I am pleased to have secured the debate, following on as it does from veterans' awareness week and last Sunday's world war two national commemoration day. Recently, we held a similar event in Ayrshire, which was organised by the three Ayrshire councils and the lord lieutenant. More than 100 veterans from the second world war took part in a service and recounted memories of their comrades at home and abroad. However, some local women who had taken part in it made it clear to me that they considered that women's contribution to the war effort had never been given the recognition that it deserved. I know that they will be delighted that Her Majesty the Queen has unveiled a memorial to commemorate the 7 million women who worked for victory in the second world war in both the armed forces and on the home front.

I believe that, to date, only one debate on the Floor of the House, in June 2004, was dedicated exclusively to veterans' issues. It is a little disappointing that such a debate has not become an annual event. Although there are opportunities in defence debates to raise veterans' matters, such as the one that was held last week, does the Minister agree that a specific debate held in Government time would help to raise the profile of veterans' awareness week and highlight further some of the excellent work that is undoubtedly going on, as well as providing a platform for hon. Members to raise concerns on behalf of their constituents who are veterans? Moreover, members of our communities are concerned about how society treats our veterans.

I wish to make it clear that I am no expert on defence matters. In common with many hon. Members, I do not have personal experience of the armed forces. That is why I am grateful to have had the opportunity of taking part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme and completing 22 days with the Royal Marines. I pay tribute to Sir Neil Thorne and all who made the scheme possible. It afforded me the chance to learn at first hand about the armed forces that I would never otherwise have had. As I said, such an experience does not make me an expert, but it gave me an opportunity to hear from the real experts on both a formal and informal basis. It opened my eyes to many issues in respect of the armed forces, which are for another debate.

I wish to draw attention to some relevant points that I learned during my time with the Royal Marines. If we do not treat them fairly today, we cannot expect serving members of our armed forces to have confidence that they will be treated well when they become the veterans of tomorrow. Much work has been done, for example, in tackling homelessness among ex-servicemen, and that is important for those who are vulnerable. However, as Ministers have stated on many occasions, most people settle well when they leave the armed forces. There is the possibility for them to leave the armed forces enhanced by skills and experience and to develop their potential in the wider community, but I was informed by some marines that they could not afford to get on the property ladder because they were not paid enough.

I am acting as an unofficial shop steward on behalf of the Royal Marines. Perhaps we should seriously consider introducing a trade union to the armed forces. I saw at first hand the job that members of the armed forces do and the contribution that they make, for which they should be appropriately rewarded. The Ministry of Defence is modernising the service to increase the opportunities for serving personnel to put down roots and extend the time that they can spend with their families. We need to encourage recruitment and retention, but getting on the property ladder is surely part of the preparation for civilian life. I do not suggest that young members of the armed forces are unique in that regard, but I ask the Minister to consider it as a serious issue.

My second point follows on from that. Preparation for civilian life should be part of the process from the beginning and not an afterthought when the end is in sight. I know that efforts are being made to ease the transition from military to civilian life, and I would be grateful if the Minister provided an update on what is being done to assist serving personnel to plan for the future.

I am indebted to the armed forces parliamentary scheme, but also to the Veterans Agency, the Royal British Legion and particularly Combat Stress for the information and advice that they have made available in their work and campaigns. The situation for veterans today is very different from that of the past. However, that does not mean that everything is rosy. I refer, for example, to an article by Dr. Niall Barr in the first issue of the Royal British Legion magazine, "Forward". It provides an historical perspective on how veterans have been neglected by the state in the past and on how the legion was formed in 1921 to form a veterans' movement, which, as we know, continues today.

Although people do not leave the services now as part of a great wave of demobilisations as in 1918 or 1945, a return to civilian life can be difficult for some people today. They may not leave the services destitute, but they leave as individuals and face loneliness, a lack of support and often a lack of public empathy. Thanks to the efforts of its servicemen and women, British society is insulated from the demands and human costs of war and there remains little real understanding of what they have experienced on operations. Unfortunately, last week we saw a measure of how bad that can be. Let us hope that we never see a repeat of it.

I shall concentrate most of my remarks on ex-service personnel who suffer from mental health problems, what is being done for them, where gaps need to be filled, the contribution made by Combat Stress—the ex-services mental health society—and especially Hollybush house, newly in my constituency. It was formerly in the constituency of my former colleague, the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, who has gone to the other place as Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. I am indebted to him; he was very committed to the work of Hollybush house. He invited the former Minister with responsibilities for veterans, Ivor Caplin, to visit the house, and I was delighted to be present on that occasion. The Minister was impressed by the work being done there.

I summarily extend an invitation to the current Minister with responsibilities for veterans to visit Hollybush house to see the work that is being done there. I am sure that he would enjoy his visit to Scotland, and I know that the people there would be happy to welcome him.

I should like to recognise the progress that has been made since the appointment of the first Minister with responsibility for veterans. In preparing for this debate, I was struck by the amount of intensive strategic work going on in this area, which appears to differ substantially from the somewhat piecemeal approach adopted by Governments in the past. Previously, problems were addressed as they developed, but the Government are taking a more structured approach and are basing policy—and, ultimately, resources and action—on evidence of real and measured needs. In the past, services for veterans have been delivered by a variety of Government and voluntary sector organisations, often working in isolation. Increasingly, social services are delivered on a cross-Government basis or through partnership between the Government and private or voluntary sectors. It is that partnership that I want to explore more fully this morning.

I question whether we fully support veterans with mental health illness, but there is no question that at least there is a coherent plan, and mechanisms to measure success or failure, what is or is not working. I am sure that that will be widely welcomed throughout the House, but the difficulty is that it will not necessarily convince our veterans who want practical proposals. They are not overly impressed by phrases such as "coherent strategies" or "partnership working"—I suspect that they would have used other expressions in their serving days—that may appear to be nothing more than bureaucratic window dressing to someone who cannot access the treatment that they need.

I would not dare to speak for ex-service organisations, but I can speak from my experience of working with a voluntary organisation that supported women who had been abused and who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of experiences that were somewhat different from those of veterans. It is always pleasing when a Government, who have the power to take on board the concerns that an organisation has campaigned on with little recognition for many years, start to take the issue seriously, but it is always done on the Government's terms. It can be difficult for the organisation to comply with consultations on strategies while it struggles to provide a service at the coalface with scarce resources.

Partnership between the Government and the voluntary sector must therefore recognise the authentic experience and the campaigning roles of the veteran's organisations. It is necessary to ensure that jointly funded work does not detract from the Government's responsibility to provide state support for veterans or impinge on the charities' independence. That is a fine balance. I hope that the Minister will inform us that it is being achieved through the Veterans Forum and its various working groups.

I would also be grateful if the Minister could outline how the Government are putting their money where their mouth is. We all applaud the sterling fundraising efforts of ex-service organisations and the support that they get from the public, but what is the role of public money in supporting veterans? How does our contribution to supporting veterans compare with that of other countries? It is often said that a country can be judged by how it treats its veterans. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that last week's events would give the country an opportunity to thank a generation that made so many sacrifices for freedom. However, that generation was not particularly well treated at the time. What of the generations that have come after it and future generations?

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) on securing this important debate. I have recently dealt with several cases of the type to which she refers, and I shall be grateful to the Minister for what I am sure will be a helpful response. Does my hon. Friend agree that stress and mental health problems may not manifest themselves immediately or even early on in a person's service career—they may not become apparent until many years have passed—and that they could result not only from having served in areas of conflict but from having been subjected to stress by superior officers, from having been treated as a guinea pig and given inoculations without proper explanation or from having served in nuclear test areas? It is only when people reach the later stages of their life that such events begin to prey on their mind and cause them the mental health and stress to which my hon. Friend refers.

I entirely agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. A well-known feature of post-traumatic stress disorder is that it can affect people many years after the event, even though they were not necessarily aware of a problem at the time. There are a number of contentious issues about how people end up with mental health illnesses following their service. They have been ongoing for many years.

I turn to my main concern, which is to raise specific issues relating to mental health problems associated with combat. Thousands of British veterans still struggle with the horrific psychological effects of combat. Many of those brave veterans face a daily struggle against nightmares, flashbacks, depression and anxiety. That is the brutal legacy of combat experience. As the organisation solely dedicated to helping the veterans recover from their injuries, the society—Combat Stress—provides intensive therapy at three treatment centres. One is in Surrey, one is in Shropshire and the other is Hollybush house in Ayrshire, which is in my constituency.

Hollybush House is vital to Scottish and Irish veterans. It is the only specialist service providing for the psychologically wounded in Scotland. It provides a unique safe environment where experienced staff can use the veteran peer group to help break down the mental barriers associated with post-traumatic stress disorder and other conditions. They can engage the veterans in therapy much more quickly and much more effectively than outpatient national health service appointments can do.

Research by Professor Simon Wesley and the current review of the society by the health and social care advisory service show that the NHS is not well equipped to understand the experiences of those veterans who have the mental health problems of combat-related psychological injury. Interim suggestions for policy have come out of Professor Wesley's King's college scoping study, which was commissioned by the MOD to examine key areas of need not already being met. They included the idea that for people who have left the services, joint work with the Department of Health for enhanced provision of service-related mental health problems was required. Such provision should be in a setting sensitive to veterans' unique needs. I would suggest that Combat Stress and its various treatment centres provide such a setting.

Ex-services people feel disfranchised and have often been fobbed off or pushed from pillar to post when trying to access health services. The reality is that most clients referred to Combat Stress have already done the rounds and have not been helped in the existing NHS system. Their condition is often chronic. They are often unemployed, may have housing problems related to the breakdown of relationships, are dependent on the state benefits system and have not uncommonly left a partner and children in similar circumstances.

It appears that many other countries recognise the fact that to achieve positive outcomes with that client group, a dedicated service is required for them. Hence their Governments also fund them. For example, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States have a different system, where veterans' organisations and hospitals are funded by the Government. In this country, some time ago, money was transferred to the NHS when service hospitals closed in the belief that it would provide services to veterans. It has been left to the ex-services organisations to pick up the pieces.

