concern?

My hon. Friend is right. As New Scientist stated, a fourfold increase in the number of masts is to be expected in coming years, which would be equivalent to about 200 extra masts in each constituency. More must be done to plan for that. The presumption in favour of development in the current planning system must be changed, and our constituents' frustration must be listened to.

I call Mr. David Burrowes—but I ask you to be brief, Mr. Burrowes.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) for securing this important debate. Few issues have caused more concern in my constituency. My maiden speech last week included a tour of my constituency. A more appropriate way to tour it might have been via its mobile phone masts, so great is the coverage. Only on Saturday I was in Slades Hill, where between 50 and 100 residents came out to protest against the planning inspector's latest decision, overturning the council's wise decision to refuse a mast there. No doubt the decision was overturned not on grounds that were of concern to local people, including health, but solely and squarely on appearance.

In the area of Enfield, Southgate, there is no greater concern. If, Tardis-like, I were to transport hon. Members to my constituency office to look across a distance of one mile, nine masts could already be seen; another four applications are pending. If I then moved us to Roundhill drive, as an example of the issues that face us, we could see a mast that has been put up within permitted development rights. It is horrendous—yards from gardens, near a playground and not far from a school. An application has now been made to increase the height of that mast. No doubt that is because the local authority, having taken a concerned view in response to residents' and parents' concerns, intends to move the mast that is now on top of Grange Park school, which puts pressure on the operator to increase coverage in Roundhill drive. The irony is that the new site is near a playground, and thus near children. Children do not only go to school; they live in houses, and go out in gardens. There is great concern about the application.

A few metres along, in Chaseville Park road, a repeated application that has been made for the open area is of great concern to people. They are worried about repeated applications, such as those that my hon. Friends have mentioned.

My hon. Friend and I both represent suburban London seats of high residential density. Does he share my concern about the cumulative impact on public health and the environment of multiple applications by multiple operators? Does he share my belief that planning guidance should give councils greater freedom to take that cumulative impact into account?

Order. Many questions have been asked of the Minister, and although I want Back Benchers to have as much time to speak as possible, I also want Opposition spokesmen to have time to sum up. I think that we are treading into their time now.

Thank you, Mr. Olner; I will be brief. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. Cumulative impact is not recognised in PPG8. Beam intensity and its cumulative effect is of great concern to residents, but the planning guidance does not reflect that. I would like the Minister's response to that idea, because PPG8 deals simply with the International Commission for Non-Ionising Radiation Protection guidelines. The operator ticks a box there, and does not have to reflect the concerns of a community about that cumulative effect properly. That is paramount. At a recent planning committee meeting, we heard from an operator that to get coverage for the new 3G technology it needs a mast every 800 m throughout the constituency. That demonstrates starkly why people are concerned.

We went way beyond reasons for licences some time ago, and the new 3G technology is causing a proliferation of masts in Enfield, Southgate. We need an amendment to PPG8. We need the removal of permitted development rights and for the full planning process to be available, so that local people can be given back control over their communities. People are not concerned only about house prices and the nimby factor, but about having some control of their local community.

I gather that it is conventional to congratulate the person who secured the debate, but I think that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) deserves more than conventional thanks for securing this debate, given the enormous amount of interest shown in it.

From the outset, I stress that my party's policy remains in line with what a large number of hon. Members have said—that phone masts and associated equipment should require full planning permission before being allowed to go ahead. That would allow local authorities to take into account the full range of considerations, including any health issues that might arise. That does not mean that planning permission should be refused on the basis of insufficient information—local authorities should still have a local plan policy for phone masts in general—but it would mean an end to part 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.

Anyone who has tried to read that legislation will have found it to be full of gobbledegook. It is, perhaps, the worst drafted legislation that I have ever seen, and was obviously drafted by someone who had only a passing acquaintance with the English language. It is impossible to discern the policy behind the various exemptions; the legislation seems to have more to do with the interests and convenience of lobbyists than with sound planning policy.

The hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) raised two objections to that change, one of which was that scientific evidence should be a matter for central Government only. The trouble with that is that scientific evidence changes, and can do so rapidly. New studies are coming out all the time; the non-thermal effects of radiation are being considered by a number of research projects, so new information that will change our views might well appear before the end of the year. The Government change policy slowly, and that is one reason why we should give local authorities a greater role—to allow more rapid and flexible responses to changes in the evidence.

The hon. Gentleman's second objection was that local authority boundaries make them too small to have proper policies toward the roll-out of such technologies. I thought that the new regional spatial strategies were supposed to get round that problem and that the new planning systems should—

The hon. Gentleman should not misrepresent me. I said that local authority areas were too small to accommodate a strategy for mast sharing and roaming.

Yes, but regions are not too small for that, and regional spatial strategies should be allowed to take that sort of policy question into account.

Given what we have heard about the substantial increase in the number of masts that will be required in the next few years, does my hon. Friend agree that local development frameworks should include plans that deal with telecommunications, so that local communities can be involved in decisions about potential mast sites at that stage?

Yes, I do agree. The planning system should and does allow more participation than anything that the Government do with PPGs. At the heart of the question is PPG8, particularly the relationship between paragraphs 29 and 30. Paragraph 29 says:

"Health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations".

But paragraph 30 says:

"it is the Government's firm view that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards"—

that was the point made by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East—and that it

"remains central Government's responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health."

It then goes on to incorporate the ICNIRP standard into Government policy.

As it stands, that means simply that central Government do not trust local government to take such decisions. Oddly, in the T-Mobile case, central Government argued the opposite, and were told by the Court of Appeal that they had to stick to the original meaning of PPG8. The Court of Appeal was doing its job: telling central Government that if they want to change policy, they must do so by changing the PPG, not by reinterpreting it.

That idea that local authorities are subject to panic attacks because of the activity of pressure groups is unfair. It is not as if central Government are immune from similar panic attacks—for example, in the case of the Hatfield train crash, and the way in which central Government have dealt with terrorism. Local authority refusal rates, which worry the Government, arise out of the sense of powerlessness that several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), raised. What we need is simple guidance about how local authorities can be more enlightened in dealing with such planning matters.

The city that I represent, Cambridge, organised a seminar, or citizens jury, on phone masts and allowed evidence from both sides—both the companies and the pressure groups—to be brought. That came out with a series of moderate conclusions and a slightly stricter standard, and recommended that a dedicated officer of the local authority be appointed to deal with communications between the two sides. More power for local authorities does not mean outright bans or irrational policies.

The trouble is that at the moment, initiatives by local authorities can apply only to their role as landlords; because of PPG8, they cannot apply to their role as planning authorities. I gather that a similar problem has been faced in Stockport, where Mark Hunter, the leader of the council, has introduced policies to reduce the number of masts being erected in the borough, but is restricted by PPG8 to acting only in the local authority's role as a landlord. He cannot deal with the wider problem caused by central Government control—

Order. Would the hon. Gentleman like to wind up now, please, to give the other Opposition spokesman time to speak?

Yes, Mr. Olner. I will conclude briefly.

There is a call in some academic circles for the state to be a "cost-benefit state" that considers only the strictly objective risks. We need instead a cost-benefit society, in which members of society in general take into account the objective risks. The only way in which we can achieve that is by encouraging participation in local government, so that, from local responsibility, people learn how to deal with the costs and benefits of proposals such as phone masts.

Thank you for calling me, Mr. Olner; I will endeavour to ensure that the Minister can have his full 12 minutes of glory. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), who was, I think, making a speech from the Front Bench for the first time. His speech was very reasonable. In particular, he was absolutely right when he congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) who, with his customary elegance of language, introduced this important issue for debate.

I confess that the elegance of my hon. Friend's language misled me for a moment. When he referred to the Government's inability to listen to their "interlocutors", I thought that he was introducing a new mobile phone concept, to join 3G and the others. Nevertheless, his point was extremely well made.

Members have pointed out with some elegance a difference that exists in the United Kingdom—between Scotland and Northern Ireland and the rest of us. Essentially, the rest of us are considerably worse off than Scotland and Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) pointed out, the number of mobile phone masts is growing, as is the number that he can see from his constituency office. The case for roaming is increasingly becoming one to which we need to have an answer. That is something that my party is actively considering as a policy.

The most noticeable thing about the debate was that despite all the knowledgeable contributions, not a single person spoke in favour of the existing policy. I hope that the Minister will take that into consideration. People want to redress the balance in favour of the people. At the moment, things are very much in the hands of the mobile phone companies.

My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton) referred to the health issues raised by the Stewart report, but that report also raises the question of powers. The report says:

"Public telecommunications operators have been granted a number of rights similar to those enjoyed by gas, water and electricity companies . . . We believe this approach is not optimal since it does not allow adequately for the uncertainties in scientific knowledge",

and

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

To improve matters, we need to address several key issues, the first of which is the question of full planning permission, which I note has the support of the all-party group on mobile communications.

My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) talked most forcefully about a letter that he received from Orange that said, with the majesty of people who possess enormous powers, that the public are not concerned about such matters—they do not write to the company about them, and are quite content. That grossly misrepresents the situation. The public believe right now that masts must have planning permission, and they think that that actually is the system. It is a considerable shock to them to learn that it is not.

My hon. Friend is a great champion of local government. Does he agree that that confusion reduces the reputation of local authorities, because people find that they are powerless in areas where it was assumed that they had powers?

My hon. Friend makes a point that I was about to make; people look to their local councils for an answer and, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller), they are simply not heard. That has an effect on the reputation not only of local government, but of government itself.

There must be a single process whereby the rail network, church property, and Tetra masts are all treated exactly the same. I cannot put it more elegantly than a publication containing community news in the Cheadle constituency, which says:

"Decisions about masts should be taken at a local level with residents' concerns taken into account—that is certainly something I will be fighting for."

That was written by Mr. Stephen Day. Until the evidence proves otherwise, we must take health into consideration.

Bodies such as the Local Government Association could disseminate best practice and exchange information, thereby ensuring that councils are fully informed of the scientific research. The hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) was dismissive about a dodgy PowerPoint presentation—it was not the first such presentation, and I dare say that it will not be the last—but he rightly said that it was important to consider the health issues. I entirely agree with him that we should take a precautionary approach.

Visual intrusiveness is also an important concern. If full planning permission were required, the operators of telecommunications masts would take such things much more seriously. The balance that I suggested would be then redressed, as the operators would pay greater attention to ensuring that the masts were not such an eyesore.

Above all, we need greater consistency. We want to assist councils to develop greater master sharing and to formulate joint approaches for the future of mast development. Equally, councils must recognise that a single larger shared site can sometimes be visually intrusive.

I shall finish by citing my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, who introduced this important debate. Two points that he made sum up what we need to do. My hon. Friend was right to say that politicians have a duty to listen to the public. He was equally right to say that in a democracy, the public should be consulted. In a participatory democracy where the politicians are responsible to the public, it is not just every four or five years that we are required to be responsible to them. The duty lies heavily on our shoulders, and we should never neglect it.

Good morning, Mr. Olner; it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on securing the opportunity to debate the planning implications of mobile telecommunications masts. However, the passionate conclusion to his speech was devalued by his reference to his possible hon. Friend from Cheadle; that took the wind out of his arguments slightly.

There is clearly widespread interest in the subject of the debate. I hope to deal with most of the points that hon. Members have raised, although what I say may not be to their full satisfaction. First, I shall briefly respond to one or two points that are not dealt with in my speech.

I am grateful for the serious and balanced approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). His remarks helped to take the debate forward. I assure the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) that I am always happy to consider Scottish examples. My classic cockney accent may disguise my origins, but we do look at all the evidence. As far as classic cockney is concerned, "Oram" is probably the correct pronunciation of the surname of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), as well as of the acronym that he mentioned. I can reassure the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) that PPG8 requires the ICNIRP certificate to deal with the cumulative effect of several installations; I can give the appropriate reference in due course.

The Government have noted the calls for all mobile telephone mast development to require full planning permission. It is suggested that that would ensure that local councillors were clearly accountable and answerable for the location of masts. However, councils are already accountable for that. Ground-based masts are subject to full planning permission unless they are outside designated areas and less than 15 m high. Ground masts that are outside designated areas, and less than 15 m high, are subject to a prior approval process very similar to an application for planning permission. The difference is that if after 56 days the local planning authority has not made a formal decision, approval is deemed to be granted.

The hon. Member for Cotswold raised the question of strengthening prior approval arrangements. Before 1997 the consideration period for prior approval applications was only 28 days. After 1997 it became 46 days, and after 2001 it became 56 days. We have already strengthened the regulations twice. The hon. Gentleman also asked about a national database. The Stewart report, "Mobile Phones and Health", which I am sure he knows, recommended that information about mobile phone base stations should be made available. The Government accepted the recommendation and set up a national database, giving details of all base stations and their emissions, including those that did not require prior planning approval. The sitefinder database is maintained by Ofcom, and is available at www.sitefinder.radio.gov.uk. The information on the database is provided by the mobile phone network operators.