I do not say that we should lose the partnership approach that we have, or the valuable experience of our long-standing ex-services organisations, but if they are spending most of their time worrying about funding, that affects their ability to provide the service and they cannot expand it, either to accept higher numbers of referrals or to respond to real and measured needs, to use the MOD phraseology.

Many people seem to think that an ex-services mental welfare society will be dealing only with veterans of the two world wars. They tend to see images of shell shock, images from the past. Those are important images but they do not necessarily relate to today's younger veterans.

The society is picking up an unprecedented number of new cases: it had 900 last year and put 500 on its books. The damage caused to veterans frequently requires long-term treatment and is getting more and more complex because of societal changes and the different active engagements of troops. However, many clients are now referred earlier to Hollybush house. Those are the clients most likely to achieve positive outcomes, but they are also the very people for whom funding is not available.

The aims of treatment for these clients should be to provide curative treatment that will enable them to deal with the effects of their symptoms to a degree that allows them to live a more normal life, form relationships and join the work force. However, that cannot be offered, because although Combat Stress has the expertise, it does not have the funding to allow it to provide the level of input necessary to achieve those outcomes. There is a big vacuum at the moment, as it cannot do the outreach work that would complement the work of community mental health teams in the national health service.

As I said, referral rates are rising, and it is logical to expect further increases as a result of the conflict in Iraq. As the Minister knows, the Territorial Army, and reserves in general, were used quite extensively in Iraq, and more TA soldiers are asking Combat Stress for help than has been the case in any other conflict. I have been informed that the issue is causing concern to not only clinicians in Combat Stress but the Army Families Federation and community psychiatric nurses working for the Army. There seems to be a shortfall in help for TA service personnel with psychological problems on return home. As the Minister knows, regular soldiers must attend a compulsory decompression process on return from active duty. They also return to the support of barracks and continued help, if necessary, from the defence psychiatric services.

The TA soldier has the option of the decompression process, but quite naturally most opt to get home as soon as possible, where they immediately become the responsibility of the NHS and the victim of long waiting lists and are dealt with by staff with little or no experience of combat-related psychological problems. It is feared that the current increased referral rate from the TA may be only the tip of the iceberg and that there may be a substantial increase in demand for support from reserve veterans in future. I would be grateful for the Minister's comments on that.

In April 2004, Combat Stress organised an appeal under the direction of Sir Clive Fairweather to upgrade Hollybush house to meet the statutory requirements laid out in the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001, which comes into effect in 2007. Fundraising for the new wing stands at an incredible £730,000, and the appeal has been supported by almost 2,000 donors and organisations. I know that there is a great deal of local support for the appeal because I have attended several local fundraising events.

In Ayrshire, we are much aware of the fine work done by Hollybush house, but the appeal has had the added advantage of placing the needs of Scottish veterans with combat-related mental health injuries firmly on the map. There is no doubt, however, that without that appeal the closure of Hollybush house was a distinct possibility. We hope that the Scottish Executive will make a contribution to the final budget of £1.7 million that is needed to secure the upgrade. We wait for a decision to be made. The upgrade is welcome, but it has been hastened by the Scottish Executive's care requirements. I believe that it is incumbent on the Scottish Executive to make a contribution.

There is the vital issue of funding for Combat Stress in the light of the new compensation scheme introduced in April. Even before April, Government support came only in the form of possible funding of treatment for any client who has a war pension of more than 20 per cent. for a mental health problem. More than 40 per cent. of the clients did not have that pension, so the society was reliant on using its general fund, which consists of donations from regimental associations, the Royal British Legion branches and other charitable trusts.

Many referrals now come from mental health professionals or primary care providers, but such referrals do not come with any funding attached. The new scheme introduced in April does not have that element to it. The single payment compensation with a lump sum will not necessarily be used to pay for treatment at Combat Stress. When funding disappears with current veterans who receive pensions, it will not be replaced by the new system. Slowly but surely, clients under the new scheme will not be able to be accommodated.

As I have said, 40 per cent. of treatment is already unfunded. The Ministry of Defence appears to be saying that funding for veterans with combat-related mental health issues is a national health service issue, not an MOD one. There is no scheme in place to ensure that the NHS fills the gap. Combat Stress is doing all that it can to raise funds from the public. The Minister knows that it is notoriously difficult to raise funds to respond to mental illness in any circumstance.

The balance of responsibility for funding has been shifted to the NHS. I hope that I have shown that it is well established that it is not realistic for appropriate services to be provided by the NHS. It could be done through partnership with Combat Stress, but that would require public funding. If Combat Stress is doing a job that should be done by the NHS and social services, the Government should allocate funds to the organisation that can deliver the service through a contract for specialist commissioned services or some other mechanism. It is worrying that such a system is not in place.

I realise that there are complications owing to devolved government, but there must be a national agreement, or a postcode lottery will develop, with veterans accessing services only if their local health authority happens to take the situation on board. I have already stated that much has been done by the Government. Successive Ministers with responsibility for veterans should develop a proper strategy for dealing with veterans' concerns. The Minister responsible for encouraging cross-Government co-operation on veterans' issues must solve the funding problem.

It does not make economic sense not to spend money in the short term that would reduce the long-term drains that will almost certainly result both on the NHS and the nation's benefit system should an increasing number of veterans continue to develop chronic, debilitating conditions that go untreated. Hollybush house does a fantastic job with scarce resources. Is it right that it achieves all that while it is heavily dependent on charitable income? More importantly, does the situation show that we value the sacrifice that our veterans have made for their country? I look forward to the Minister's reply.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne). She made an interesting, well developed and, in the light of the celebrations, parades and so on last Sunday, timely speech. She was right to highlight some of the many issues that affect veterans today: the women's contribution; homelessness, which I will touch on; and the many health care issues that affect those who have served our country.

Veterans have made a huge contribution to our country's history and have shaped the country that we live in today. Many of them survived the horrors of war while their friends and comrades gave their lives so that we could live ours in freedom. As a result, it is extremely important that everyone in this country and beyond recalls the sacrifices of our soldiers past and present and passes on the culture of remembrance from generation to generation. I pay tribute to the work of the many veterans organisations that continue to raise awareness and fight for the rights of veterans and their families across the country. The importance of the treatment of veterans has not always been given the weight that it deserves. With that in mind, I was pleased by the announcement four years ago that all veterans issues, right across the Government, had been pulled together under a single Minister. Following the creation of the post of Minister for Veterans, I look forward to hearing of the work that has been done in the past four years.

Sunday saw marches in Edinburgh and throughout the country celebrating national commemoration day, the 60th anniversary of the end of the second world war. Many veterans paraded down the Royal Mile in Edinburgh amid scenes that were repeated around the country. However, many of those who marched are now in their 80s and 90s, and it will not be long before very few veterans of the two world wars are still among us. Consequently, we owe it to them and to ourselves not to forget their contributions or the lessons that can be learned from them. I am hopeful that we will never again bear witness to another conflict on the scale of the two world wars. However, that does not mean that there are not many important lessons that we can learn from those past sacrifices. Sunday's celebrations should remind us of the triumph of the free world, but also of the horrors of war and the sacrifices of our servicemen and women.

I am sure all hon. Members were as concerned as I was earlier in the year by the apparent lack of awareness among many younger people of the VE-day celebrations. A worrying survey of UK pupils showed that three quarters did not know what VE stood for. Indeed, some thought that it was a music festival and others a venereal disease. It is fair to say that we need to do much more to educate the next generation about the sacrifices and bravery of our war veterans. They have inspirational stories that could encourage young people. I hope that last weekend's commemorative events will have gone some way towards achieving that.

I am sure that the whole House will welcome "Their Past Your Future", the scheme run by the Imperial War museum with national lottery funding. It has enabled students from all over the country to join veterans on overseas pilgrimages to former theatres of war to learn more about our recent history. The last century was one of the most violent in recent history and in the history of mankind. It is incumbent on us to educate the next generation so that they will be inspired to ensure that this new century will be one of peace and tolerance.

Although we must remember veterans from previous conflicts, we must not forget those members of our armed forces who are, as we speak, serving this country in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans and elsewhere. Although the veterans of the two great wars have much to teach us, Government support for veterans goes far beyond that group. We must recognise that the majority of those who leave our armed forces are in their 30s and 40s. Consequently, supporting their transition back into civilian society is a major issue, as the hon. Lady said. Many have serious difficulties finding not only their first job, but a fruitful career for the following 20 to 25 years. We need to ensure that they have support not only when they first leave the services, but throughout the rest of their working lives, if they need it.

On a similar note, many of our soldiers join up at the age of 16 or 17 and therefore miss out on gaining the further or higher education qualifications that many of their contemporaries will go on to achieve. It is important that education does not stop on enrolment and that we equip our recruits with transferable skills and qualifications that will aid their transition into civilian life.

Some years ago, I interviewed a young American veteran who had served his country and had thought that he was also being trained for a job in the medical services in civilian life when his time in the forces was over. When he left the forces, he found out that his qualifications and experiences were worthless because there were not valued in the hospitals to which he applied for jobs. He felt let down, misled and betrayed by his Government. He was fit, able, intelligent and articulate. I interviewed him in a hostel for the homeless and he had his entire worldly possessions with him in one small bag. Hopefully, we shall be able to avoid such situations in this country.

As we heard, the casualties of war are not only those injured and killed in conflict, but those who suffer debilitating after-effects of their time in such conflicts. The Government have failed too many veterans in this regard. For example, recent years have exposed the reluctance of the Ministry of Defence to implement a screening test to detect uranium in the bodies of Gulf war soldiers. Although veterans have been demanding the tests since 1996, only last year did the MOD agree to offer them, by which time many experts say that there was little chance of detecting anything. That is just one of many similar stories. It remains the case that Defence Ministers in successive Governments have tried to play down the significance of a variety of severe illnesses. Those who put their lives on the line for this country deserve better. Such stories provide, unfortunately, an uncomfortable backdrop to last week's celebrations.

Pension provision is another central concern for veterans. Those men and women have spent a large part of their lives defending us and our country and they deserve all the support we can give. In 1973, armed forces pensions were recognised as among the best pensions in the public sector. However, during the 30 years since then, it is clear that they have slipped considerably to the bottom of the scale. We owe a duty of care and responsibility to our veterans and their dependants, and I look forward to hearing the Minister explain what the Government have been doing to reverse that trend.

Many of my hon. Friends have recently been involved in the treatment of the Gurkhas. I am sure that many hon. Members will have welcomed, as I did, the news last year that retired Gurkha soldiers will be allowed to apply for UK citizenship. I am pleased that those deemed good enough to fight and die for us are finally considered good enough to apply for citizenship. I am interested to hear the Minister's comments on the take-up of that scheme and any other help that has been offered to that often overlooked category of veterans.

On a different note, following the widespread public opposition to the recent war in Iraq, we must consider seriously how we deal with veterans of different conflicts. Sadly, it often seems that veterans of what can only be described as more popular conflicts are more widely revered than veterans involved with those conflicts that are less popular in the eyes of the public. For example, the South Atlantic fund did a great deal of work for the veterans of the Falklands war. I am less confident that a similar scheme awaits veterans of the war in Iraq.

The recent disagreement on the treatment of veterans of the Arctic convoys has also led to such complaints. We need to remember that the risks taken and sacrifices made by members of the armed forces are the same, irrespective of the justification for, or public perception of, a conflict. For that reason, although I opposed the war in Iraq, as did my right hon. and hon. Friends, we recognise that having sent our troops into a conflict we immediately have to do all we can to support them. I hope that the Minister will consider those concerns.

I could not speak about the Government's support for veterans without touching on the future of the Scottish regiments. There may well be a case for reform in the Army, but to break the link between the past and present is unnecessary and unhelpful when we all agree that we need to do more to educate people and to remember the sacrifices of our soldiers. At this time, like no other, increasing demands are being made of our soldiers. Surely this is not the time for such reforms.

I am sure that the Minister will have ample time to address the points made. We all owe a debt of gratitude to our servicemen and women, who have given so much to this country. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that we never forget not just those who gave their lives for their country, but veterans, young and old, in all our constituencies. Their concerns must be addressed by their Government, and we will always remember that our freedom, our democracy and today's debate would not have happened without their selfless actions. They are asking for a fair deal and they deserve nothing less.

It is great pleasure to congratulate the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne), not only on having secured the debate, but on the measured and deeply committed way in which she made her case. She concentrated primarily on mental health provision for ex-servicemen, which I also hope to touch on. However, I intend to range a bit further across the spectrum of veterans' affairs to give the Minister a wider choice of things on which to comment and to help us understand the Government's latest thinking.

I am also pleased to agree with much of what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) said. He made an important point about veterans of unpopular wars not receiving the same support as those who participated in wars that enjoyed more jingoistic support at the time. I pay credit to hon. Members from all parties who have, in recent years, shown time and again that they are able to distinguish between their own beliefs about whether a conflict should have been entered into and their unfettered regard for the servicemen and women who faithfully carry out the orders of the Government of the day to try to bring about a successful resolution to those conflicts, with the minimum number of casualties and with maximum effectiveness.

It is important that we learn something about the mistakes of the past. We all too often pay tribute to people long after the event and regret not doing the things that could have been done to help them at the time while nevertheless proceeding behindhand in trying to deal with the veterans' problems of today. It is no good always saying, "We're sorry for the mistakes we made in the past", if we go on making them in the present.

Later today there will be a ministerial statement on far east prisoners of war. I understand that the ombudsman has found against the Government on four counts of maladministration of the compensation scheme. The ombudsman's report refers in particular to those people who were interned by the Japanese in the second world war, but were not considered to have a sufficient connection with the United Kingdom to qualify for the compensation agreed in November 2000.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who set up the all-party group on far east prisoners of war and internees. When I heard about the forthcoming statement I did a quick search to remind myself of all those occasions on which we spoke and argued for compensation for the veterans who had been so sorely afflicted during those terrible years. The debates in which myself and others participated consisted of statements and question sessions on 9 March 2000, 3 July 2000, 7 November 2000—when the then Member for Kircaldy, one of the predecessors of the current Minister, announced the scheme—and on 26 November 2001, when the hon. Members for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) asked why the criteria for eligibility for compensation for civilians interned by the Japanese in the second world war had been changed.

I asked the Minister at the time why he was defending the indefensible and put it to him that if people were British enough to be interned, they were British enough to be compensated for that internment. He replied:

"I regret that that is not the case. I have allowed a sufficient line of consanguinity to take as many people as possible into the net . . . a line had to be drawn somewhere, and it was drawn in the correct place."—[Official Report, 26 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 654.]

Evidently, the ombudsman disagrees.

We do not wish to keep replaying such mistakes over and over again. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock made a point about so many people who, having faithfully served the country in the armed forces, were finding themselves homeless and without adequate support when suffering the flashbacks of the traumas that they experienced while in the services. Those flashbacks often emerge long after the event.

In part, that reflects the wider issue of the way in which mental health is, in general, treated in this country. There is not the in-patient support that there used to be for people who do not need permanent in-patient residence but who do need periodic in-patient support to keep them on an even keel as a result of a trauma. More needs to be done before servicemen and women who have seen active service leave the armed forces. If the work is done in advance of their departure, it may be much easier to spot people who are at risk of developing mental health problems.

We need to develop schemes to help people who have not been able to get on the property ladder's first rung while serving their country overseas. I know that the Government have been thinking about that. I want to hear how far they have progressed in making it possible for someone who has completed a considerable period as a serviceman or woman in far-flung parts of the globe to have, when they enter civilian life, a financial basis on which to make a start on acquiring a home that will be the base from which they build their future career.

The pensions of members of the armed services have been a matter of great controversy and debate for many years. I do not propose to revisit all the arguments about those still suffering from the pensions trough of the 1970s or those who are still in anomalous positions because of post-retirement marriages. The Minister will have been addressing those issues with some concentration since he took up his post relatively recently. I want to hear what he has to offer to put right a situation that is getting easier to put right year by year, if only for the sad reason that fewer and fewer people are still alive to benefit from a rectification of the disadvantages that were incurred so long ago.

I am delighted to be able to congratulate the Government on the work that they have done in recent weeks and months to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the end of the second world war. The work on the commemoration events in the past week speaks for itself. The Living museum, which I had the pleasure of visiting, was affected for part of its duration by the terrible events that took place last week. Nevertheless, it saw a high throughput of people making the most of the opportunity to see all that is owed to those who fought and won the fight against a much greater, more pervasive and stronger form of totalitarianism than that faced by our society on a small, though deadly, scale.

I was also pleased with the efforts to educate the wider public by bringing future generations into contact with the memories of the veterans' generations. However, when I went to the "Their Past Your Future" exhibition at the Ministry of Defence, I was surprised to see among the exhibits a claim that the late Lord Cheshire VC, who founded Cheshire Homes and was a leading hero of the Royal Air Force bomber command and an observer at the Nagasaki bombing, had, at the end of his life, joined the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and campaigned against nuclear weapons. I had the privilege of being in contact with Lord Cheshire during the 1980s. Although he used to go to Japan to pray for the souls of those who died at Nagasaki, he maintained until the end of his life that the bombings were necessary and that the lives of many thousands of allied prisoners of war were saved by a speedy end to the war so that the well established Japanese plans to murder them could not be put into effect.

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the title of the debate is Government support for veterans, and I ask him to return to that topic.

I am happy to do that, but I believe that that is a veterans issue, because the project's work is about putting the veterans' record before future generations. I was pleased that the Imperial War museum responded to my inquiry and corrected the record.

It is important that we draw the right lessons when we look back on what the veterans achieved for this country. We should draw the lessons that wars are sometimes fought because of lack of preparedness rather than bellicosity and that we owe it to the veterans whose memories we have been honouring that their record is not distorted.

The issue of the award of medals involves the Government and veterans. I understand from people who have held ministerial office in the Ministry of Defence that that always takes up a disproportionate amount of Government time. The Government eventually resolved the Suez canal zone problem by awarding a general service medal to those who had served in that zone in the 1950s and a clasp to those who already had the general service medal and who had also served in other zones, but who were entitled to extra recognition. It was possible for that medal to be awarded retrospectively because the record was examined and the decision was taken to make the award in light of the fact that that had not been considered and rejected at the time.

So, I have a positive proposal to put to the Minister with regard to the ongoing dispute about the awarding of an Arctic star or an Arctic clasp in respect of the Russian convoys veterans of world war two. It has been a long-standing concern of hon. Members in all parties. I have taken the trouble to do a little research in the archives and am grateful to the Cabinet Office historical section for allowing me to inspect the records of the ceremonial department that established the campaign stars and clasps that were awarded at the end of the second world war.

I went through those records thoroughly, and I can assure the Minister that nothing in the records that were presented to me suggested that the question of making a separate award of either a campaign star or a clasp was specifically considered and rejected at the time. Therefore, I think that he should investigate further. Perhaps it would be possible to resolve this last outstanding issue from the second world war campaign medals inventory, by finding out if the same criteria that allowed the Suez canal zone issue to be resolved could also be applied to the Arctic convoys.

The veterans concerned would be content if there were a recognised clasp, such as the clasp that was awarded to those who fought in the battle of Britain, to be attached to one of the existing campaign stars from world war two. A solution along those lines would be acceptable. Something that does not come under the category of an official star or clasp would not be acceptable. It would be a sensible and non-controversial way to resolve the matter without opening up a Pandora's box of claims for history to be revisited and for further medals to be awarded for one reason or another. It is sensible that such awards should normally be made as a result of decisions made reasonably soon after the events.

That campaign has been something of a running sore. There has always been the suspicion that that one theatre of war was not properly recognised, primarily because when those decisions were being taken, the cold war was breaking out. The omission is certainly strange. I put it to the Minister that a resolution is possible.

I should also be grateful if the Minister could advise us on the Government's thinking about the permission being given to veterans to wear medals awarded by other countries as a result of their gratitude for campaigns waged successfully by our servicemen and women. Recently, there has been a certain amount of correspondence from veterans who were involved in the successful 12-year counter-insurgency campaign in Malaya, or Malaysia as it is now known, and I know that the Government of Malaysia are keen to make an award so that veterans understand that their efforts were fully appreciated and valued by the people of that country. However, I also realise that our Government gave a general service medal and an appropriate clasp at the time.