As for the question of a single process for all masts, as hon. Members know, as well as ground-based masts there are smaller installations that are less visually intrusive and more discreet. Such equipment may not need formal planning approval or permission. That might be because of the de minimis principle, which in the context of planning means that they are so small as not to constitute development, and cannot therefore be brought under the control of the planning system. Otherwise, they might constitute permitted development.

Permitted development rights are conferred on licensed communications code system operators. Outside designated areas, such companies are authorised under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 to install specified communications equipment without the need to make a planning application to the local authority. However, those rights do not mean that local authorities and communities cannot have a say. The operators have committed to annual roll-out discussions and local consultation for all installations.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) mentioned the regulations in Scotland—

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because he is trying to get a lot into a short time, but the general permitted development rights cause a problem. Although councils may be consulted, they cannot refuse masts that come within that ambit unless they go through the cumbersome process of getting an article 4 direction. If that is refused, they have to pay compensation. That is a very cumbersome mechanism, and the Government need to look into it.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. As I shall explain later, we are still considering a variety of issues, and I am sure that that is one such issue.

Let me tell the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam that although Scotland demands full planning permission for ground-based masts, there are permitted development rights for smaller installations. That change was made in response to the Stewart report in 2000, which was concerned that the prior approval period for smaller masts—46 days—did not allow for full consultation. In England, we strengthened the consultative requirements for ground-based masts up to 15 m high, so they are the same as those for full planning permission.

On the technological research, I briefly remind colleagues that on 4 April my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who is now the Minister for Housing and Planning, announced that the Government would be commissioning research to identify the future direction of mobile phone technology, the future need for mast developments and the potential for the increased sharing of masts. The Government are committed to evidence-based policy making, and that research will enable us to ensure that any changes to the planning regulations for telecommunications masts are fit for the future. The research will help inform the Government's ongoing review of planning arrangements for mobile phone masts. I can assure the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) that the research will also consider the issue of roaming.

Does the Minister not agree with the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) that we should proceed on a precautionary basis? While the health evidence is so uncertain, should not we err on the side of caution?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but if he will allow me, I will come to the precautionary aspect, particularly in relation to health, in a moment.

An announcement on the outcome of the research that the Minister for Housing and Planning announced on 4 April will be made as soon as possible.

I turn now to supplementary planning guidance. On 9 December 2004, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), the then Minister for Housing and Planning, issued a written statement on improving local consultation. It placed a renewed emphasis on the importance of the annual roll-out discussion process described in the code of best practice on mobile phone network development. The Government strongly believe that information sharing and negotiation at an early stage could greatly reduce levels of concern and conflict when specific applications are made in line with the agreed local plan or strategy. Therefore, we consider it desirable that, in their local development frameworks, local planning authorities should consider how they plan to manage the developments needed to meet the growing demand for communication services.

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister commissioned a study from Reading university and Arup to assess what impact the code of best practice, which was published in 2002, has had since its introduction, and how the public perceive its operation. We have received the research report and are carefully considering its recommendations, and particularly how we might take them forward in the context of the wider review of the planning arrangements for telecommunications masts. We will publish the research report in due course as part of that wider review.

I turn now to the health concerns mentioned by many right hon. and hon. Members. Like them, the Government understand that public concern about the siting of mobile phone base stations is fuelled by health concerns. Let me assure hon. Members that the Government take seriously the need to protect the public from potential health risks.

We have had two major reviews of the evidence regarding health effects due to exposure to radiofrequency transmissions associated with mobile phone handsets and base stations. The first, by the independent expert group on mobile phones, was in 2000; the second, by the National Radiological Protection Board's advisory group on non-ionising radiation, was in 2004. Both reports concluded that the overall evidence indicates that mobile base stations are unlikely to pose a risk to health, because exposure levels are extremely low. However, both reports recognised that scientific uncertainty requires a precautionary approach to such technologies and further research. I assure hon. Members that any changes will continue to reflect the precautionary approach.

The Government established the mobile telephone health research programme, which is costing around £7.36 million and is jointly funded by Government and industry. We are currently considering continuing the programme, as recommended in the NRPB's report "Mobile Phones and Health", which was published in January.

I shall now refer to the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East made.

On the precautionary approach, I note that the Government's guidance to local education authorities refers to the beam of greatest intensity, and says that base station antennae should not be on school grounds without the agreement of the parents or the school—

Order. That is long enough.

Can those issues also be reflected in PPG8?

I am sure that when the Government finish their consideration of the reports under review, the hon. Gentleman's comments will be covered.

In respect of health issues and planning, many people would like councils to be able to take health concerns into account more when making decisions about telecommunications developments. As has been mentioned, on 12 November the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the First Secretary of State against the decision of Sir Richard Tucker in relation to an application by T-Mobile for a shared mast in Harrogate.

The Court of Appeal gave consideration to the policy guidance, and found the policy to mean that where a certificate of compliance with exposure guidelines exists, only in exceptional circumstances would it be legitimate for a local planning authority to take public fears about health risks into account. The First Secretary of State decided not to petition the House of Lords for leave to appeal, because the decision raises policy issues rather than significant points of law. Therefore, as part of the wider review of planning arrangements for telecommunications masts, we are carefully considering the judgment.

However, it is clear that local planning authorities cannot simply be allowed to adopt their own precautionary policies, as that would be a recipe for confusion. Indeed, the NRPB's recent report supports the Government's view that although planning is necessarily a local issue, the assessment of evidence related to possible health concerns associated with exposures to radio frequency fields from base stations is best dealt with nationally. The role of the planning system is to assist local communities in determining the best location for telecommunications developments. We believe that that can be achieved only through effective local consultation processes. That is why the Government will continue to consider local consultation as being of the utmost importance.

In conclusion, I reassure hon. Members that the Government remain committed to ensuring that the essential infrastructure for modern telecommunications systems is developed sensitively, with environmental impact kept to a minimum, and with proper discussion with local communities. Therefore, we continue to listen to public and parliamentary concerns, and to consider the way forward.

It is always a delight to see you in the Chair, Mr. Olner, and may I begin by saying that it is a great honour to have the opportunity to appear in Westminster Hall before you? I would also like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister. It is very exciting to see lots of women Ministers, but seeing nice, talented and charming Ministers is an added bonus.

No society anywhere in the world can operate on the exploitation of labour that is poorer and less free and able to defend its interests than labour from the host nation. As a thriving commercial country that is full of the stimulation of exciting new jobs and frequently needs the support of people who want to do the jobs that are perhaps more routine and boring, we are an ideal country to welcome overseas workers. Of course, that is the case as long as we apply our own standards and make it clear to those who come to work in this country that they are protected and will not be part of an almost invisible, exploited group of workers.

Such people have the right to expect fairness of treatment, and certainly the protection of their interests. As a nation that has evolved a sense of fair treatment and equality for so long, it would be appalling if we were found to be treating those who come to our shores legitimately to seek work in an unacceptable and reprehensible manner.

I have become aware of a situation that I think is probably not unique. In fact, the more work I have done, the more it has occurred to me that the same situation is arising throughout the United Kingdom, whereby British employers—I emphasise the word "British"—are seeking to employ mostly immigrant workers in conditions that are sometimes frankly reprehensible. I am indebted to the Library, which has supplied me with detail about the conduct of employment agencies and the laws under which they operate. On reading the information, some of which has also been supplied to me by trade unions, it is extraordinary to see how many laws and protections are apparently in place to ensure that we cannot exploit workers.

It is extraordinary in the 21st century that people can still be cheated of the minimum wage. There are still people operating in the agriculture and transport sectors who are apparently not protected by the rights that are genuinely enjoyed by British workers and which we would expect to be the norm. In some instances, we would expect those rights to be the absolute ground base. However, that lack of protection is happening in spite of the fact that we have not only excellent controls on paper over the work of employment agencies, but in some instances, codes of conduct that are meant to control the employment of workers in industries such as agriculture.

When we read those codes of conduct and see the large firms that have signed up to them and the work that was done by the National Farmers Union and the Transport and General Workers Union to reach a workable code of conduct that can be defended—an example of what we ought to be doing in many instances—we can only wonder at the gap between the structure that we think is in place and the reality for those who come to this country to work.

Why is this a matter of concern to me? It should be a matter of concern to all trade unionists, and I have been in a trade union since I was 16. Moreover, it ought to be of concern to every member of the United Kingdom. I am horrified to learn that there have been developments during the past few years that to me are wholly indefensible. Some British employment agencies, faced with the restrictions of existing British law, seem to have found ways of sailing astonishingly close to the wind. Members will recognise that as a technique not unknown to those who wish to consider only their own commercial interests, but it becomes horrifying when large numbers of people are involved.

For example, many employment agencies advertise in nations that have newly joined the European Union. That is perfectly legitimate, and as long as those agencies stick to the employment laws, no one can possibly criticise them. What appears to have happened is rather different. Workers are being encouraged to come to the UK, where they are told there will be constant work. Perhaps the word "constant" is an overstatement; they are told there will be steady amounts of employment. They are encouraged in some instances to pay large sums towards their transport.

Such workers then come here and sign contracts, sometimes in languages that they do not understand. They are told that their accommodation, transport and employment will all be taken care of. In some instances, they are put into accommodation that is grossly overcrowded and that does not offer the level of care that would be expected as a very minimum. They are offered work. They do not speak the language of the country. They do not know their rights and they are unable to access that information.

Those people go to work in various different types of jobs. Unfortunately, this issue is not restricted to one type of industry. As far as I can see, people are being exploited across large numbers of different types of jobs: distribution, agriculture and even, to my horror, long-distance driving. If there is one idea that frightens me, it is not a lorry driver who does not know how to handle the machine that he is asked to drive, but one who does not understand the rules of road safety that apply to the United Kingdom and cannot read the road signs. That matter should give the Department for Transport some thought. Polish long-distance lorry drivers are taking out vehicles on our roads in large numbers and although they may be perfectly adept at driving, the fact that they are not aware of the conditions in this country and not, in many instances, even capable of reading warning signs or the information on the gantries of motorways must constitute a hazard and the Department should consider that very closely.

The situation is far worse, however. Many of those workers, who have paid to come here, paid for accommodation and been informed that they will have jobs, discover that whatever the job—in many instances, it is extraordinarily lowly paid—there are large numbers of deductions from the amounts that are paid to them on a number of grounds. Their passports are confiscated. In many instances, they are kept apart from the people of the area so that they are unable to seek support. There is also the issue of what happens if for any reason their employment ceases. For example, in the case of agricultural workers, people have frequently been driven to an agricultural job and told when they arrive that it is not available. They have then been driven back again and charged for the transport even though they have not received any payment. Let us remember that these people are not operating with large cheque books and nice comfortable buffer zones in a working current account; in many instances, they are penniless, do not speak the language or understand the conditions, and are being exploited.

The worrying thing is that there is evidence of a consistent policy of deliberate isolation. I do not know whether the Department for Trade and Industry is aware of that or capable of getting beyond it. If there is such a policy, it explains a great many things. I discovered during the course of my research that the Department puts out useful leaflets on the website in Portuguese and Polish, which I have printed off and am endeavouring to get to the people concerned. However, for someone coming to this country for the first time who does not have access to a computer and does not know how to access Government services, putting those leaflets on the website is a limited facility, although it is important.

So what happens then? Any suggestion by any of the workers concerned that they dispute the terms and conditions of the work, the terms and conditions under which they are living or, even worse, the circumstances in which they find themselves if for any reason they cannot maintain constant employment, is met with this suggestion: "Well, you can go out on the street." In fact, that is happening in increasing numbers. The local authority then finds itself in an extraordinary situation. These are workers who should not have any claim on the support system that operates in the United Kingdom. They are not entitled to any kind of benefit, housing or social care. Yet, what is the alternative?

In my constituency, we are beginning to see that hidden group of people contributing to very real problems. If people are thrown out on to the street hungry, with no money, no likelihood of employment and no command of the English language, they will inevitably resort to methods that most of us would find reprehensible. There has been a little crime wave due not only to some petty difficulties where people are stealing food, but to some greater instances involving a number of quite serious cases, some of which cannot be discussed because they are still going through the courts. The homelessness problem is becoming real.

As far as one can see, none of the workers is ever screened. There is a mechanism for applying to the home country for information about them, but it is difficult to access, and many of the employment agencies are not concerned about carrying out detailed checks. They should be, but they are not. The respectable agencies may do so, but they can find it difficult. I have read in the information that has been provided to me about the machinery through which one accesses somebody else's criminal record system, and it makes the British version look almost uncomplicated.