Finally, I congratulate the Government on the heroes return scheme. I know of several people in my constituency who will be taking the opportunity to revisit those theatres where they saw action. In particular, a friend of mine, Mr. Eric Spearing, who served on the escort carrier, HMS Speaker—a carrier that has obvious connections with this House—will be going out to the far east and revisiting those places in which he, as a man of about 6 ft 4 in in stature, somehow managed to participate from the very small cockpit of a very small plane operating off a very small aircraft carrier.

The work that the armed services do is invaluable, especially at a time like this. We all make the right noises about how wonderful our servicemen and women are. The Minister, however, has the unenviable task of trying to ensure that they feel the practical benefit of the Government's support, as opposed to the emotional benefit of the country's support. I look forward to hearing what he has to say about the practical measures that they shall take in respect of service conditions, post-service preparations, mental health support and, when one leaves the armed forces, the ability to start out with a foot on the first rung of the housing ladder.

I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) on securing this debate to address the general topic of the Government's support for veterans. Colleagues will appreciate that this is a wide subject to cover in a debate such as this, but I shall attempt to provide a broad outline of what we are doing to support former service personnel, and the areas in which we hope to make further progress.

It is a tremendous honour to be the Minister with responsibility for veterans. As colleagues have already said, we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to those who served our country in the armed forces. They contributed their time, skills and effort; in some cases they sacrificed their health, and in many others their lives, to protect our country and the values for which we stand.

One of my key responsibilities is to ensure that veterans are properly looked after and that they receive the support and help that they need in civilian life. For me, a person who has ceased to wear a service uniform is still part of the service family. It is not quite a case of from the cradle to the grave, but when someone leaves the service they become a veteran immediately, and we must have care and concern for them.

I recently had the privilege of visiting the Royal hospital in Chelsea. That organisation is a great example of how the country values and cares for its veterans. I received a warm welcome, and I know that a warm welcome was given to my compatriot, Katherine Jenkins, who went to the hospital recently and joined in a sing-along with the pensioners. Of course, all Welsh visitors are treated well and are welcomed at the hospital, but I understand that the gentlemen at Chelsea are more interested in getting a return visit from Katherine Jenkins than from me.

All Members are aware of the range of events that took place last week as part of the first veterans' awareness week and the commemorations, in London and across the UK to mark the 60th anniversary of the end of the second world war. The events were a great success and shone out against last week's awful atrocities in London. It is a tribute to the veterans that they once again refused to be beaten and turned out in their thousands to commemorate Sunday's event and to the living exhibition at St. James's park throughout the week.

I am grateful to the Big Lottery Fund, which provided nearly £50 million of funding to support commemorative events across the UK this year, thereby allowing new generations to learn from the experiences of those who lived through those awful times.

To turn to other areas of support, the veterans' programme provides a framework in which we can address and progress veterans' issues. The main priorities of the programme are to ensure that as many service personnel as possible make the transition from service to civilian life successfully and to offer appropriate support to those who have difficulties. I am well aware of the potential risks associated with such a change in work and lifestyle, and I consider it of great importance that we do all that we can to help minimise the risks and ease the transition process.

That is why the Ministry of Defence provides a comprehensive package of resettlement initiatives, including the provision of advice to all who, leave the services, including those who leave early and who, we therefore believe, are potentially more vulnerable to social exclusion. Early service leavers now have a mandatory resettlement brief and interview and access to a service resettlement adviser, who can, where necessary, provide expert advice on employment and other areas of resettlement. Counselling is also provided where that is thought appropriate.

Of course, our work in that area is not complete. We need to know what sort of problems early service leavers experience when facing civilian life, and to this end we have commissioned King's college, London, to undertake research to assess whether a formalised mentoring service might play a part in preventing social exclusion.

Other work is focusing on health and social care, especially mental health care. A problem common to all sectors of society is recognising those most at risk of mental health problems, suicide or deliberate self-harm. There is, for example, no single cause of suicide or deliberate self-harm. Although the service environment can provide many stresses, the evidence is generally that service personnel are not more at risk of mental health problems than the rest of the population.

The services have recognised the need to manage stress in a pragmatic way, to reduce the stigma that can so often be associated with mental health problems, and to educate both personnel and those who can help them to recognise the signs of possible problems at an early stage, so that help can be provided. The same basic requirements apply to those in service and to veterans. I discussed that issue recently with Combat Stress.

A key issue identified is the failure of veterans to access care, perhaps because of unfamiliarity with civilian arrangements or a strongly held belief that civilian health professionals know little about service life. To help redress that problem, we are producing a leaflet called "Looking After Yourself", with which we aim to assist veterans to get help for mental health symptoms and illness in civilian life, which outlines what they should expect.

We also want to raise awareness in the medical world about veterans, and have begun discussions with the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Faculty of Occupational Medicine to explore the scope for introducing material about the armed forces into their training curriculums. I am sure that we all know of cases in which people have gone to their GPs for help and advice. It is important that we give GPs signposts that if such people were in the services, certain boxes should perhaps be ticked in terms of getting extra support or referrals.

I do not disagree with anything that the Minister says—it is important to raise awareness among health professionals—but does he agree that in dealing with veterans' mental health problems, there would be advantages to veterans having contact, treatment and support from people who have experienced service life and to their mixing with their own peer group?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. In a moment, I shall touch on some things that we are considering to see how we might progress on that issue.

The Veterans Agency has produced its first quarterly news letter, which is intended to inform all those who deal with veterans of the type of issues that they face. On their leaving the armed forces, responsibility for the medical care of service personnel passes to the NHS—my hon. Friend queried that. A patient's GP is usually the first port of call; if he thinks that specialist treatment is required, it can be provided. We are currently working with the Department of Health, the devolved Administrations, and other UK health authorities to consider how to enhance that programme. I hope to be able to make a positive announcement on our progress soon, and that will be welcomed.

People who have left the services who believe that their post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms are directly related to their work in the armed forces are referred to the Veterans Agency for their entitlement to the war disablement pension to be assessed. More than 2.5 per cent. of veterans who receive the war pension get it for symptoms associated with stress. Such people are also advised of the work of voluntary organisations such as Combat Stress. My hon. Friend said a lot about that.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving us the opportunity to address and comment on the work of Combat Stress—I know that one of its residential facilities is in her constituency. Combat Stress has a long and distinguished history of providing care to people suffering from mental illness as a result of their service in the armed forces. I visited that organisation's centre at Tyrwhitt house on 21 June to see some of its work. I was greatly impressed with the commitment of the staff and met some of the many clients whose lives would be much poorer without the support provided in the organisation's residential care homes and by its welfare officers.

I reiterate a point that I have made before: no matter how good Government and local government are or think they are, many people's quality of life would not be as good without organisations such as Combat Stress. I pay tribute to their work.

Of course, no area of medicine stands still. That is as true of the understanding of mental illness and its treatment as it is of other areas. In recent years, in particular, incidents all over the world, not least those in London last week, have heightened awareness of the possible psychological effects of traumatic events, and evidence-based best-practice treatments are now emerging. I commend the forward-looking approach of the chief executive of Combat Stress, Commodore Toby Elliott, and his staff, on their work to modernise the services that are provided. They are doing exciting things, and I am greatly impressed by what I learned there.

Combat Stress particularly wants to address the problems experienced by reservists who, like both current and former regular servicemen, can suffer from issues affected by stress. We recognise that that is a problem, and we are working with the Department of Health and the NHS to identify the best way to tackle the issues about which my hon. Friend was concerned.

Combat Stress is also working in close co-operation with my Department to commission a review of its treatment regimes by the Health and Social Care Advisory Service. The review has highlighted the enormous commitment of the society and its staff to the care of war pensioners with mental health problems and has confirmed the value that many veterans attach to their periods of care at Combat Stress centres. It has commended the society's evolving approach over recent years in line with wider good practice and methods of delivery.

At the same time, the review has identified a number of areas where further change is likely to offer new benefits to clients, including, in some cases, the prospect of treatment to cure. Although the review has yet to report formally, I understand that my officials and the society's officers are agreed that it offers new opportunities that must be grasped.

The society, the Department and the Health and Social Care Advisory Service will work closely together to agree how best to review recommendations and to take them forward. We will involve the Department of Health and other ex-service charities where they might also have a role to play.

Since its establishment in 1948 it has been the intention of successive Governments that the NHS should be the main provider of health care for veterans and war pensioners, for both physical and mental problems. War pensioners have priority NHS treatment provided for pensioned disablements, with priority decided by the clinician in charge. That long-established model is entirely in line with the cross-departmental veterans' programme.

My hon. Friend mentioned Hollybush house in her constituency, and said that I would be most welcome to visit. I hope to have the opportunity to do so in the near future. I am aware of the challenges that the society faces in meeting requirements to modernise the centre, particularly the provision of single-occupancy accommodation. I am also aware that the society has approached the Scottish Executive for a grant to support that work. That must, of course, be a matter for the Scottish Executive to decide. However, I fully support the society's movement towards modernisation, and I have no doubt that Hollybush house will play an important part in delivering those changes.

I am aware that my hon. Friend has previously raised questions concerning Gulf veterans' illnesses. I take the opportunity to reassure her that the Government have always given the concerns of the 1990–91 Gulf veterans the highest priority. That important and highly complex issue will continue to receive the close attention that it deserves. My predecessor set out the Government's position on the issue to my hon. Friend in his letter of 18 April, but before I respond to the specific points raised I would remind hon. Members of the Government's approach to Gulf veterans' illnesses issues.

More than 53,000 UK armed forces personnel were deployed in the Gulf in 1990–91. A minority of them are ill, and we want to know why. There is no medical or scientific consensus on the cause or causes of ill-health among some Gulf veterans and insufficient evidence to enable that ill-health to be characterised as a unique Gulf-related illness or syndrome, which is why we and others do not recognise Gulf war syndrome as a medical condition. The term "Gulf war syndrome" is not found in the World Health Organisation's international classification of diseases, which is used throughout the world by physicians and scientists to distinguish diagnosable diseases and their categories. We are not out of step with our major allies on that point.

Despite that, we remain concerned and are continuing with our £8.5 million research programme to try to establish why the 1990–91 Gulf veterans report more ill- health than other comparable groups, although the pattern of that ill-health is not unique to Gulf veterans. They report the same symptoms and conditions as UK Bosnia veterans and UK military personnel who did not deploy to the Gulf. The only difference is the increased frequency with which Gulf veterans report such symptoms.

I take seriously all claims of ill-health among veterans. I strongly recommend that veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict and of the recent deployment in Iraq attend the Gulf veterans' medical assessment programme if they have concerns about their health. The programme has been running since 1993, and in that time about 3,500 patients have been seen, some more than once. Further details of the programme are available from the Ministry of Defence website.

The fact that we do not accept the term "Gulf syndrome" does not stop Gulf veterans receiving a war pension and attributable benefits under the armed forces occupational pension schemes. Such pensions are not awarded for a list of disorders but for any disablement that can be accepted as caused, or made worse, by service. War pensions are paid on the basis of eligibility rules that are strongly geared in favour of the claimant; a payment will be made unless the Department can show beyond reasonable doubt that an illness or injury arising within seven years of service was not caused by service. Veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict can and do receive compensation in the form of war pensions and armed forces pensions on the same basis as other veterans.

Several points were raised in the debate about homelessness, and I want to mention our work with the Office of the Deputy Prime-Minister, devolved Administrations and ex-service charities to help to prevent and tackle the problems of homelessness among ex-service personnel. Work continues to consolidate a number of projects such as Project Compass, which seeks to help homeless ex-service personnel back into sustained employment; it is a major priority, and I will give attention to it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock and the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) raised the issue of what the Ministry of Defence is doing to help service personnel to get on to the property ladder. The MOD has long been committed to ensuring that service personnel make a smooth transition to civilian life. The Joint Service Housing Advice Office, which was established in 1992, provides tri-service civilian housing advice to service personnel. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has raised these issues with me, and I will be looking at ways in which we can examine what help, support and encouragement we can give in those circumstances.

My hon. Friend also asked how the Government are putting their money where their mouth is in supporting veterans' issues. I do not know why she sits on the fence; why does she not say what she means? I take her point.

There are many projects for veterans funded by the Ministry of Defence apart from research and supporting projects such as homelessness among former servicemen and prison in-reach. The Department provides £750,000 a year to the challenge fund, which seeks to pump-prime veterans-related projects that address the identifiable gap in existing knowledge or activity. Money is available, and I encourage veterans' organisations to approach the Department if they have projects that require support.

The Ministry of Defence also funds 80 per cent. of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission—about £31 million a year. The veterans' programme is a collaboration between the Government and the ex-service organisations, and much additional funding is therefore provided by other Departments or bodies—for example, £50 million of support has been provided for the commemorative projects by the Big Lottery Fund in the past year.

My hon. Friend also raised the issue of funding and support for Combat Stress. For the past 40 years the Government have funded war pensioners for remedial treatment at Combat Stress's residential centres, and, depending on the numbers who are being supported and cared for by that organisation, support is about £2 million to £3 million a year, which helps and benefits Combat Stress.

I understand that those are important projects that have to be funded but does the Minister recall that I suggested that there is a substantial funding gap and that Combat Stress has to rely substantially on charitable giving? I question whether that signals Government support for the recognition of the serious mental health problems from which veterans suffer. Should there not be more public funding for that?

There are always demands on the public purse for the funding of a host of worthy and important causes. I think that our support at this moment is appropriate. There are always ongoing discussions with organisations such as Combat Stress about the support that they get, and Commodore Elliott is not slow to give me verbal GBH if he thinks that we are not doing enough and not giving the support that we ought. I recognise the difficulty, but there are important ongoing discussions, which I welcome.

My hon. Friend suggested that funding would not be available for treatment under the new armed forces compensation scheme. Her concern reflects a misunderstanding: funding will continue to be available for those with significant mental illness due to service. The precise nature of the arrangement depends on agreeing with Combat Stress on how best to take forward the findings of the Health and Social Care Advisory Service report. However, we have made clear to the society that there will not be any significant changes at this time. We shall wait and see what the report comes through with.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) made the important point that we must pass on the message of the commitment and dedication of the veterans to the younger generation. Last Thursday, I went to St. James's park after the bombings to meet members of the RAF Prisoners of War Association. I was greatly impressed by the numbers that turned up; I had not been certain that many would be able to get through to the park.

One veteran told me that he had got to Victoria station that morning. There were no buses and no public transport—it was chaos. He said, "They kept me as a prisoner of war for four years. That didn't bloody stop me, and this wasn't going to stop me this morning." That showed the spirit of determination of that generation, and we can be inspired by that. In fairness, I do not think that we play down the issues of veterans' health, support and pensions; we are making the right contribution.

The hon. Gentleman was concerned that pensions had fallen behind wider good practice, but the current pensions scheme is one of the most valuable available in the United Kingdom. However, we recognise that in certain respects it has fallen behind good practice elsewhere. That is why on 6 April we introduced a new scheme, which has implemented a number of major improvements, including an increase in the level of death-in-service benefit from one and a half times pay to four times pay, a 25 per cent. improvement in the value of widows' pensions at full career and the introduction of benefits for unmarried partners. These things are good steps forward, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes them.

Can the Minister say to what extent people have taken up that scheme rather than staying with the previous one?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that information now. However, I shall look into the matter and write to him and other Members who have attended the debate.

The hon. Member for New Forest, East is right to point out that very often we look back at an issue after a time and think that we should have done something better or different. He focused his initial remarks on the ombudsman's report on the scheme for ex gratia payments to former prisoners of war of the Japanese. As he is aware, I have produced a written statement, to be presented to the House this morning, that responds to the ombudsman's comments. I do not want to trespass on that until it is available to all Members.

I say simply that the ombudsman made some criticisms of the Government and said that we should take certain actions. He suggested in particular that we should review the operation of the scheme. I do not think that that makes any sense; there were 29,000 applications for compensation under the scheme, and 24,000 people—or 83 per cent.—have been compensated. I see no purpose in examining the entire operation of the scheme, although I recognise that its announcement and introduction were not well handled. The Government accept that fully.

I am sure that Members are aware of the issues at the time. There was an urgency and enthusiasm to introduce the scheme as quickly as possible. A number of judicial reviews and issues affected the scheme. In the first such review, the judge commented that a scheme introduced in such haste was bound to have problems. I regret that a number of people who at first thought that they would be compensated will not now be compensated, because of the issue of birth link. I sincerely apologise for that. It was wrong, and the Government made a mistake. I shall be giving some thought to the ombudsman's recommendation that I should do more than apologise and consider some tangible response. I shall refer to it in my statement this morning.

The hon. Gentleman made several points about people moving on to the property ladder, and I think that I have covered them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is keen that we should consider the issue, and I shall do what I can. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about veterans' awareness week, which was a great success and showed the determination of our country to recognise the sacrifices and commitment of a generation that kept us free.

When I knocked on doors a few weeks ago in the general election, and people told me that they were not going to vote, I said to many of them, "We shall be commemorating in July, in a few weeks, the 60th anniversary of the end of the last war. If we had lost that war, you would not have the choice to vote." It is important that we get that message across. We owe the freedoms that we enjoy now to that generation who kept us a free people. I hope that their example will be recognised and carried on by younger generations.

The hon. Gentleman raised the matter of the Arctic veterans and a clasp for them. He said that he had done some research, which is interesting. If he wants to write to me or have a discussion, I shall take his points on board to ascertain whether anything can be done. He also mentioned medals issued to British service personnel by foreign Governments. That is a matter for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but I shall deal with that procedure in a note to him. I thank him for his comments about the heroes return project, which everyone thinks very worth while.

I have one last point for the Minister. The Veterans Agency has been a success for the Government. There is some talk about merging it with another organisation, and that is a little worrying. Can the Minister throw light on that?

Yes. There is a proposal that the Veterans Agency should be merged with another part of the Ministry of Defence. I have discussed that with a number of veterans' organisations. I am considering various options and comments. We are consulting on the proposal, and I shall make a decision in due course, but I reassure hon. Members that I should not want the excellent work that the Veterans Agency does, through being very focused on veterans and veterans' issues, to be diminished in any way if there were to be a merged organisation. That must be a top priority for any new body that may be set up. I am not in a position to say more now. I am waiting for comments. If any hon. Members who would like information about the proposals want to contact me, I shall make sure that they are given all the necessary information.

I hope that my comments and the programmes that I have outlined demonstrate that the Government are committed to ensuring that the quality of life of our veterans is good and that their service and commitment to our country is recognised. We owe them a great debt, which I know that the whole House wants to honour and repay. It is important that we continue to learn from the past as a country and continue to recognise the huge sacrifices that were made on our behalf. That can be done in no better way than by honouring, supporting and helping our veterans. In my role in the MOD—I am also the Minister with responsibility for the Met Office, by the way, so the good weather is down to me, although bad weather is Ivor Caplin's fault—my No. 1 priority among my many responsibilities will be working with, helping, supporting and encouraging our veterans. I am sure that I shall have the support of all hon. Members in that.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate this subject with the Minister, and I look forward to sharing thoughts and ideas with hon. Members and hearing their comments and suggestions.

I start by stating the obvious. There is a clear inequality between the number of men and women who want to start a business in the UK. I want to discuss what that gap means for us as a nation and what the Government can do, and are doing, to challenge and tackle those inequalities. I shall also discuss the reason for the gap. It is evident that that a number of structural and cultural challenges face women who want to start their own business. Again, I shall set out what I think can be done to help them overcome those barriers and conclude by considering the implications of demographic trends on public policy towards women entrepreneurs.

On the differences in start-up rates between men and women entrepreneurs, I take most of my figures from the 2004 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor UK report, produced by Rebecca Harding of the London Business School. Her report states that UK women are half as likely as men to start their own businesses. Around 7 per cent. of women own their own businesses compared with 16 per cent. of men. That inequality is a serious social, economic and demographic issue that needs to be tackled across a wide variety of public policy areas, not just in the Department of Trade and Industry. If half the population is not fulfilling its entrepreneurial potential it affects us regionally, nationally and as UK plc.