The reality is that people come into this country, and no one checks their ability to work or their criminal past, and no one asks them about their background. These people are being employed in the food industry, including in catering, and in long-distance lorry driving. In some cases, it has been the individual action of employers in seeking to solve their workers' practical difficulties that has led to a clear statement of such extraordinary arrangements.

The confiscation of passports is clearly forbidden. In all the rules that one reads about employment agencies, it is clear that they have a responsibility to check, to record and to assure themselves that information is precise, but that they have no right to take people's passports and hold them. If there is a dispute between the workers whose passports have been taken by the agency and the employer, that group of people can no longer get work; they will have no papers, no way of proving their status and no way of asking for assistance. Even if other employers are prepared to employ them, they cannot do so.

The trade unions have increasingly sought to assist such workers. After all, it is in no one's interest for a great pool of unemployed workers to be moved from place to place clandestinely and without any support. The unions have been rebuffed, however, and in many instances they have been physically refused access to the groups of workers concerned. The unions have found it extraordinarily difficult to get over the information about minimum wages, deductions and the rights of the workers concerned.

Even worse, many of these workers are becoming not only homeless but a real, practical difficulty, because of the way in which British employment agencies and British employers treat them. The Salvation Army offers these people food parcels when they are starving, and I understand that it has found it increasingly difficult to do so because of various unacceptable responses from many people connected with employment agencies. The local council is faced with a number of people whom it cannot assist. It has no right to repatriate people, even if that is what they want, and neither does it have access to money or any way of checking the circumstances of the people who present themselves. Workers are being brought here in large numbers by recruitment agencies, supposedly on the basis of local employment needs. The agencies are recruiting energetically in Poland, Latvia and the former Czechoslovakia. They are exploiting these people, both as landlords and as employment agencies. There has been a rise in shoplifting and in the number of assaults. Increasingly, as I said, there is a problem with some of the driving rules.

The really frightening thing, however, is the conscious policy of isolation that some of the employment agencies are adopting. If one is recruiting, employing, housing and controlling a group of workers, one must be extraordinarily careful that it is clear where the lines of demarcation lie. I have with me wage slips that make it clear that people were offered £300 for two weeks' work, but that they received £40 at the end of that period. That is not acceptable in this country. No one would go along with it. To be fair, the employers concerned are not automatically acquiescent. Many of them need workers and are not aware of the savagery with which many people are being treated.

The local authority has noted an increase in begging on the streets. It knows that no local emergency accommodation is available. We have one YMCA centre, which does a fantastic job for those in the age range of 16 to 25, but it is always over-subscribed. There are no resources to help any of the migrant workers. Not only is no assistance offered to them individually, but there is no way of getting translation and interpretation services to them. There is a growth of resentment in the host population, both in the workplace and in the areas in which these people are dumped, sometimes 50 to a house. The issue is already creating real problems with overcrowding.

We need to consider not just the legislation regarding the acceptance of migrant workers, but the behaviour of the employment agencies. We need to discipline those agencies. We need to enforce the laws. It is all very well sitting back comfortably and saying, "We have not only suitable laws, but codes of conduct", but there is a problem if we are not enforcing those laws. That is indeed what is happening. We need legislation to identify the role and responsibility of the recruitment agencies that bring in workers. We need to integrate the workers into our communities, and we need to be certain that the group in question, which consists not of asylum seekers or refugees, but of people who want to return to their country of origin when they have sufficient money, is not exploited in conditions that amount almost to slavery.

I ask the Government a number of questions. We cannot have employment agencies deliberately exploiting workers. It must be possible to split the role of those who recruit, supply and house such workers. I have made rough calculations and I think that some of the employment agencies walk away with £600 or £700 a week in cash from the workers. We are not talking about small amounts. Some of the agencies that are simultaneously providing housing are in charge of hundreds of houses in Cheshire and Staffordshire. We need to consider how we deal with the individual problems. I am not suggesting that we should have a fund to repatriate people to their own countries. That is not the right approach. Those who deliberately exploit existing legislation, and gaps in it, should be forced to pay.

We need multilingual social workers. In my area alone, workers speaking at least three or four eastern European languages need assistance. We also need to insist that the agencies must have access to those people. If people are not only not given much money but are escorted forwards and backwards to the local shops so that they cannot talk to local people or get in touch with anyone who might assist them, it could lead to an enormously dangerous situation. I believe that that is happening in my constituency and elsewhere.

I have a great deal more detail, but I will not bother the Minister with it today. She has got the burden of my argument, which is that no civilised country can operate by exploiting large numbers of workers. The Romans could not do so, and the French revolution grew out of precisely such a savage exploitation of one group of workers by another, and they had nationality in common. We have the beginning of an enormous social problem. The benefit of employing workers from overseas should be not only that we offer support, money and opportunities, but that we are able to demonstrate that we are a civilised society and that people are not expected to work as they might have done in the early 19th century.

Unless our laws are enforced, they are not a great deal of help. The best bit of paper is not a defence against someone who refuses to give a person information or protection, or to ensure that that person is being treated in any way other than very harshly. The United Kingdom does not want to develop that reputation. That is not a United Kingdom that a Labour Government want to present to the world, and it is not a situation that I would ever find acceptable.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on an excellent opening speech. She has covered many of the issues that I had intended to mention in this important debate.

I come from Scotland, a country that has sent people out around the world over many years. It is important that now, when Scotland has a falling population, we should look at what we are doing to recruit from overseas. It has an impact, not only here but in those countries, and it is sometimes a devastating one. We take key workers from areas such as the health service when, at the same time, the Department for International Development is supporting the public sectors in those countries.

The Government must address a number of serious issues. They must address exploitation and what is happening in this country: in some occupations we would think it utterly unbearable that people should have to live and work under certain terms and conditions. What are we doing to stop that happening? How will we deal with those recruitment agencies—although most agencies are not causing the problem—that bring people into this country under dangerous conditions, low pay and unacceptable standards of employment?

There can be benefits for employees and employers. In many areas, such as the building industry in cities such as London and Edinburgh, there are real shortages of skills. However, it does nobody any good to have people working in those industries who are not aware of the relevant rules and regulations—in the same way, as mentioned earlier, as lorry drivers can be unaware of the rules and regulations of the highway. If plumbers and gas fitters are not aware of the safety concerns over here, people could lose their lives; not only those doing the work, but those occupying those houses where the gas installations are not up to UK standards. A leak occurring at a later date could cause death or destruction.

I do not need to cover again several issues that have already been highlighted, but I shall mention the problems of recruiting and retaining staff in this country's health service. It causes real trouble in other countries when we use employment agencies to recruit staff from abroad. However, there are examples of good practice. I have seen at first hand the work of a partnership with the New Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, which has sent midwives to Malawi to help train nurses and bring them up to a higher level of expertise.

At the same time, there are qualified nurses in care homes in this country. Recently, I encountered at first hand a qualified doctor who was not able to gain employment here because of different standards and qualifications and the need to be registered. Sometimes, as well as people from other countries being exploited, people in this country are not able to use their skills fully. With all due respect to the excellent work that many care workers do, it is not necessary to have qualified nurses and even doctors doing such jobs.

Unionisation has been mentioned, and the important role that unions can play in dealing with pay, conditions and safety issues. Another area where recruitment takes place, although not through official channels, is among women who end up working in the sex industry in this country. That is an expanding trade. Such women are probably the most vulnerable people: their passports are removed, they work in outrageous conditions and they are exploited through the threat that they could be thrown out of the country, or on to the streets, if they do not do what their employers—nothing other than pimps—tell them to do. The Government must ensure that such women are protected. I would like to hear from the Minister what is being done for that most vulnerable section of society.

As I said, many skills can be gained by recruiting people into this country, but there are many risks. I would like the Minister to discuss the impact that some of our recruitment has on the world's poorest people and countries. As the hon. Lady gave an excellent introduction, I have kept my remarks fairly brief. My last point is that it is all very well having rules and regulations, but there must be action at all levels to enforce them. What are the Government doing to enforce the regulations? We should accept nothing less than thorough, strong enforcement.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on starting an important debate on a significant topic that will get more and more attention as time goes on.

Like her, I started with a constituency interest. Southport traditionally has had many casual workers in the fairgrounds, in the tourist industry, to some extent in the care industry and, in the outlying areas, in the agricultural environment. The constituency has high employment at present and most people, bar a small minority, seem to be able to acquire the jobs that they seek. Therefore, it did not at first seem to be a major issue if, for example, the people working at Pleasureland were no longer college drop-outs, as was the case in the past, but Lithuanians or whatever. However, I have grown increasingly concerned about the matter.

My concerns focus on much the same issues as mentioned by the hon. Lady. Housing is a big problem. The abuse of tenants in houses in multiple occupation by agencies, or landlords who provide some kind of back-up for the agencies, is notorious. It is difficult for a local authority to address the issue. Often, by the time it gets all the information that it needs to take action, the tenants of the house have moved on and a different set of people live there. That is quite apart from communication difficulties that the council may have with people for whom English is not the first language.

I have been concerned with the minority of cases in which the people working for the agency are not there legitimately, but have entered the country via some illegal route. I have no particular information about my constituency, but I know that for some appreciable time a very well-known recruitment agency in Liverpool was accepting people whose identity was clearly forged—it was very relaxed about doing so until it was detected.

I am concerned, too, that the records of tax that such agencies might or might not pay on behalf of their workers are not in as good order as they might be. One way to bring the agencies to order, and to ensure that what they do is legitimate and above board, would be for the Inland Revenue to play a greater role in getting to grips with their affairs.

Lastly, I am concerned about information that has reached me to the effect that some of those who facilitate the entry of workers into the country are borderline criminal. In some cases, they are not located in this country; one of the major importers of labour in my area is based in Mauritius. That happens against the background of a compliant attitude by more responsible economic bodies. Most agencies, when challenged—for example, on whether the people working for them ought to be in the country, and have proper legal access—are able to point to an ID card that has been shown to them at some point. To be fair, there are some very convincing ID cards about. Brazilians habitually walk around with Portuguese ID cards that are very difficult to differentiate from the genuine ones. My point is that there is a kind of complicity—people who are offered cheap labour are prepared to be easily satisfied that that labour is what it appears to be.

In my constituency, reputable companies act as agencies. I know that they have asked the Government about matters such as gangmaster legislation. They want to put themselves on a thoroughly legal basis. However, there are other, more shadowy, organisations. A few months ago, I spoke to a lady from Namibia. She had arrived in this country, having paid £2,000 for the privilege, and was told that she had a job with a reputable agency. However, when she turned up there she found out that it had never heard of her and did not employ people from Namibia, so she was stranded. She became dependent, in the first instance, on the charity of a local church—very much as described by the hon. Lady. On the back of that constituency experience, I have become a strong supporter of gangmaster legislation.

The awful precedent of the Morecambe disaster occurred up the road from us in Southport, so I am very keen for the legislation to have real teeth. I inquired a few weeks ago as to how many employment agencies—or other firms—had been prosecuted for employing overseas labour illegally. The figure for 2003 was two. On the same day, the Government made announcements about what they would do to such miscreant economic entities, and that sounded great. However, one can sound great and not do very much, and the hon. Lady and I are calling for action. There is a culture of complicity. A lot of people are involved in irregular activity—it is not universally irregular, but aspects of it give cause for concern.

There are landlords who are happy to co-operate with the agencies and daily breach most of the regulations that apply under the various housing Acts. Some firms that pack vegetables and so on do not inquire too deeply into what is going on. They do not strive too hard to put all their insurance details in place, or to make provision for people when they lay them off. The scenarios that the hon. Lady described, in which people are casually laid off by organisations when there is a blip in demand, reminded me of the sort of industrial circumstances that applied in rural areas during the industrial revolution, and in the early part of the United States' history. Older Members will recall films such as Marlon Brando's "On the Waterfront", in which people lined up on some days to get work and money, but on other days did not. That is very much the situation in many constituencies up and down the country, except that people there are more dislocated from society. Ultimately, the responsibility lies not only with producers, but with some retailers. It behoves companies such as Tesco, Sainsbury's and Waitrose to inquire carefully.

I am sorry to interrupt; it is cheating a bit when I made such a long speech, but I must say that an excellent code of conduct has been agreed by big retailers, the NFU, the Transport and General Workers Union and, presumably, by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. It is extraordinary. All that the big retailers have to do is to apply the code of conduct that they supported.

That is precisely the case. Most of the right noises have been made and the right codes of conduct published, but not all of us are satisfied that people apply them. There is almost a culture of not asking too many questions.