A number of Government initiatives are taking place across the country to address that gender gap. The Government's 2003 report "A Strategic Framework for Women's Enterprise" noted:

"At a cultural level there is a failure to recognise and value the contribution and potential contribution of women-owned businesses to the UK economy."

The Government have taken the important step of acknowledging that there is a problem. The regional development agencies have been working across the country to close the gap. Most now have a regional women's enterprise strategy and many have action plans that set out what they are trying to do for women and who is responsible for delivering to them. Many have a women's enterprise co-ordinator.

I welcome those developments, but we must go further to tackle the enterprise gender gap. We must also set targets from a baseline so that we know when we have achieved what we have set out to achieve. I have not been able to find anything that says what we want to achieve, so I am anxious to hear about that from the Minister. There have been large increases in the numbers of women starting businesses where the regional development agencies have made significant efforts to attract women into entrepreneurship, and I pay tribute to their efforts.

Yorkshire Forward, Wakefield's regional enterprise agency, has researched patterns of small business ownership and found them to be the same as they are in the rest of the country. In south Yorkshire, which was hardest hit by the closure of the coal mines, there is a specific strand of the European Union objective 1 structural fund that exists solely to promote women's enterprise. I welcome that focus on women and applaud the work going on to help those women boost their local economy, create jobs and provide for themselves and their families.

My hon. Friend refers to the work in south Yorkshire. We have the Sheffield community enterprise development unit, more commonly known locally as SCEDU. It is funded by the Learning and Skills Council and objective 1 funding. Its programme "Making a difference" offers a combined programme of business start-up and management training schedules as they relate to social enterprise for women. It is little known that SCEDU is located in Burngreave, which is among the 10 per cent. most deprived wards nationally. It contains within its approximate area seven of the most deprived neighbourhoods of the top 1 per cent. most deprived neighbourhoods—

Order. Interventions should be brief.

Thank you, Mr. Taylor, for reminding me of that.

What has my hon. Friend learned from such projects about promoting women's enterprise effectively?

I am delighted to hear about the excellent work of SCEDU. My hon. Friend raises an important issue relating to social enterprise and what we can do to help women in our most excluded communities. Those women often have all sorts of extra barriers, such as child care responsibilities, very low incomes and no capital for start-up. We need to unleash that potential. We now have 4 million businesses and must bridge the inequality gap. We have to start doing that by tackling all parts of society, which means people in the most deprived areas, too. I certainly welcome and applaud the work that has been done in her constituency.

I spoke to my enterprise agency, West Yorkshire enterprise agency, yesterday. It has started a women's network that brings together women from Wakefield, Kirklees and Calderdale—towns on the contiguous boundaries. It has 777 business women on its mailing list, of whom 172 are from Wakefield. They have set up a monthly networking club to promote their businesses to each other. There is often an information gap among businesses, whether owned by men or women, and people do not know about the products and services that exist in their local area. The West Yorkshire enterprise agency produces a directory of women-owned businesses in the area, which should help to close that gap.

One of the interesting things that the enterprise agency has done is to research the women who have shown an interest but have not started a business. It held a session in Wakefield last year called "What's Holding You Back?", in which it asked women who had attended one of its pre-start-up courses, but who had not gone on to start a business, a series of questions to elicit from them what was holding them back. The research showed that time, finances, current employment, criticism from others, motivation, juggling home and work responsibilities, attitude to risk, fear of failure and lack of support all played a part in those women's decisions not to proceed. Pam Shephard, the enterprise agency's marketing manager, made the good point that women are more likely than men to be open about the obstacles that they face and to be more realistic about their chances of overcoming them. Starting a business is not for everybody. Obviously, people who do not have the requisite skills and abilities should not start one, but we must strike an important balance and ensure adequate encouragement and support to harness potential.

We are fortunate in Wakefield to have some notable women entrepreneurs who are blazing a trail and sharing their experiences with other women. Margaret Wood is the managing director of ICW (UK) Ltd., an engineering company based at Horbury Junction. It specialises in the design and manufacture of glazed units for industrial applications. In 2002, Margaret came second in the national finals for the British female inventor and innovator of the year award for a revolutionary window design that enables windows to be opened and shut simply by pushing on them. Margaret is also the chairperson of Wakefield First, which is Wakefield's development agency, and chairperson of the Mid Yorkshire chamber of commerce local area council at Wakefield. She is a fantastic role model for young women who are thinking of starting up their own enterprises.

Linda Lennon is another inspirational Wakefield business woman. She started her business, Black and White Consumables, from her front room when her first child was born seven years ago. Her office supplies company now turns over nearly £1 million a year from its headquarters in the St. John's area of Wakefield. Linda went from being a telesales operator to winning the Yorkshire woman of achievement award for business last year. The business is still expanding, and Linda plans to take on a further 15 telesales staff as well as adding warehousing facilities to allow faster delivery. That is an amazing achievement for someone who started out with a baby in the bedroom, selling from her ironing board and a telephone in her front room.

There are some interesting role models in the north-west as well. Meena Pathak started work in hotel management in Mumbai and then moved into product development. She is now one half of Patak's, which is famous for its Indian food factory—now the largest Indian food factory in the world—based on the site of an old pit in Leigh, in Wigan borough.

Closer to home, Sue Woodward, the managing director of ITV, lives in my constituency. She recently won a well deserved award in the business category of the winning women awards. She is a rare example of a very senior woman in a media company and she also makes a contribution regionally. She worked on the Commonwealth games, and the citation for her award made it clear that she was an excellent manager of people.

I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that Sue Woodward and Meena Pathak are great examples for enterprising young women to follow. With help and direction from the north-west women's steering group, which was started by the regional development agency, we want to create a culture that encourages more women to start and grow their own businesses.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the important issue of ethnic minority women, who can face many barriers to starting their own business. She gave a good example of how women are often accidental entrepreneurs. I am pleased to hear about what is happening in the north-west because the northern way—the economic development plan for the north—is about bridging the gap between the north and the south, particularly in the north-west, the north-east and Yorkshire and the Humber, which lag behind for small business creation generally. We need to ensure that the three relevant enterprise agencies and RDAs work together so that those women are visible as champions and can be emulated in their districts.

Behind the success stories, there are a host of barriers that those women have overcome. We need to address three main structural barriers to encourage more women entrepreneurs. The first, and most important, is one that counts for every entrepreneur—finance. Particular structural barriers prevent women from getting finance for their business. The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor UK report states that men tend to invest more in start-up capital in their businesses than women do and that women are significantly less able than men to access bank finance. Why is that? The report also says that the fear of debt is cited by both sexes as an impediment to start-up, but is more significant for women than for men.

In our economy, people who start businesses tend to be in employment while doing so. Women are more likely than men are to be in low-paid or part-time employment and mixing employment with child care, so they are likely to be on a lower income. They may be at home caring for children, as in the case of Linda Lennon, and have no income of their own. Obviously a bank manager will be significantly less likely to lend to women who have no income or are on a smaller income. That also means that women are limited to starting businesses with a low capital outlay. That is a further impediment that we need to consider. Such businesses can only be financed organically, through their cash flow.

In my experience, women are less confident about the financial side of their business. They lack the language of finance, and that inhibits selling their business to banks as a low risk. There may also be barriers to informal venture capital for women. They may feel shy or inhibited about asking for help from family and friends. They may be worried about the effect on their personal relationships if they take a loan and cannot pay the person back.

The second important impediment is culture. Schools and careers services do not push girls to think of themselves as entrepreneurs. Women do not have a Richard Branson-style role model to emulate. As we heard, many women are accidental entrepreneurs who start in one career and move to something else when, for example, when their partner dies suddenly and they take over his business, when their husband leaves them and they have to work for the first time, or when they have a child and find that they enjoy the flexibility of looking after their children and being economically active at home.

I welcome the Chancellor of the Exchequer's commitment to make enterprise week in schools a national event. We need more entrepreneurship education throughout the school curriculum and young people to have greater financial understanding if they are to understand the basic principles of profit, loss, cash flow and borrowing.

A third significant barrier is age. Women are used to retiring earlier than men, even though they tend to live longer. They often retire on meagre pensions without the lump sums that men receive after a lifetime of working. Age brings a double exclusion. Banks are less likely to lend to older people, as they are perceived to be a higher risk. In the population as a whole, two men start a business for every woman who does so, but at age 55, five men start a business for every woman who does so. That figure masks a haemorrhaging of older women's skills and talents. If our birth rate continues to fall and life expectancy continues to rise, that group of potential third-age entrepreneurs is set to grow. It will represent a huge, untapped national resource. As our work force shrinks and ages, entrepreneurship could go some way towards alleviating poverty for women in old age.

It is clear that some people chose to be entrepreneurs and that others have entrepreneurship thrust on them. That is the case for women as well as for men. If we are serious about addressing the gender business gap, we must do several things. First, we must provide better access to finance for women. Secondly, we must ensure that efforts to establish an enterprise culture take particular account of the needs and aspirations of girls and women. Thirdly, we must ensure that the talents of older women are not neglected and that a specific plan is proposed to ensure a long, happy and prosperous old age.

Business failure is the other side of business success, but inspirational women entrepreneurs can act as catalysts for others The Government and this country have a huge prize at hand if we can unleash the talent, technological skill and dynamism of girls, women and older women.

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) on the enterprise that she showed in arriving at the Chamber this morning. Her office told me that after she could not get on to the tube she took to her cycle, and that after she took to her cycle she had a puncture, and that it was only after she hailed a taxi—I do not know what she did with the bike—that she managed to arrive, breathlessly, in the Chamber in time for her speech. Therefore, she engaged in a considerable amount of entrepreneurial activity to ensure that the debate could go ahead. I also particularly congratulate her on the way in which she presented her argument, and on highlighting such important topics.

I wish to apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equality; she would have been present to respond to the debate, were she not speaking today at a women's committee of the European Parliament in Brussels. I trust that that is a sufficiently good reason for her absence.

The Government are keenly aware of the importance of the issue of women and enterprise. We believe that there is an economic imperative for developing women's enterprise, and there is a great deal of evidence that women make a significant contribution to their local and national economy; I shall return to that.