The agency model takes a lot of pressure off many people. The issue came at me from a different direction when I spoke to someone from the building trade, who told me that most people who work on building sites are not working for big builders such as the McAlpines, but are agency staff. I asked why, and he pointed out that there is an escalating number of accidents in the building industry and that, as far as the main builders are concerned, if workers work for agencies rather than for them, health and safety legislation sits more loosely on them. I encountered one case in which, in order to get agency employment on a building site, workers were encouraged to take shares in the agency. That peculiar device created special difficulties when the workers took umbrage against the agency because of some accident, or some site that had not been properly supervised, and found themselves suing the company in which they had shares.

There is a culture of complicity. The Government cannot ignore this issue. There is a lot of exploitation in which people who come here to work and who expect a good day's work for a good day's pay find that a lot of the good day's pay is missing when they examine their finances at the end of the week and find out how much rent they have to pay. Outsourcing, as we call it, is increasingly popular. Indeed, Departments are driven to do it right, left and centre. That makes it easier to fall into a culture in which the more dubious agencies find ways into the economic system to their great profit.

I have one more example to give the Chamber. Liverpool John Lennon airport has all sorts of security requirements. Naturally, it wants to get security for the best price, so it outsources. A few months ago, it outsourced to a perfectly reputable security company, which works for various blue-chip firms, but the people who were employed turned out to be illegal immigrants who nobody could put clear names to. That can happen when outsourcing and agency working become more common and when the Government take their eye off this particular ball. As I said at the start, the hon. Lady has drawn attention to a major problem that is going to get bigger.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on securing a debate on this important, sensitive and complicated subject. In her opening remarks, she set out eloquently and in some detail some of the wide-ranging social problems that can result from this issue, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) and for Southport (Dr. Pugh), whom I also congratulate on their remarks.

I start by making a fundamental background point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southport underlined. This problem is likely to grow in the years to come, as we need migrant workers in this country, as in many other western countries, for the economy. That adds to the moral imperative, which the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich has been describing, to treat them properly. We must also ensure that we do not asset-strip developing countries of workers from particular professions, such as those in the health care sector, and benefit from those professionals while their countries cannot fully staff or accommodate their own health services as a result.

The demography of this country is changing. People are living longer, the birth rate is lower and there are fewer economically active people, which is another reason for needing more and more migrant workers in the future. Globalisation and the enlargement of the European Union, which is likely to be enlarged again, are making migration much easier, as are the many skills shortages in our country.

The United Kingdom will need migrant workers to work in construction and many other sectors, some of which have been mentioned, to maintain our wealth and prosperity. That need is particularly pressing in Scotland, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West would agree, where the population is both falling and ageing. It has fallen by some 20,000 in the past 10 years alone, and it continues to fall, which is why the Scottish Executive have been promoting the fresh talent initiative to try to attract more migrant workers to Scotland to fill some of the gaps in the economy. Scotland has a net migration of young people to the rest of the UK. London, as my hon. Friends will doubtless know, is a particular beneficiary of Scots migrating from Scotland to work south of the border. However, the fresh talent initiative is being frustrated in some cases by the increasingly strict Home Office rules, and is unlikely to meet its objectives as a result.

This problem may be even more acute in my constituency, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, which is in the heart of the highlands and islands. Its population is even older than in the rest of Scotland. There has been a net migration of people over many decades, even centuries, and now Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the economic development agency for the north of Scotland, has set a target of increasing the population of our region by 15 per cent. in the next 20 years. That is a very ambitious target, which I fully support, but it will be achieved only by attracting migrant workers from overseas as well as from the rest of the UK.

The need for migrant workers in different sectors of the economy is obvious. The construction sector offers clear examples of that. No doubt hon. Members will have read the report in yesterday's Financial Times about a trip to Poland, organised by Aberdeen city council and involving construction businesses from Aberdeen, to build relations with Poland and to work with employment agencies to bring construction workers to Scotland, because there are simply not enough people in Scotland and the rest of the UK to carry out the work that needs to be done in many construction trades. There has been a substantial increase in house building in many areas in the UK, and the need for more affordable housing will create even greater demand for skilled people in that sector.

The care home sector and seasonal employment have also been mentioned. I was told by a party colleague, who is a Member of the Scottish Parliament, that construction of the Scottish Parliament building—a matter that was not without controversy—involved workers of 14 nationalities. That highlights the issue.

While I was preparing for this debate, employers in my constituency drew to my attention incentives or the lack of them for people from the UK to take up certain jobs in certain sectors. We recently had a debate on tax credits and the major problems in the tax credit system. People in this country who might be attracted to take employment in seasonal sectors, where incomes fluctuate and are unpredictable, are discouraged by the operation of the tax credit system because the clawback of overpaid tax credits could lead to their incomes fluctuating even more. Again, that puts pressure on employers to seek migrant workers because they cannot find people in this country to do those jobs. In Aviemore, which is a tourist centre in my constituency, that is a serious issue for restaurants and other tourism businesses.

The fundamental question raised by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich is how to ensure that the migrant workers whom we need in this country are treated properly when they come here. I agree with her that it is principally a matter of enforcement. We have heard a lot about the social consequences of exploited workers being pushed out on to the streets, homeless and hungry, which can give rise to crime and disorder issues, such as increased shoplifting, which was mentioned, and so on.

We have also heard about the mistreatment that many employment agencies get away with, such as paying less than the national minimum wage. Some hon. Members may have read the report by Citizens Advice on exploitation of migrant workers. It described cases of people not being paid at all. Overseas students were invited to do cleaning jobs to supplement their income while at university, but their pay was regularly deferred and they eventually left because they were not paid. They were working for nothing, which is the most grotesque form of exploitation. We have heard of many forms of exploitation today, including the removal of passports.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southport that there is a culture of complicity, which must be addressed, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about what steps can be taken to deal with it. As Citizens Advice said, migrant workers are often the most vulnerable to exploitation in our society. A number of issues must be addressed to make people more aware of their employment rights, their right to the minimum wage and what may be deducted from their pay packets. Legislation limits the deductions that can be made from wages for accommodation and so on.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the present problem will increase under the Government's plans for slimming down the civil service? Those in the Inland Revenue are particularly angry that a number of their jobs will go. One way of tackling the problems to which he referred is to ensure that tax, national insurance and so on are paid. With fewer staff in the Inland Revenue, that will become a bigger problem rather than a problem that can be dealt with.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree that the Inland Revenue has a role to play in using the information that is has to ensure that people are being paid properly. He mentioned one of the consequences of slimming down, and I hope that the Minister will address that issue.

It is also the case that many migrant workers are afraid to complain. Although workers who are being exploited can turn to mechanisms within the law, such as employment tribunals and so on, their practical knowledge is that such a major and time-consuming step could result in their dismissal, which could mean, as my hon. Friends said, that they become destitute on the streets. As a result, many of those who are being exploited—even those who know that they are being exploited and that their treatment is outside the law—are unlikely to take the steps currently available to them.

The Minister will be aware that the Citizens Advice report proposed the establishment of a cross-departmental task force on fair employment to consider a broad range of enforcement issues. I would be most interested to hear from her whether the Government will take up that suggestion.

As we have heard, there are both good and bad employment agencies. One of the difficult questions raised by employers in my constituency, however, is how employers and employees can tell the difference between them. I would be interested to hear what steps have been taken to regulate and monitor employment agencies. Employers who, naturally enough, have a demand or desire to recruit workers from overseas should be able to do so in the knowledge that the agency is reputable and not involved in crime, as in the example described by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport. It is true that some employers groups, such as the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, are aware of the need to take account of the social, moral and cultural responsibilities of taking on foreign workers, but not all of them are.

The other issue that needs to be addressed is the asset-stripping of third world countries. It is not ethical for the United Kingdom to drain third world countries of workers in key sectors such as health care. Overseas staff are a valuable asset to our health service, but they must not be exploited in order to cover up our failure to generate sufficient professionals—nurses, doctors and so on. Our long-term dependency on overseas clinicians must be tackled for the sake not only of the countries from which they are being recruited, but of the sustainability of the national health service. Again, I would be interested to hear from the Minister what steps the Government intend to take, and in particular whether they will take advantage of our presidency of G8 to work towards an international agreement to limit the number of nurses and doctors being recruited from vulnerable countries.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is looking at the clock, just as I am.

Thank you, Mr. Olner.

Given our need for them, migrant workers should be valued and not exploited. We need them for economic reasons, and we therefore have a moral responsibility to treat them properly. Again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich on securing this important debate.

I join in the general congratulations to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on securing what has turned out to be a very important debate. The hon. Lady began by congratulating the Minister. I have to say that the Opposition found the Minister's appointment rather good news. She deserves her salary; we just wish she were getting it. No doubt, it will only be a matter of time.

The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich set out some worrying concerns, but we should set this debate in the context of the fact that very far from all employers or employment agencies behave in the way that she described. Of course, she did not suggest that all of them did so, but it is difficult to tell how many do.

There are many reasons why it should be easy to cross from country to country to better oneself, obtain work and provide one's services. It is a basic tenet of free trade that one ought to be able to better oneself and move to where the global economy requires. Individuals benefit by moving from country to country selling their labour, and they are offered the chance to improve their professional and language skills. The country that receives the skills of such people benefit too, because they provide a resource that the domestic market cannot at that time fulfil.

For example, medical training takes a minimum of eight years, and we need more doctors and nurses. We face a shortage now, and the only way we can fulfil that demand is by offering medical posts to overseas staff. That creates the problem of asset-stripping of other countries, which hon. Members have mentioned, but it also gives people who come to this country from overseas the opportunity to return later, better trained, to the countries from which they came and help out the health economy there.

It is not by any means all employment agencies that behave in the way that the hon. Lady described, but to the extent that some do so—there is no doubt that some behave extremely badly—such behaviour is completely unacceptable. The UK needs to operate, and does operate, by certain basic principles, not because it is in our interests to do so, but because we think that it is right and humane. The principles are those of openness, keeping to what we say, standing by our contracts and keeping to the rule of law. The prevention of exploitation is a key part of that, as are basic minimum standards of treatment. We are talking not about huge rafts of regulation, but about basic minimum standards.

The hon. Lady drew attention to some real problems. I shall not go through them, because she did that so well herself, but I suspect that she could not say all that she might have said, because of the problem that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) raised. Many people who are being exploited in the way that she set out are frightened of approaching the authorities to say what is wrong, even if they know how to do so in a foreign language—and too often they do not know. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that we often may not know how big the problem is, because of the fear and isolation to which the hon. Lady referred. When hon. Members say that there is a lot of exploitation, I am afraid that I must reply that we simply do not know how much.

The hon. Lady referred to an under-culture of isolated workers who are unable to seek the help of the codes that we have happily passed in Parliament. That problem affects not only the sectors that she mentioned, but the health sector, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) said. The recruitment of nursing staff has been mentioned. Nurses must be registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council to work in the UK. Conversion training is often required for registration, and it is undertaken on a student visa rather than a full work permit.

I apologising for interrupting. It is clear that private hospitals in this country exploit nurses in an unacceptable way, and I know that the Royal College of Nursing is very concerned about that.

I was about to come to that point, but the hon. Lady is right to raise it. Often, places on national health service conversion courses are not available. That means that people coming for nursing training in this country must either accept low-paid work or work in private and independent health care. The exploitation that can exist on private conversion courses—of course, it does not happen in all cases—is worrying.

The worry about the retention of passports can be made worse if employment agencies have not submitted to the Home Office the work permit papers that they ought to have submitted. The Government have produced a code of practice for health workers that will come into effect in December this year. It sounds as though that will be good news, but it requires the enforcement that the hon. Lady talked about.

I will not go on. As the hon. Lady said, we need to insist that agencies must have access to the people who are being exploited, but in order to have that access, they need to be aware that exploitation is going on in a particular sector or among particular people. It is difficult for anyone to address that problem.

This is a civilised country, but we need to do constant work to ensure that it remains as civilised as it is. The hon. Lady raised some extremely important questions, and we all look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on her choice of subject for today's debate and on her powerful speech. I thank her for her kind comments at the start of the debate. They are all the more appreciated because she is, rightly, a well-respected parliamentarian. I also thank the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) for his kind comments. There have been many thoughtful and interesting contributions, and I shall try to address as many of the points raised by hon. Members as I can.

The Government condemn any abuse or mistreatment of workers, whether they are UK nationals or migrant workers. We take such issues seriously and will continue to mobilise the resources of the various enforcement agencies that have been established to tackle such illegal practices.

It is important to place on record what we do to protect agency temporary workers. Having done that, I will answer the points that hon. Members raised. The Government acknowledge the important role that employment agencies and the workers whom they supply have to play in the labour market. However, it is important that employers and everybody operating in the industry accepts that they have an obligation to those who use their services, whether their client is an individual worker or a multinational corporation. The Government are keen to ensure that all workers, including agency temporary workers, have appropriate protections, yet we have found that, as has been said, some workers—they are often migrant workers—do not realise what rights they have.

As my hon. Friend said, the Government were aware of that difficulty, and so we took early action. We considered it particularly important to get information to potential work seekers before they left their country. We were aware, in particular, that some European Union accession country nationals were at risk of being exploited by their fellow citizens.

That is why, last year, we offered to work with all new member state Governments to help ensure that their nationals were informed of the implications of working in the UK, including access to statutory employment rights, before they left their home country. We suggested to those Governments that we jointly prepare bilingual "Know before you go" leaflets. I have a couple of examples with me, if any hon. Members would like to look at them after the debate. The leaflets give advice on questions to ask before leaving a country and on the legal protections offered to workers, including agency workers. To date, we have produced leaflets in partnership with the Polish and the Lithuanian Governments, who agreed with us about the need to produce them, and we are waiting to hear from a number of other interested member states. Those leaflets follow a similar leaflet that we produced in partnership with the Portuguese Government, to which my hon. Friend referred, and they have benefited from input from trade unions, the TUC, the CBI and other stakeholders.

We have taken steps to ensure that the bilingual leaflets are made available in informal locations. My hon. Friend rightly raised the issue of how people access the information. For example, the leaflets are available in locations such as Portuguese delicatessens, Polish shops, newsagents frequented by migrants, health centres and so on, so that we can ensure that they reach people who may be fearful. We have also distributed them to all citizens advice bureaux in the UK.

Agency temporary workers are by no means unprotected in the UK. They have access to core employment rights and statutory social security benefits, such as statutory sick pay. Since coming to office, the Government have sought to ensure that all workers receive the minimum standards of pay and conditions. Since 1997, we have significantly improved protections for agency workers. They are entitled to the national minimum wage, and they have the right to four weeks' paid holiday. The minimum wage makes no distinction between legal workers. Everyone working legally in the UK is entitled to it, regardless of how long or short their stay may be. It does not matter whether their employer is based in the United Kingdom or in another country. Moreover, a range of other protections, including those under sex, race and disability discrimination legislation, also apply to agency workers.

Legal migrant workers are protected by the same employment rights as those covering UK nationals, and all migrant workers, irrespective of their status, are protected by UK health and safety legislation. The immigration and nationality department of the Home Office is responsible for detecting and apprehending illegal migrant workers and for taking action against those responsible for employing them.

The Government have done a great deal in recent years to put in place a comprehensive package of employment rights to make sure that people are treated properly in the workplace. It is essential that both workers and employers understand their rights and obligations, and that employment rights actually work in practice, enabling people to maximise their potential in the workplace. In particular, it is important to be aware of the risks facing the most vulnerable workers, who may include those with low skills and little or no spoken English.

The denial of the rights of such workers risks undermining the wages and working conditions of millions of other people. The vast majority of decent, law-abiding employers risk being undermined by unfair competition from the small minority of employers who deliberately seek to avoid their obligations. My hon. Friend was right to say that in a civilised country it is wrong to exploit people. It is also clearly not in anybody's interest to do so.

As part of our work to combat those problems, we are considering how we can help vulnerable workers through better access to skills and training, enabling them to progress out of low-paid jobs, and through more effective enforcement targeted at unscrupulous employers who set out deliberately to take advantage of the vulnerable.

Those are good intentions, and I applaud the Government on what they are endeavouring to do, but can the Minister cite any evidence that the Government have actually done a great deal? Are there any statistics about how many employers have been taken to court by the Government? That would show us that they are taking the matter seriously in terms not only of rhetoric, but of action on the ground.

If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall come to that point. I picked it up from his speech earlier.

The UK has a clear need for migrant workers, because of our historically low unemployment coupled with rising vacancies in the labour market. There are currently more than 600,000 vacancies, owing to a number of economic factors, including demographic changes, which have seen an increasing amount of people retiring as the working population decreases. Agency work pays a key role in achieving labour market flexibility, helping companies to deal with peaks and troughs in demand and enabling individuals who do not want a permanent job, for whatever reason, to participate in the labour market. Agency temporary work can act as a stepping stone to permanent employment. About 40 per cent. of UK agency workers find non-agency jobs within a year of starting agency work, and 36 per cent. were outsiders—unemployed starters, or other non-participants—before starting agency work.

In Great Britain, the private recruitment industry is regulated by specific legislation that sets out standards for employment agency behaviour. The Employment Agencies Act 1973 and associated regulations, which were completely overhauled only last year, set those standards for the conduct of the industry, and the DTI's employment agency standards inspectorate is responsible for enforcing the legislation. The inspectorate follows up every relevant complaint that it receives that indicates a possible breach of the legislation. The inspectors investigate employment agencies by visiting their premises to inspect their records and documents, and they also undertake targeted visits in areas where infractions are considered most likely to occur.

On a specific point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander), one of three conditions must be met if a deduction from any worker's pay is to be lawful. The deduction must be required or authorised by legislation or by the worker's contract, provided that the worker has been given a written copy of the relevant terms or a written explanation of them, before the deduction is made, or the worker must have consented in writing to the deduction before it is made.

No benefits in kind except accommodation can be counted towards minimum wage pay, but there is a limit on the amount that an employer who is providing accommodation can count towards minimum wage pay. The daily accommodation offset is currently set at a daily rate of £3.75, which the employer makes for each day of accommodation. It is not intended as a commercial valuation, but is designed to protect workers from unreasonable accommodation charges.

As to confiscation of passports, an individual's passport belongs to the national Government and an employer should not keep hold of it, although it may be necessary to look at it for various reasons. In holding on to the passport, the employer might be guilty of an offence under the Theft Act 1968.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) referred to the issue of sex workers. In the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, we introduced a new criminal offence of trafficking for the purposes of exploitation, including forced labour, under which sex workers would be included. That is punishable on conviction by a maximum of 14 years' imprisonment.

I have been puzzling over what the Minister just said about passports. Presumably, an offence under the Theft Act would require an intention permanently to deprive, and it would be difficult to prove that any employer intended permanently to deprive somebody of their passport. Is there or should there be any offence of holding the passport of another person with the intention of applying pressure to that person?

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point of legal detail. I do not have the answer to that question, although I may do shortly. That was quick. I am informed that the Identity Cards Bill will provide added powers on that point. Perhaps that will persuade him of the way in which he should cast his vote later today on Second Reading of the Bill.

On enforcement, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) and underlay all the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, who called the debate, we do not hesitate to prosecute where appropriate, but we do so only as a last resort. In the overwhelming majority of cases in which our inspectors discover breaches of the legislation, they find that, on being made aware of those infractions, companies agree to change their procedures and/or pay the money owed to the worker. Last year, the DTI undertook about 1,000 inspections of agencies and recovered more than £20,000 in wages that had been illegally withheld from workers. It is unlikely that those workers would have recovered that money by other means.

We are also looking at projects such as the joint workplace enforcement pilot—a snappy title. The pilot will involve an examination of the potential for intelligence sharing and closer co-ordinated working among Departments to tackle a range of issues relating to illegal working, for the purposes of criminal investigations or proceedings.

I certainly would not dispute my hon. Friend's description of the pilot's title as extraordinarily snappy. The reality is that employment agencies will simply go one step at a time. When I complained about people signing contracts in a language that they did not understand, the agencies used Government money to translate them. Although one particular point was dealt with, the people whom we are discussing have no intention of complying with the law, because they can walk away with large sums from each worker.

My hon. Friend raises important issues, and the pilot will try to address some of them by building a thorough understanding of all the problems associated with illegal working in the area under investigation. The debate has been helpful in raising a range of such issues, and we shall try to identify the obstacles to effective enforcement or compliance. That will test the hypothesis that a joint team focusing on enforcement could have a more significant impact on routinely non-compliant employers than existing arrangements.

Only last year, the Government revised the legislation governing agencies to tighten the health and safety obligations on them and to clarify their responsibilities for their workers.

Does my hon. Friend agree that language proficiency is an important factor as regards health and safety? There are 600 Polish migrant workers in Selby, and I am hosting a conference with them, employers, trade unions and employment agencies in the autumn. We are pushing the local training and skills council to improve language courses and other provisions aimed at migrant workers. Can the Government encourage learning and skills councils to get involved in something like that?

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. Clearly, one benefit of regional development associations and the learning and skills councils is that they can address the needs in their areas. If they are meeting the needs of people in their areas and helping the local economy, that should be encouraged.

On the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, the Inland Revenue enforces the national minimum wage, but it is funded by the DTI. I am glad to reassure him, therefore, that cuts at the Inland Revenue will not affect national minimum wage enforcement.

The Government are committed to ending the abuse and mistreatment of migrant workers that has been described today. Where there are serious criminal offences, it is clearly for the police to investigate in the first instance and to take action if appropriate. If there are serious breaches of employment legislation in addition to serious criminal offences, however, the appropriate Government enforcement agency will investigate. Workers or third parties who are uncertain where to turn for advice can call the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service helpline in confidence for advice on employment rights. The number is 08457 474747.

In relation to agencies, the DTI can take complaints about agencies from third parties or take forward complaints in confidence without ever disclosing the names of concerned workers. If my hon. Friend or any other Member present has similar concerns, I urge them to let my Department have details of agencies or workers, and I will ask officials to look into them urgently. I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend that we must bridge the gap between the rights that agency workers have and the reality for the workers that she has so clearly described.

I commiserate with the Minister, who has drawn the short straw to be the Minister on duty while his colleagues are, no doubt, enjoying themselves on the Solent, at the review celebrating the glorious victory of Nelson at the battle of Trafalgar. I agree with Nelson's descendant that the politically correct competition between the red and blue teams is unnecessary, although I welcome the visiting fleets, because without them there would not be much of a review to show Her Majesty. However, in line with Nelson's words:

"England expects that every man will do his duty",

perhaps I should do my duty and get on to the subject in hand.

The future rapid effects system came to the fore almost a year ago when the then Secretary of State for Defence, who is now the Leader of the House of Commons, said:

"The balanced land force of the future will consist of two heavy armoured brigades, three medium-weight brigades, based around the future rapid effects system family of medium-weight vehicles—FRES—and a light brigade, in addition to the air assault and commando brigades. We launched the assessment phase of the FRES project in April this year and we expect to sign a contract for technology demonstration work to start later this year."—[Official Report, 21 July 2004; Vol. 424, c. 344.]

On 16 November, the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence announced in a written statement that:

"the Ministry of Defence has signed a contract with Atkins in respect of the systems house role for the future rapid effects system".

The statement concluded:

"Finally, FRES is a complex programme, with obvious tension between competing demands such as capability, time to delivery and affordability. However, the award of this contract to Atkins provides us with the necessary industrial expertise and realism to examine those competing demands in detail and to make informed decisions in order to achieve the optimum FRES solution."—[Official Report, 16 November 2004; Vol. 426, c. 76–77WS.]

I shall highlight some of the areas that I believe should be kept under scrutiny about the feasibility of FRES and its objectives. The previous Secretary of State, who was supported by the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Mike Jackson, said of the new capabilities, when speaking about the future of the army structure:

"They are being backed up by an impressive re-equipment programme,"

and went on to discuss

"modern vehicles such as the Panther armoured reconnaissance vehicle"—

which is now classed as the Panther command and liaison vehicle—

"and looking further ahead, the ambitious FRES armoured fighting vehicle programme, which will modernise the armoured vehicle fleet and form the basis of the medium-weight capability. These enhancements will directly improve the ability of the Army to deploy, support and sustain itself on the range of operations that we envisage. That can only be achieved as the result of the planned reduction by four in the number of infantry battalions, which will release around 2,400 posts for redeployment across the force structure."—[Official Report, 16 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 1796.]

In an article published on 27 August 2003 in Jane's International Defence Review, Rupert Pengelley said:

"FRES exists mainly in the minds of the planners, and has evinced numerous conflicting opinions and interpretations as to its significance. These may be summarized as ranging from 'an elephant giving birth to a mouse', to 'a revolution in UK land warfaring.'"

On its website, Atkins describes FRES as:

"the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) programme to provide the British Army with a family of medium-weight, network-enabled, air-deployable armoured vehicles to meet up to 16 battlespace roles."

It goes on to say that the key drivers for FRES are the needs for: an armoured rapid effect land capability; wide operational utility; maximum interoperability with other parts of deployed forces, other components and allies; and addressing the obsolescence of existing fleets.

Those drivers are closely aligned to the Army's strategic development themes of agile forces, effects-based operations and directed logistics, and seek, as the Ministry of Defence procurement agency website, updated on 16 May, under its FRES goal states:

"To enhance UK land forces' capability to conduct rapid Intervention, Warfighting and other Warfighting operations through a network-capable system of platforms allowing supremacy in battle space awareness, command and control, precision engagement, survivability, mobility, and availability".