A useful starting point to show how the Government have supported women entrepreneurs is the strategic framework for women's enterprise. Substantial progress has been made since the publication of the document launching that in May 2003. The strategic framework was developed to provide a collaborative and long-term approach to the development of women's enterprise in the UK. Its long-term vision is to create an environment and culture that encourages more women to start and then grow businesses, and it aims to ensure that every woman who desires to start or grow a business has access to appropriate help and support. The framework highlights four key areas for action: improving business support services; access to finance, as has been mentioned; caring and child care; and the management of the transition from benefits to self-employment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield asked about the Government's targets and the dates by which they should be met. The quantative targets set by the framework are to be met by 2006 and they are as follows: that women will account for 40 per cent. of customers using Government-sponsored business support services; that women-owned businesses will account for 20 per cent. of the UK total; and that the number of women from ethnic minority communities receiving business support assistance will be proportionate to their representation in the relevant local and regional population. I hope that that also goes some way towards addressing the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Ms Keeley).

Ministers have been active in developing the strategy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), in her former capacity as Minister for Industry and the Regions and Deputy Minister for Women and Equality, gave valuable support to promoting the development of women's enterprise. My hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equality has provided continuity by addressing the second Prowess summit entitled "Building on Success". That was aimed at regional development agencies, with the specific goal of reaffirming RDA commitment to building regional impetus with regard to supporting female entrepreneurship. She also launched the Prowess report entitled "The Regional State of Women's Enterprise in England". One of the report's conclusions was that

"women's enterprise promotion is increasingly being viewed in the regions as a vital untapped enterprise resource, rather than as a means of addressing social exclusion".

That goes to the heart of some of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield. We have to realise the folly of not tapping the full resources available to us as an economy. If we are able to tap into the untapped resource of female business skills and acumen, it can only bring great advantage to our economy.

I welcome the conclusion of that report as it is the essence of the position that we have reached. Women are increasingly seen as an entrepreneurial resource: an untapped source of great potential and creativity. Their future potential is even greater, and the Government acknowledge that, which is why we are doing more to promote the cause. The Government have pursued their goals for women entrepreneurs through the Small Business Service. Essentially, that approach has been to influence key partners in the regions—principally the RDAs—and to lead that implementation throughout Government. It was interesting to hear the examples my hon. Friend gave concerning west Yorkshire and the work of the enterprise agency there to involve women in enterprise.

We have also tried to maintain pressure on the Business Link network, via the RDAs and related agencies, to encourage the active promotion of services to women and to increase capacity and awareness of women's enterprise issues. We have sought to engage with key private stakeholders to promote and actively engage in the development of women's enterprise, such as the British Bankers Association, British Chambers of Commerce and the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. We have also supported targeted women's initiatives and networks and worked in collaboration with organisations such as Prowess, the UK's advocacy group for women's enterprise development, on a contract basis, and with a range of other women's enterprise organisations.

RDA's have been encouraged to take a lead in implementing the framework objectives by forming inclusive, strategic partnerships and women's enterprise action plans at a regional level. All nine RDAs are actively developing women's enterprise, and the East Midlands RDA, as well as the northern RDAs, has made the matter a considerable priority. The level of engagement of RDAs has improved markedly during the past six months, as my hon. Friend would acknowledge. External stakeholders acknowledge that the environment of support for women's enterprise development has taken quite a boost during that period.

The Minister mentions the East Midlands RDA. How can the Government encourage the other RDAs, which have perhaps not been as enthusiastic about embracing the women's enterprise agenda? What plans does he have to encourage them to ensure that women entrepreneurs who want to start a business anywhere in the country receive the same quality of Government service?

That is a critical point. Wherever women are in this country, we have to ensure that they have equal opportunities and that equal support is made available to them in setting out on the path to enterprise. My hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equality is pursuing that matter with each of the RDAs, and through my departmental responsibilities and engagement with the Small Business Service we are working through that organisation to the Business Link network to ensure that such provision is in place.

We can provide the quality of support that my hon. Friend seeks in key ways, but because of the devolved nature of the RDAs—and the Business Link service of the RDAs—it has to be done through them after pressure from central Government. It is very much a cascading-down process that ensures that we do not take away the capacity of each RDA to examine the function of its Business Link service and put in place what it sees as appropriate measures for its locality. As my hon. Friend knows, there are clear differences in need in different parts of the country. It is absolutely right that the RDAs can respond flexibly to those needs, but they must always ensure, critically, that the service standard is maintained. We need to see the feedback to ensure that the service is of a standard that is acceptable to the people who use it.

The significance of the development of women's enterprise was reinforced in October last year, when my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced the establishment of a women's enterprise panel to advise on the content of a new action plan to help to achieve the target of 20 per cent. female business ownership by 2006 that was cited in the framework. The panel was also asked to explore options for the establishment of a national women's business council.

The panel submitted its recommended action plan to the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 8 March. The Chancellor acknowledged and welcomed the action plan in his Budget speech. Regional development agencies have been invited to pilot the establishment of a regional women's enterprise unit in one or more regions. The women's enterprise panel has put that recommendation forward as part of its action plan. The panel is due to make recommendations to the Chancellor by the end of July on the establishment of a women's business council. The Government will then decide whether to take that forward.

The US has much higher levels of women's entrepreneurship. One of the key things that it has is women's networking and women's business organisations on a huge scale. Does the Minister envisage something like that coming out of the women's enterprise panel, and does he think that it will benefit the development of networking among business women in this country?

Clearly, networking is an essential part of setting up one's own business. It means being able to tap into the experience and resources of others who have paved the way. I am talking about role models, who, like those mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) and for Worsley, set out a path and can then share that best practice with others who come behind. Those role models must be accessible to all. They can be extraordinarily powerful.

The Government recently staged an online event, which highlighted such role models across the UK, to ensure that networking is not restricted by locality but can occur across the net.

What action is the Department taking with small business organisations, such as the Forum of Private Business and the Federation of Small Businesses, to try to set up women's networks and make them effective throughout the country?

That is part of the response from the women's enterprise panel that we are looking to. My hon. Friend raises the wider question of the Small Business Service as a whole. I hope that he will have heard the remarks that I made about business links and the other means of encouraging small businesses, such as access to finance, which I know he pursues vigorously as the chair of the all-party group on small business. These are critical ways, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield has said, in which the Government, working through the Small Business Service, can support women's enterprise.

I return to what I have called the economic argument for women and enterprise. The case for doing all that we can to boost women's enterprise in the UK is quite clear. It is not simply a matter of equality of opportunity; it is an economic imperative if we are to capitalise on the potential that women have to offer to our regional and national economies. The Small Business Service and its partners and stakeholders are working on capturing and articulating the economic argument for women's enterprise so that coherent, economy-based arguments can be put to those with whom we need to engage further in improving the environment for women's enterprise, particularly through the RDAs and other regional players.

A Department of Trade and Industry publication, "Promoting female entrepreneurship", has been received well by the women's enterprise community. It addresses some of the key points that my hon. Friend raised, such as:

"Why do some women want, or need, different things from business support programmes?"

These are ways in which we are seeking to do all that we can to support women's enterprise.

On the access-to-finance issue that my hon. Friend rightly raised, the SBS is currently co-ordinating the development of an action plan for access to finance for women entrepreneurs.

I am delighted to open this debate and serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Taylor.

It is well known that I am third choice for this debate. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) originally secured the debate, but he is sadly either in or just out of hospital—our thoughts are with him. I know that my good friend the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) would also like to have led the debate, but he is busy acting on behalf of us Back Benchers in the main Chamber, so I will let him off on this occasion. I hope also that other Members will drop in, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed).

The issue is important: whether we are a Christian or follower of another religion or none, we should never lose sight of what is happening to Christians in other parts of the world. I thank my good friend Dr. Alan Hobson of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, with whom I have worked closely in raising a number of questions and in previous debates. I also pay due regard to John Prince of the Library, who has produced an excellent debate pack. I hope that, if people do not read the speech, they will at least look at the debate pack, which gives a good overview of what is happening in China and other parts of south-east Asia and which supplements what I will say today.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue. Hon. Members will be aware that there is a huge amount of persecution of Christians in many parts of the world. Of course, they are not alone in being subjugated, but I should like to concentrate on their plight. This follows on from a debate three years ago, which looked at the violence against Christian communities in Asia. We will look at part of Asia today, but it shows what is happening and what should not be happening.

When we examine south-east Asia and China, we can find many examples of what is happening to Christians who bear the brunt of persecution for their views. I hope to show that there is action that we can take, and it is good to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade present to answer. Although I will spend most of my time talking about the issues, I hope that there will be actions linked to them.

In the previous debate, my good friend the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) made the following observation:

"If a state will not respect the most intimate beliefs of individuals, it is far less likely to respect other personal rights. Religious liberty can be seen as a benchmark for how well human rights in general are flourishing."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 17 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 95WH.]

That remains as true today as it was then, and it is worth reiterating. By standing up for the rights of persecuted religious groups, we also help to tackle other human rights abuses and promote a healthier respect for human rights across the world.

South-east Asia and China are both areas of outstanding natural beauty, and they contain a rich and extraordinary history. There is much to commend the region, but unfortunately major human rights abuses are occurring in a number of the countries in it. Many of those human rights abuses deserve full debates in their own right, but it is important to be realistic about how much we can cover in this hour-and-a-half debate. I shall look at specific countries and specific abuses.

Human rights abuses in China are widespread, and among the most prominent is the persecution of Christians. It is true that Christians in some parts of China fare better, or less badly, than those in other parts. Christians who belong to the state-controlled Protestant and Catholic Churches are tolerated to a much greater degree than those who follow other Christian religions. To achieve that tolerance, however, they must sacrifice some of their beliefs and activities. For many Christians, that is too high a price to pay. These Christians, of whom the most conservative estimate is that there are tens of millions, have decided that forming and running underground Churches is the best way to practise their faith while remaining true to the fundamentals of that faith. That decision should be their right under international law, but the reality is very different. I hope that the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) will allude to that if called to speak in the debate.