Some see FRES, however, as a new medium-weight armoured fighting vehicle ideal for a future European Union battle group for rapid deployment, eventually creating a single European Union defence and security policy. In such a situation the United Kingdom might well lose command of its own forces in the future as a single EU defence system, enabled by the procurement route, is established. I can understand the Chief of the General Staff's logic that there is a shortfall in rapid intervention capability.

A soldier today is asked to conduct almost simultaneously hand-to-hand combat, peace enforcement and humanitarian operations. A key part to fill the gap in the medium-weight capability will be the future rapid effects system.

It is also necessary to look at what is happening in the United States of America. Its equivalent is the future combat system or FCS, which is a $110 billion project. The concept is based on all vehicles and other devices, and all soldiers being networked and tied into such effective sensors that near total situational awareness is achieved. That awareness, so the theory goes, enables the unit to kill from afar with precision weapons and supposedly ensures that combat forces are never tactically surprised. However, Afghanistan and Iraq have shown this presumption to be mistaken, as the enemy knows only too well not to take on sophisticated forces in the open but to draw them into urban areas for tactical surprise and a close fight where landmines and multiple attacks by rocket propelled grenades are most effective.

It is planned that 2,131 American Stryker vehicles are to be built, costing the future combat system huge sums of money and starving other projects of funding. The Stryker is an eight-wheeled monster, an oversized vehicle, unmanoeuvrable in urban areas, unstable when suitably armoured, poor as a gun platform, incapable of precision engagement and far too expensive to be used anywhere where it might be destroyed.

Lack of funding in the massive American military budget has meant that the successful 14,795 tracked M113 armoured personnel carriers have not been armour upgraded. The successful M113A3 is, however, the subject of what the Americans call a rise package and is being tested at present on banded tracks, which enables two of those vehicles to be airlifted compared with one Stryker. Although the HMMWV vehicle, a glorified truck, was useful for some transport, it has proved a disaster when used as a convoy escort in Iraq. They are not capable of withstanding landmine blasts or rocket-propelled grenades and have been responsible for many of those wounded and killed among American personnel. In short, in certain circumstances they are a death trap.

I can appreciate why the Ministry does not want to disclose any information about the armour of the future Panther command and liaison vehicle due for service in 2007. But as soon as they are in service it will become apparent whether they are up to the kind of combat in which our troops will then be engaged. I trust that the lives of our soldiers will not be put at undue risk and I am pleased that General Jackson has stressed that the medium-weight capability must have levels of firepower and protection as those vehicles will come up against anti-tank weapons.

It will surely be difficult to design a future FRES vehicle when one is not sure what will be put in it. Again, we can refer to the American experience, and debate whether it will be a wheeled or a tracked vehicle. The latter has the advantage of a very stable fire power platform, and the ability to turn on its own tracks for urban warfare and to go over obstructions. One of its disadvantages is higher maintenance, although that has been considerably reduced by the introduction of banded tracks. A tracked vehicle is also cheaper to produce, smaller and better armoured, with more internal space, and it is easier to airlift. Banded tracks virtually eliminate noise, and, when used in conjunction with hybrid electric drives, dramatically cut down acoustic signature.

We also know from the American experience that some new vehicles are not proving as effective as the old ones in certain operations. From answers to written parliamentary questions, we learn that FRES will involve a new breed of vehicle, not simply an updating of our present, effective S-series—the Scimitar and Sabre are probably the best known—of tracked vehicles, which are to be phased out by 2014. The expectation for the new vehicle will be for it to demonstrate a far greater ability, and not to turn out to be some fancy contraption based on technology that is useless in urban warfare. We want the very best for the safety and wellbeing of our soldiers, and should resist a boys and toys mentality by producing a vehicle that will do the job while giving maximum protection to those on operations.

If technology takes over from practicality, the estimated cost of FRES at £6 billion with running costs of £49 billion over 30 years is going to prove very expensive. It is a pittance in American defence expenditure, but with all the pundits predicting an economic black hole in the British economy, we have to ask whether it can be afforded. In the meantime, the Army has changed policy direction, destroying county regiments in the process for something that it is doubtful that the UK could ever afford as an independent nation.

The thought strikes me that perhaps the game plan is that the United Kingdom should further integrate its defence and security resources with those of the European Union. At the European Council meeting in Helsinki in December 1999, the EU decided to set up a military rapid reaction force in the context of the European security and defence policy, based on voluntary but co-ordinated national and multinational force contributions from member states. The goal was for a force consisting of 50,000 to 60,000 personnel, to be ready for deployment within 60 days and to be operational in 2003. The rapid reaction force was intended to be not a standing army, but a pool of forces that could be drawn upon for EU-led military operations, the first of which was in Macedonia in the spring of 2003. The aim of the EU is to be able to conduct so-called Petersberg operations, which were defined by the Western European Union in 1992 and which include humanitarian operations, evacuation missions and peacekeeping operations, including the separation of fighting forces.

The EU has under development a new headline goal called HG 2010. That is also the date of the introduction of FRES. I wonder whether that is pure co-incidence. One of the objectives is the improvement of performance of all levels of EU operation through appropriate compatibility and network linkage of all communication equipment and assets, both terrestrial and space based, by 2010.

I understand that the FRES concept is about the use of technology to achieve total battlespace awareness, replacing heavy armour with air-transportable light armoured vehicles. It is designed for rapid reaction, but that is a rapid reaction—may I say with tongue in cheek—decided by EU committees, which sounds like a recipe for disaster. We are also moving away from the situation in which British forces operate alongside American ones to one that will be dominated by the EU dimension. We risk losing the special relationship with the USA, and interoperability with it will become ever more difficult, even impossible, as the technology across the Atlantic moves away from ours.

Will FRES be dependent on the Galileo satellite navigation system, with all the attendant difficulties that that will cause between the United States and the European Union, especially if China is allowed access to EU technology? Technology is driving the politics, conditioning and constraining political choices, and dictating whether we can form military alliances. The UK is moving further towards technological co-operation with its European Union partners. If, as a result, the USA withholds its technology from us, the divide will grow to such an extent that the special UK-US relationship could end.

Although the EU constitutional treaty has ground to a halt, the progress of one of its creations, the European Defence Agency, continues unchecked, despite the fact that it has no legal basis. The assessment phase of FRES will continue as if the democratic break of non-ratification of the treaty had not taken place. There is also no Treasury commitment to pay for FRES, which could, therefore, be under-funded, leaving the UK with an incomplete networking system, years behind schedule, and with totally the wrong vehicles, placing the lives of our servicemen in danger. There are even rumours that FRES will never see the light of day because of its huge cost and unproven technology. If that comes to pass, the infantry will have suffered for no valid reason.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and with the rise in terrorist and insurgent activity, the nature of UK defence has had to change, and our armed forces have adapted to those changes. We have huge advantages because, although we are a small nation, we have a long history of loyalty to our country, and British soldiers are acknowledged to be the best-trained fighting force in the world. We politicians should see that they are also the best equipped, and have the tools to do the job expected of them as safely as possible.

I fear that the FRES vehicles will be wheeled and will, therefore, put our forces at a disadvantage, given that some 50 to 80 per cent. of insurgents carry RPG7s. The old adage is still apt: "If it has wheels, shoot at it, if it has tracks, you will die." My greatest fear is that, where defence is concerned, the UK will become trapped in the quicksand of EU integration and that NATO will be further undermined. If that happens, Parliament will lose even more power and will be increasingly unable to defend the United Kingdom and UK interests on behalf of the British people from whom it obtains its authority. While I accept the need for medium-weight capability, FRES may cause us to lose our interoperability with our closest and oldest allies, the American forces, and to give way to a new alliance that has not stood the test of time. It is early days, but we need to watch the ongoing development of FRES like hawks.

May I, at the outset, apologise on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who, as the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) said, is in Portsmouth for the fleet review? He would otherwise have been here to answer this debate.

In addition, I congratulate the hon. Lady on having obtained time for this debate on a key programme for defence and for the Army. I am grateful to her for giving me the opportunity to explain, on behalf of the Department, the thinking behind the future rapid effects system programme. Having asked a number of questions, taken part in debates and raised issues concerning FRES, the hon. Lady has built up quite a knowledge of the programme and the idea behind it. Her contribution has been helpful and appropriate in the context of the wide-ranging debate that we need to have.

It might be helpful if I clarify what FRES is. I shall outline the drivers for the requirement, and give details of the progress that we have made in an immensely complex and demanding programme. The underlying requirement for FRES stems from two strategic requirements. First, we need to replace some of our current armoured vehicles, such as the Saxon, the FV 430 and the CVR(T), and, secondly, we need to develop a medium-weight capability so that we have a balanced force of heavy, medium and light brigades.

FRES will also be rapidly deployable by air at battle group level—in other words, a battalion or regiment-sized force. The strategic defence review and its new chapter identified the need to enhance our expeditionary capability, but since then our thinking has developed further. The 2003 and 2004 defence White Papers clearly explain our vision to develop a highly effective medium-weight capability. As a result of the review, the Army will be rebalanced, reducing the emphasis on heavy armoured forces and increasing the emphasis on light and medium forces.

By ensuring that each deployable brigade is fully manned and has its own integral enablers and logistics, the Army will be better equipped and structured to conduct all types of operations. FRES is at the heart of the Army's equipment programme and it will have wide uses, not only in the medium forces, but also as a key support role for our heavy forces.

Whether for short intervention operations or enduring peace support, we often need forces with greater firepower, protection and mobility than that of light forces, but with deployability and agility that cannot be achieved by heavy forces. By providing this capability, FRES will underpin the rebalancing of the Army and the development of a truly effective medium-weight force.

In a nutshell, FRES will be a family of medium-weight armoured vehicles of around 20 tonnes, enabled by communications, information and surveillance systems, with the growth potential to develop over time. It will be the central pillar of the Army's capable and deployable balanced force, which will have a wide operational role, from warfighting to peacekeeping.

Would the Minister explain whether the current thinking is that the FRES vehicle will be tracked or wheeled? I know that there is an internal battle going on at the moment and I am interested to hear what he believes the outcome will be.

To help the hon. Lady, I can say that the issue of whether the vehicle is wheeled or tracked is under consideration as part of the assessment phase we are going through at this time.

FRES will fill a wide range of combat and support roles. Those roles will range from a vehicle to provide protected mobility for infantry, through command and control vehicles, to a new scout vehicle for reconnaissance tasks. These medium-weight armoured vehicles will mean that FRES will be significantly lighter than our current heavy armoured forces based on the Challenger 2 and the Warrior armoured infantry fighting vehicle, but I should make it clear that FRES will not replace Challenger 2, Warrior or the AS 90 guns in our heavy forces.

FRES will take full advantage of investment in our communications and information systems network. We intend that it should be network capable; it will not provide the network, but it will contribute to it. It will make full use of network-enabled capability. By this I mean that it will provide the coherent integration of sensors, decision makers and weapons systems through communications and information systems. That will enable FRES to perform roles such as command and control, dissemination of intelligence and situational awareness and control of firepower.

FRES is a complex and demanding programme. The requirement is broad and covers a wide range of military capability. We will need to take a pragmatic view of how to balance some of the individual requirements, such as combining high levels of protection and low weight, or large capacity and small size. The programme will need to interface with a range of existing and planned equipment if we are to deliver the full benefits.

Beyond the equipment programme, the Army will also need to consider the programme's wider implications, such as the impact it will have on doctrine and how the Army trains. Given this complexity, we are approaching the programme with a careful, rigorous and objective assessment of the technical options. We will consider industrial issues and the acquisition strategy, as well as the broader implications for the Army of bringing FRES into service and, of course, the risk.

As part of the current assessment phase, which began last year, the FRES integrated project team assisted by Atkins, an independent systems house, is investigating those and other issues to ensure that FRES is cost-effective, value for money and successfully delivered. Until we make the main investment decision, time, cost and performance parameters will not be set. We will take that decision only when we are confident that the programme is mature enough to provide accurate answers to the issues that I have outlined.

The hon. Lady asked whether the 2010 date for the introduction of FRES was purely a coincidence, and from the Government's point of view, it is. She also asked whether FRES is affordable. Affordability is a key factor in the assessment phase. Costs will not be formally approved until the main investment decision point. We currently expect FRES to have an approximate total procurement cost of £14 billion. The hon. Lady also made some important points about the use of FRES in urban areas, and the lessons that we have learned in recent conflicts will be taken into account throughout the assessment and planning stage.

To take the project forward, we have identified a series of planning assumptions that provide a basis for the planning of FRES and for interacting programmes. As new information emerges from the assessment phase, those assumptions may evolve, but under our current assumptions, we expect FRES to deliver about 3,500 vehicles, with the first variants entering service early in the next decade.

The assessment phase is now well under way, with technology risks being addressed through rigorous systems engineering work and a number of technology demonstrator programmes. So far two such programmes have been placed: a contract for capacity and stowage has been placed with the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory and a contract for defensive aid suites is with Akers Krutbruk. Another five contracts—two for the chassis concept, two for the electronic architecture and one for electric armour—are currently being negotiated.

In parallel, the systems engineering work has developed a number of fleet options, which are now being assessed in more depth. The acquisition strategy will be critical to the successful delivery of FRES. Industrial capacity for armoured vehicle design, integration, manufacture and assembly is clearly key to the programme.

In the context of defence industrial policy, we will need to consider a wide range of issues, including employment. We must also assess the importance of retaining a UK industrial capacity and capability which, at a minimum, allows us to maintain and upgrade current and future equipment. The Defence Procurement Agency is currently considering how we can achieve that while delivering value for money.

As the hon. Lady suggested, another issue to consider is the scope for co-operation with other nations, including in the context of the European Defence Agency's initiatives. We are clear, however, that current FRES timelines must be maintained. No decisions on co-operation between FRES and other nations' armoured vehicle programmes have yet been made, nor do we expect to make any before the main investment decision point. I should also reassure the hon. Lady that FRES will not be dependent on the European satellite navigation system, Galileo, which is a civil programme under civil control.

FRES is a key programme for the Army and for defence and it is vital to fully achieving our vision of a rapidly deployable medium-weight capability. Its complexity means that we would be rash to rush into decisions before we have fully investigated all the issues. By following best practice, which is enshrined in the smart acquisition initiative, the programme is moving forward and it has considerable momentum. It remains a cornerstone of our future equipment programme.

Since the assessment phase started last year, a huge amount has been achieved. Atkins, the systems house, has been appointed and integrated into the FRES team. The system's engineering process has begun to narrow down the options, and the development of an acquisition strategy has begun. The technology demonstrator programmes are under way and more will start soon. A wide range of firms were informally engaged through a highly successful industry day in January.

FRES will be an important enhancement to our defence capability, and I hope that, as debate continues, we will be able to share our plans and ideas with people such as the hon. Lady. She has taken a considerable interest in the matter, and, again, I thank her for raising the issue today.

In August 2004, a young, healthy lad from my constituency, Luke Noble, was tragically killed in a horrific boating accident in the British Virgin Islands. Luke Noble was on holiday visiting his aunty and uncle. His uncle is on secondment there from the Northumbria police force. Luke and his three friends were returning to their yacht in a small dingy after a meal in a yachting club in the harbour. Their small dingy was struck by a speed boat, causing the drowning of Luke and his friend Campbell Harty, and causing serious injuries to Luke's cousin, Stephen Noble, who suffered a broken back. Ian Murray, another young lad, luckily and thankfully escaped injury.

The incident was caused by a man named Arjaan Hendriksen. He was later arrested and his trial started on 31 May 2005. The case relied on the evidence of six main prosecution witnesses, four of whom were classed as eye-witnesses. One of the witnesses, Katrina Olsen, is an emergency medical technician for the Virgin Islands search and rescue service, which is the equivalent of our Royal National Lifeboat Institution. Her yacht was just behind the dingy when the lads were going out to the yacht. Just before the accident she had seen Hendriksen in his Boston whaler power boat, driving past her at high speed, shouting "Yahoo!" A short time later he passed her again at high speed and then she heard the collision as his power boat smashed through the young boys' dingy. She heard cries for help and she saw the Boston whaler power boat being driven off at high speed. The Boston whaler had hit the small dingy and thrown all four boys into the water.

Another witness, Brian Hawksfield, an experienced sailor from Hartlepool, who was classed as an expert witness at the trial, said that according to the sea version of the rules of the road—a sort of highway code—not only was Hendriksen speeding, but the boys had right of way in that mooring area. To put it bluntly, in motor vehicle parlance, he sped across a junction at three times the speed limit, causing this accident.

The pathologist who conducted the post-mortem on both boys said that they were not killed by the impact of the power boat; they drowned. If the boys had been pulled from the water in time, they would have survived. As I mentioned, Hendriksen sped off from the boys without offering any help or even reporting the incident to anyone until much later.

When Hendriksen's defence expert at the trial—a maritime expert who gives advice to the US coastguard—was asked what he thought about a situation in which an experienced mariner such as Hendriksen left the scene of a maritime collision when four boys were in immediate peril of drowning, he answered that it was improper. Even Hendriksen's defence expert could not come to his assistance.

The matter was put before a jury who came back only two hours later with the unanimous verdict that Hendriksen was guilty. Justice had been done—or so we thought until the judge came on the scene. The honourable Justice Indra Charles stated that she did not regard this as a criminal conviction and that she considered that Hendriksen had suffered enough. Although Mr. Hendriksen had been found guilty, she claimed:

"he is not a criminal in the sense of the law".

She went on to say:

"It is a criminal conviction",

but then asked:

"Has he paid enough for it already?"

Remember: this is a bloke who carried out what can only be called a hit and run at sea.

However, the judge did not stop there. She then said something that I cannot believe: she said that any of us could be unfortunate enough to find ourselves in the same position as Hendriksen. Talking about herself, she said:

"I on a Friday night might after two and a half glasses of wine hit somebody . . . it can happen to anyone".

She said:

"I don't know if I would remain at the scene."

What a shocking case, when a judge of the Crown can turn around and say that she could go out on a Friday night, have a drink, drive a car over the speed limit and cause an accident—and not even know whether she would hang around or flee the scene. The woman is either crackers or incompetent, and she should be investigated. In the end, Hendriksen was fined the equivalent of £33,000—in other words, just £16,500 for each boy's life.

I conclude by asking the Minister to do three things. First, in the light of what I have said today and in the light of the transcript of the trial, I ask him to investigate the judge—that urgently needs doing. Secondly, I ask him to introduce a system of appeals in the British Virgin Islands legal code. Obviously, if the incident had happened in this country, the Noble family would have the right to appeal to try to get justice. That right does not apply in the British Virgin Islands, but it should, not only for this case and those people who go there on holiday, but for British Virgin Islands residents. Thirdly, I would like the Minister to instruct the Governor to review the sentence in this case. Not a review of the trial—Hendriksen has been found guilty, and guilty he is. If such a light sentence had been dished out in this country, the Attorney-General rightly would be able to review it.

To conclude, the Nobles are a lovely family. They have nothing but praise for the residents of the British Virgin Islands, who were friendly, honest and supportive. The Nobles have nothing but praise for the staff of the British consulate in the British Virgin Islands who supported them when they suffered this tragedy. However, the Nobles believe that they should receive justice. As the British Virgin Islands are an overseas territory, the Government have a responsibility and a duty to give the Nobles justice.

I begin my contribution to this debate by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) for securing this debate and commend him for the concern and interest that he has shown in this matter on behalf of his constituents. The death of two young boys is tragic, wherever it occurs, but when it happens so far from home it is all the harder for the family to come to terms with their grief. They have our sincerest condolences.

It may aid understanding of the role of the Governor and of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in a case such as this if I briefly outline the constitutional status of the British Virgin Islands and thereafter discuss its traditional system. The British Virgin Islands is a British overseas territory with a large measure of internal self-government. The Governor, who is appointed by Her Majesty the Queen, is both her representative in the territory and the constitutional head of the British Virgin Islands Government. He or she has direct responsibility for external affairs, defence and internal security, including the police, the public service and the administration of the courts.

The constitution provides for a ministerial system of government headed by a Chief Minister, an Executive Council chaired by the Governor, and a Legislative Council. The Government of the British Virgin Islands have front-line responsibility for all aspects of life in the territory that do not fall within the Governor's responsibilities. The present constitution came into force in 1977 and has been amended periodically, with the last amendment being effected in 2000. A constitutional review is under way: the constitutional review committee appointed by the British Virgin Islands Government submitted its finding to that Government in April.

The Governor has responsibility for the administration of the courts, but, to guard against possible or perceived claims of interference, the judiciary itself is entirely independent. The British Virgin Islands, like all British overseas territories, has its own separate legal jurisdiction and its own body of civil and criminal law. The judicial system in the British Virgin Islands consists of a local magistrates courts with a single stipendiary magistrate and, above that, the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, which consists of a High Court and Court of Appeal. Two High Court judges, who are appointed by the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, reside in the territory, while the Court of Appeal is a circuit court.

The Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court covers nine countries and territories of the Eastern Caribbean. Three British overseas territories—Anguilla, Montserrat and the British Virgin Islands—fall within its jurisdiction. Based in St. Lucia, it was established in 1967 by the West Indies Associated States Supreme Court Order, when all its members were still UK-dependent territories. Above the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court is the Privy Council, which is the final court of appeal in both civil and criminal matters for all overseas territories.

One of the issues that my hon. Friend raised was the appointment of judges in the overseas territories and I will say a word or two in response. In most territories other than those covered by the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, about which I have just spoken, the Governor appoints judges. As I explained, the Eastern Caribbean territories and states have been within the court's jurisdiction since 1967. The court is widely respected as a judicial body of long standing and has served the relevant independent states of the Caribbean and the three overseas territories well. However, my hon. Friend asked whether it would be possible to register a complaint about the conduct of an individual judge. The Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court has no formal complaints procedure although there is a disciplinary process if allegations are made against a judge. That would not apply if it was decided that a judge was simply exercising judicial discretion.

As my hon. Friend said, the sad events that we are discussing took place on 5 August 2004 and the following morning. At 11 pm a collision occurred between a dinghy holding Luke Noble, Denis Campbell Harty, a United States national, Ian Murray and Stephen Noble and a boat—a Boston whaler—operated by Dutch national, Arjaan Hendriksen. At midnight, the Virgin Islands search and rescue service was alerted and joined the search for the boys. Ian Murray and Stephen Noble were found and taken to hospital. A US coastguard helicopter joined the search at first light the following morning with the Royal Virgin Islands police plane. At 8 am, the bodies of Luke Noble and Denis Campbell Harty were recovered. The Governor's office informed the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the United States consul in Barbados of the incident.

The case was heard in the High Court of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court and started on 31 May this year. The accused was charged with two counts of manslaughter under section 153 of the British Virgin Islands criminal code of 1997. On 15 June 2005, he was found guilty on both counts and on 20 June was sentenced to a fine of US$30,000 on each count. The right of appeal against both verdict and sentence is subject to British Virgin Islands legislation. As the legislation stands, there is no provision for the prosecution to appeal against the sentence. We understand that following the case a review of the situation, which is already under way, will be speeded up. That is the substantive answer that I offer to my hon. Friend's query about the capacity for cases to be reviewed. As I said, in the light of this case, a review is taking place in the British Virgin Islands.

The Governor's office provided practical assistance following the accident and took a close interest in the case throughout. Staff maintain contact with the family through Luke's uncle, Tony Noble, who is resident in the British Virgin Islands and seconded to the Royal Virgin Islands police force. The Governor wrote a letter of condolence to Mr. and Mrs. Noble shortly after the accident.

The Governor's office kept the overseas territories department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is responsible for the British Virgin Islands, fully informed of developments. The officer responsible for the British Virgin Islands in the Department was in contact with a member of Luke's family and wrote a letter of condolence to Mr. and Mrs. Noble. After initial contact with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the family did not request further assistance.

As an overseas territory under British sovereignty, there is no legal framework for the provision of consular services that are normally provided by a state to its nationals in the territory of another state. However, we are well aware that to many UK tourists the overseas territories are as foreign as independent countries. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the staff in the Governors' offices are always ready and have appropriate training to provide assistance informally to visiting British citizens who may require help in an emergency while in an overseas territory.

In conclusion, I repeat my thanks to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. We all feel sympathy with the Noble family, who have suffered a heart-wrenching loss. The loss of a loved one of such a young age is a tragedy. However, I hope that during this debate I have at least been able to clarify for my hon. Friend exactly how the judicial system in the British Virgin Islands works and where responsibility for decision-taking lies. As I tried to explain, no scope exists for appeal by the prosecution against sentence. Given its responsibility for the criminal justice system within the territory, it is the responsibility of the British Virgin Islands Government to review any change to the system. We understand that they are now doing do.

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss asbestos-related issues in an Adjournment debate. I shall refer to a particular site in my constituency, the former Turner and Newall site in the Spodden valley, although the issues range much wider.

I am grateful to hon. Members, such as the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (John Battle), for their work on the issue of asbestos pollution. I want to build on that work by examining in particular how asbestos pollution applies to the development and regeneration of former asbestos factory sites.

I shall talk in particular about the lack of scientifically authoritative environment and health standards on asbestos in soil, rubble and the air, to which the developer and local planning authorities can work and which they can use to make risk assessments. I shall also talk about the problems with the detection limits of current analysis methods for asbestos in soil, and about the long latency period of between 10 and 50 years before mesothelioma is developed as a result of exposure, which means that we will not know whether any site has been developed safely for many years.

I shall also discuss the fact that the onus is placed on the developer of any proposed development to furnish evidence and for the local authority to challenge and check that evidence. That can present opportunities for unscrupulous developers to downplay the problems. That has happened with the Turner and Newall site, as I shall demonstrate. Finally, I shall also talk about the lack of clarity surrounding the jurisdiction of enforcement agencies.

Current guidance for dealing with contaminated land sites is covered in part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and in planning policy statement 23, which states that local planning authorities

"should recognise that the development process is often the most effective way of achieving action to remove unacceptable risks arising from the contaminated state of land."

I concur, provided that some of the concerns that I have mentioned can be addressed.

The Turner and Newall site in my constituency is currently the subject of a planning application. The Turner and Newall factory was the world's first and largest asbestos factory; it had 72 acres and was the headquarters of the entire multinational conglomerate until 1948. Production began in 1879 and ceased in 1996. Incredibly large quantities of waste dust were dumped on the site and in surrounding areas. Some of it is still present. For example, a 1957 Turner Brothers Asbestos document confirms that 300 tonnes a year of filtered air dust was collected.

The potential sources of asbestos contamination in the Spodden valley site are as follows: asbestos waste dumped throughout the site; the demolition of the asbestos factory buildings—some have been demolished, but others are still present; disturbing soil on the site, which might be affected by decades of asbestos fallout; and the contamination of controlled waters, especially from flooded mine working.

MMC and Countryside Properties have submitted an application to build 650 houses on the site. The application is currently the subject of an independent review commissioned by Rochdale metropolitan borough council.

I should like to show how the five issues that I mentioned at the start of my speech can have an impact on decisions taken at this site and others. The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has published soil guideline values for some common contaminants in soil, but it states in contaminated land report 8 that SGVs are not currently envisaged for asbestos. Why not? If any asbestos waste contains 0.1 per cent. by weight, it is classified as special waste, which must be disposed of accordingly. Guidance note 64/85 from the inter-departmental committee on the redevelopment of contaminated land states:

"Concentrations of respirable fibres of asbestos in soil as low as 0.001 per cent. by weight may in loose dry soils give rise to measurable levels of asbestos fibres if disturbed."

At the request of residents, the Health and Safety Commission recently tested rubble from parts of the factory buildings on the site. Of the eight samples tested, three confirmed the existence of asbestos of up to 1 per cent., which is 10 times higher than the proportion ensuring that waste is classed as special waste. Yet in his planning submission, the developer stated:

"Of particular note is the absence of any asbestos contamination";

and in a meeting with local councillors earlier this year, he and his expert witness said that the tests on the rubble had all been negative. For the past 10 months, open wagons have been transporting that rubble around the borough to unknown places, and subject to no control. That brings me to my second point about the testing regime. The guidance suggests the use of polarised light microscopy, but that can detect levels of contamination only at 1 per cent.; it does not deal with contamination of 0.1 per cent. or 0.01 per cent. If we are to assess the level of contamination accurately at such sites, we urgently need guidance that sets safe levels and uses a different method of detection, such as electron microscopy.

The third point is the long latency period. We will not know for between 10 and 50 years whether the decisions made now are right. The Cape asbestos factory in Barking is a good example. It was demolished in the 1970s to make way for the Hart Lane estate, but we are now hearing of deaths caused by mesothelioma among residents. My source for that information was the 2003 ITV documentary, "Toil of Death".

The stakes are high in any planning application. This case involves a development costing up to £100 million for which the developer has so far paid Rochdale council a £5,500 planning application fee. For that, the council is expected to carry out all the checks and controls to ensure that the developer is acting honourably. Again, I refer to the fact that the developer said:

"Of particular note is the absence of any asbestos contamination".

That is simply not accepted by local residents, many of whom have lived, worked and played in the area all their lives. We know that asbestos has been dumped on the site; we know that it pervades some of the buildings; and we know that if the site is to be developed safely, as everyone wants, proper planning controls and guidance must be given. The lack of guidance on safe levels of asbestos in the soil and air, and on the methods of testing, is hindering the development of this and future sites.

As one of the Rochdale Members of Parliament, I too live close to that site. I have lived there for more than 30 years, so I am aware of its chequered past. I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I put it to him to that the former Turner and Newall site has highlighted a massive deficit in health and safety regulations that is specific to the removal of asbestos. I am well aware that the local authority is involved in an independent investigation, but it is also part of the planning process. Before any houses are built or the site is used for any other community purpose, development of the site should be postponed until a genuinely independent and reliable group of experts deems it to be safe.

I concur. Clear guidance is lacking on what are classed as safe levels and which methods of testing should be used to prove those levels, and it urgently needs to be issued.

That brings me to my final point: the role of the various agencies in dealing with such sites, including the Health and Safety Executive, the Environment Agency, the public health inspector, the primary care trust and the local authority. Until May, I was involved as leader of Rochdale council, and my experience is that there is a lack of co-ordination and clear policies—indeed, there is a lack of time for some officers—for dealing with a developer who is clearly ducking and diving and being less than honest about the problems on that site.

A local authority officer who expressed his concerns about the development of the site told me that the main way in which such developers can act is through gaps between HSE powers when works are undertaken and the local authority's powers through the planning system. Between the two, there is a black hole of dealing with the problems at the TBA site. He said that there is limited guidance on the health implications, and enforcement under the enduring power of attorney could have significant financial implications for the local authority. What can happen when that goes wrong was shown at the Chatham naval dockyards. Failure to assess the quantities of contaminated material accurately resulted in expenditure of £680 million, compared with the original estimate of £23 million.

We owe it to the thousands of people who have already died from asbestos-related diseases, through ignorance of the risks of past levels, to ensure that any future developments on such sites proceed with clear standards and a clear understanding of the safety implications. We support the Government's policy of developing brownfield sites, but it should be done safely. That can happen only when the statutory authorities issue guidance, so that the developers can have a clear understanding of their responsibilities and the local authorities can enforce them adequately.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) on securing this debate on such an important issue. He raised a number of important points, to which I shall try to respond. However, as I am sure he will understand, I must make it clear from the outset that I cannot discuss the merits of the case in detail, for reasons of propriety surrounding the possibility of its coming before the First Secretary of State for decision. I shall first set out the national framework on contaminated land and then consider the local issue.

A new regime, known as part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, came into force in England in April 2000 to address contaminated land, including land contaminated or potentially contaminated by the manufacture and use of asbestos. The legislation places a duty on local authorities to identify contaminated land in their areas, and to ensure that appropriate remedial action is taken. Full details of the regime, including statutory guidance, can be found in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions circular 02/2000 "Contaminated Land".

The part IIA regime recognises that a remediation of contaminated land through the planning system is appropriate in certain cases. Development can bring with it a means to pay for that remediation, which might otherwise not take place for some time if a site has to be tackled through the mechanisms provided in part IIA.

To help enable the planning system to make an effective contribution to dealing with contaminated land, the Government published planning policy statement 23, "Planning and Pollution Control", in November 2004. Annexe 2 of the PPS "Development on Land Affected by Contamination", explains for local authorities, developers and other stakeholders how the key principles and concepts in DEFRA's statutory contaminated land regime and in part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 can and should be applied in considering proposals for the development of contaminated land.

The annexe shows how the process of development can remediate contaminated land. The planning system can impose planning conditions on any development where contamination has been identified to ensure that human health and other risks are addressed and that development, if approved, is suitable for its new use.

As dictated by PPS23, extreme caution must be exercised by the local planning authority in the granting of outline planning permission, unless it is satisfied that it has received enough information from the applicant about the condition of the land, its remediation and the full range of environmental impacts arising from the proposals to be able to grant permission in full at a later stage. Having considered the information available about any site contamination and the proposed remediation measures and standards, the local planning authority, if satisfied that the development is appropriate, has the powers to grant planning permission subject to any conditions requiring such further investigations and remediation, including verification, as is necessary, reasonable and practicable. At the same time, if, on the basis of the information provided by the applicant and that available from other sources—including the responses of those consulted—the local planning authority is dissatisfied, it would have the right to refuse permission.

Removal work involving particular types of asbestos is required to be notified in advance to the enforcing authority, for example the Health and Safety Executive. Notification includes the provision of an appropriate risk assessment and safe method of work. Those are considered by an inspector, to ensure that they are appropriate in controlling and minimising any spread of asbestos from the proposed work. Where necessary, the company may be required to amend its proposed work method. All persons carrying out such work with asbestos are required to undertake regular training—on an annual basis—about their knowledge and use of personal protective equipment. In addition, in various circumstances, the remediation of land and buildings can involve waste management operations, which may fall to the Environment Agency to regulate under, for example, part II—as distinct from part IIA—of the 1990 Act.

On local issues, I turn to the matters that prompted the debate: the proposal for the development of the former Federal-Mogul site that is approximately three quarters of a mile from Rochdale town centre, which was referred to by the hon. Gentleman as Spodden valley. The proposal takes the form of an outline planning application being considered by Rochdale borough council for 650 dwellings, together with office and light industrial development and community facilities including a neighbourhood centre and a convenience store.

The Environmental Protection Act 1990 offers the possibility of direct action by the local authority to remediate the contamination, but planning policy statement 23 states that local planning authorities

"should recognise that the development process is often the most effective way of achieving action to remove unacceptable risks arising from the contaminated state of land."

That is what is proposed at Spodden valley.

The planning policy statement also states that local planning authorities

"should include appropriate policies for the remediation of contamination where it is known or suspected to exist and for dealing with the implications of contamination for other policies and proposals."

That is what the council has done in its replacement unitary development plan designation. In line with PPS23, it is considered that the appropriate courses of action leading to the remediation of the site can be achieved through the planning process.

At present, the planning application is with Rochdale. In the first place, it is for the council to come to a view about the application. The application was supported by an environmental impact assessment under the terms of the environmental impact assessment regulations. The council has employed consultants to assess the proposals and provide technical advice in respect of the site's contamination and its remediation.

The consultants have been employed to review the information submitted with the planning application and to report on the adequacy of the submission. They are required to advise on the adequacy of the assessment and description of the site in its current state and investigations undertaken, including the adequacy of sampling and analytical techniques used; the adequacy of the assessment of current risks to human health and the environment; the adequacy of the assessment of risks during development and of proposals to control those risks; and the adequacy of the remedial proposals for all areas of the site and the final risk assessment for human health and environment.

The review is well under way. It has been agreed with the applicant that no further investigation or sampling works will be undertaken by or on behalf of the applicant until the assessment has been completed by the consultants. Officials in the Government office for the north-west are aware that the application has aroused strong feelings and they have been in contact with the council over the past few months, while work to assess the implications has been taking place. They will continue to monitor matters closely and I have asked them to keep me up to date.

Will the Minister consider my point about the need for DEFRA and the Environment Agency to issue detailed guidance that would enable the council and the developer to reach a better understanding of the development of the site, and similar sites?

The hon. Gentleman anticipates my very next point. He raised two points that I was not in a position to answer before the debate, but on which I have sought advice. As to inadequate guidance on safe soil contamination values, I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's comments are carefully examined by my colleagues who are responsible for those matters in the Department for Work and Pensions and DEFRA. I shall also ensure that the points of jurisdiction that the hon. Gentleman wanted to have examined will be taken up by my colleagues in the DWP, for the Health and Safety Executive, and in DEFRA, for the Environment Agency. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not being able to respond directly today, I shall ensure that he will be written to in due course.

I am aware that the proposal has given rise to a large number of local objections. I fully understand the reason for the concern of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. However, it is clear that all parties who are involved in the development and remediation process have acted, and continue to act, in accordance with current legislation and guidance. Clearly, the scheme is of great importance to Rochdale, and everyone involved in it shares the concern of the hon. Gentleman about the overriding need for safety in seeking to bring about a package of development that could significantly boost the regeneration of the town.

In conclusion, I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns and agree that we need to guarantee absolute safety in dealing with land contaminated by asbestos. I assure him that the Government are doing all that they can to ensure that legislation and guidance is followed, so that the Spodden valley site in Rochdale can be made completely safe for those who work on it, and those who might occupy the dwellings, offices and community facilities that are envisaged under the present proposals. I assure the hon. Gentleman that planning permission will not be granted for the scheme unless all those involved in determining the application are completely satisfied about all aspects of the proposal, including the safety, human health and environmental issues that it raises.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Two o'clock.