Christians in Vietnam and Laos have long suffered systematic persecution at the hands of the Communist Governments there. Those authorities perceive Christianity as a threat partly because they see it as a foreign religion and partly because Christians tend to give their primary allegiance to God rather than the state. At the same time, however, Christians are very loyal members of those communities and good members of those states. A related factor is that those Governments tend to see all religion as a competitor with the communist ideology for the hearts and minds of their peoples. In the eyes of the dictators, politicians and officials who subscribe to that view, there should be only one winner—the state—so there is brutal repression of views that do not necessarily correspond to the mainline view.

To be fair, I should point out that the situation in Laos has improved somewhat and the central Government there have a more relaxed attitude to Christianity than they used to have. However, local authorities in some parts of the country are still eager to persecute Christians.

There are examples of persecution of Christians in other countries in the region. In Burma, there have been instances of Christians in the Karen and Karenni ethnic groups being forced by State Peace and Development Council troops to destroy their churches and build Buddhist temples instead. There are many causes of the persecution of ethnic minorities by the SPDC, but one subsidiary cause appears to relate to religion.

In the Philippines, although religious freedom is widespread and established, Christians occasionally suffer at the hands of Islamist terrorist groups, such as the Abu Sayyaf Group and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. For example, in 2003 the MILF attacked a Christian town in M'lang in North Cotabato, killing five people.

Even in Malaysia, which has a long record of religious tolerance, the Iban-language Bible was temporarily banned by the Government in 2003, and four Malays from Kelantan were imprisoned twice, in 1992 and 2000, for renouncing Islam.

In Indonesia, more than 8,000 Christians were killed in violence at the hands of Islamists in parts of the country in the period from 1999 to 2003. I am pleased to note that the situation in Indonesia is now much improved. However, three Christian women have just been arrested on charges of Christianisation in west Java. More than 100 Mujaheddin militants have regularly attended the court hearings for their trial, freely shouting death threats in the court. These incidents are, of course, very worrying.

Today, however, I shall focus on Vietnam. Official ideological opposition to religion in Vietnam remains systemic. The terminology and tone of Government documents and actions on religion show continued Government suspicion of religion in general and Christianity in particular and an assumption that religious people are unpatriotic. I know this from my own dealings with the regime in Vietnam. I was able, with Lord Chan, to go on a lobby—I think that that is a fair description of it, although some would see it as a bit more robust than that. We were outside the Vietnamese embassy. Representatives of the regime refused to meet us, but we indulged in some correspondence. I have the letter here, which I think it is fair to say roundly denounces us for our association with Christian Solidarity Worldwide and for raising certain issues with them—there was not much of a meeting of minds.

Protestant leaders say that the Government plan to eradicate Christianity, frequently stressed by hard-line local officials, continues gradually but steadily. All villages and hamlets have a constant military and/or police presence, which is often used specifically against Christians. The following quote helps to show that. Rev. Tran Mai, general director of the Inter-Evangelistic Movement of Vietnam, says:

"I recommend those who travel to Vietnam and those who serve as diplomats should go to remote villages to see the sport of 'eradicating religion' being played by the Communist Party of Vietnam. They could then see the security police and soldiers playing their special role of living among the citizens who believe in God, sleeping in the house of Christian citizens, spying on citizens who believe in God—how completely strange! In a country that is at peace already the army is still scattered through hamlets and villages. Why? Because of the [Christian] faith, because of Jesus Christ, that's why—because the government wants to obstruct and eliminate the [Christian] faith."

There are many other reports that I could mention. In Vietnam, there are some awful cases of the most direct action against Christians. For example, bulldozers, tractors with ploughs, and saws and hammers have been used to destroy plantations that are owned by Christians. The Government prevent Christians in many parts of Vietnam from receiving international foreign aid for poverty alleviation and for disaster relief. There are examples of children being expelled from school because they are Christians. Anyone who is a Christian believer who buys land, or a house, or tries to cultivate a field, will have a hard time getting local officials to sign the papers. There are also regular and systematic attacks on house churches in Vietnam, as a result of which people are often denied personal ID cards and family residence papers, which means that they are very likely to suffer attack. The security police work constantly against those who profess the faith. There are many examples of house church leaders being put at significant risk because of what they have said and done.

In the central highlands, from September 2002 to date, Government campaigns have forcibly disbanded many hundreds of local churches and have sought to force Christians to renounce their faith. Nearly 300 Christian leaders are known to have been arrested and incarcerated. At least 60 Protestant leaders, including eight regular pastors of local churches, languish in the infamous Ba Sao prison in Nam Ha province; all have been given long prison sentences.

In Dak Lak, a province where travel is restricted for residents and visitors alike, the state recognises only four Christian groups, which meet in the homes of certain pastors. Christian leaders report that there are 439 meeting places in the province, but four out of 439 is less than 1 per cent. The pastors of the four groups supposedly recognised by the state are not even free to visit their own parishioners without getting official permission.

Christian leaders in the province say that the vast majority of the approximately 150,000 Protestant Christians must now practise their faith underground. Worship, teaching, baptisms and the observance of holy communion must be done out of sight of the authorities. That situation is replicated in many other areas.

In Dien Bien province, which is well known because of the 1962 battle that took place there, in which the French were roundly defeated, Pastor Thao Chu Gia reports that in December 2005, the local chief of police, the chairman of the commune and more than a dozen police officers

"arrested us and tried to make us deny our faith and build a spirit altar, worship the spirits and drink liquor. We refused."

He continued:

"After that the police summoned one family at a time and tried to make us deny our faith, and because we would not comply they swore at us and beat us many times. Because of the severe beatings five families agreed to deny Christianity, build a spirit altar and worship spirits."

Police officers and district and provincial Government officials are spreading the word in Dien Bien province that they will completely eradicate Christianity from Vietnam. That situation is matched in Lai Chau province and Hai Phong city.

I shall finish this point and then make some more general points about how Christians are treated in south-east Asia. I have asked a number of parliamentary questions about the subjugation of the Vietnamese Mennonite Church. The incidents have included summoning individual Mennonites to police stations where they are interrogated and attempts are made to force them to renounce their Christianity. A prominent Mennonite pastor, Pastor Quang, was arrested in June 2004 and the state-controlled media began a campaign of vilification against him. Le Thi Hong Lien was arrested with him; the torture and abuse that she suffered in prison led to her complete physical and mental breakdown and even then she was still beaten by police.

Another Mennonite pastor, Nguyen Van Phuong, completed his one-year sentence on 3 March and was duly released from prison. He, too, issued a report about the abusive treatment he received in prison, detailing severe beatings, threats during interrogation and forced labour. All the reports say the same thing: that they are subject to enormous mistreatment because of their faith.

We ask the Minister to talk to the authorities in Vietnam about the unacceptable treatment, and I hope he will respond to that request. Vietnam is party to the international covenant on civil and political rights—the ICCPR. Article 18, which closely mirrors the same article of the universal declaration on human rights, is especially relevant. It states:

"Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching."

We ask the Minister to raise the issue directly with the Vietnamese authorities to make it clear that there is documented evidence of mistreatment of people in their community trying to practise their religion, which the Vietnamese have signed up to, and of those who have been arrested as a result of their religion. We should be taking up such cases and telling the Vietnamese authorities that we know what is going on and that they must desist.

In November 2004 Vietnam changed the ordinance regarding religious beliefs and religious organisations, which brought additional fears because the state is institutionalising some of the actions that it can take against Christians. We wish the Minister to take up with Vietnam the implications of that ordinance and the instructions based upon it. That is a concrete action that he can take.

I have used Vietnam as a touchstone, an exemplar of what is happening to Christians in that part of the world. Other hon. Members will allude to Christians in other countries where there are serious problems. This is not just about people's ability and right to profess their faith and in community with others to demonstrate that faith but also about human rights, the right that they should have to know that what they want to do they should be able to do, with support from the state but also with the knowledge that they will receive protection from those who clearly wish to try to eradicate their views. They should certainly not have to fear being attacked by the state.

I am making these points not just because of my religious faith, which is important to me, but also because of my interest in human rights. This issue concerns human rights abuses and it should be as important as the abuses in Burma and Tibet. Those of us who are members of the two groups that campaign on these issues rightly take up what is happening with the authorities involved. When the Chinese or Burmese authorities make statements that try to justify what they are doing, we argue against them and say what is really going on.

I should like the Minister to take up a vigorous stance now on behalf of the Government and consider in particular cases such as that of Pastor Quang, who was arrested and suffers daily subjugation in prison. We should see Vietnam for what it is. Our duty in this place is to make representations and try to get the regime to reform; it is desperately in need of that.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on his excellent opening speech. I should also like to put on the record my congratulations and thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), who was successful originally in securing this debate. We wish him a speedy recovery and give him our best wishes.

I want to focus on the situation in China. There are quite a few concerns about human rights abuses in China, one of the most significant of which is religious persecution. The Chinese Government seem to regard religion as a threat to their power. As a result, they place severe restrictions on religious activities and seek to control them. They also seek to eradicate religious activities that are not Government-controlled through the Chinese State Council's religious affairs bureau. Religious groups that refuse to accept the control of that bureau face severe consequences, including, I understand, heavy fines, repeated arrest, interrogation, torture and incarceration in prison or labour camps.

A number of religions face discrimination and persecution in China, including Protestant and Catholic Christianity—other than the official state-controlled versions of each—Tibetan Buddhists, Uighur Muslims and the Falun Gong, whose practitioners have also faced severe persecution, although they do not claim it to be a religion.

I should like to focus in particular on the persecution faced by the unregistered, unofficial Christian Churches, both Protestant and Catholic. Although exact figures are hard to come by, it is estimated that tens of millions of Christians belong to such underground Churches. They regard the official state-controlled Churches as fatally compromised and unable to function and flourish as true Churches. In the state-controlled Churches, preaching about Christ's second coming, his resurrection and miracles—all of which are part of the fundamentals of the Christian faith—is forbidden. That helps to show why the underground Churches feel as they do.

The situation of unregistered Christian groups in many parts of China has worsened since the introduction of new regulations on religion at the beginning of March. As was widely feared, they are being used as a pretext for increased pressure on religious groups that are not registered. A good example of such repression is a recent incident in Jilin province. The crackdown there began on Sunday 22 May at about 5 am when about a dozen Chinese police burst into the home of the house church leader Zhao Dianru and arrested him. His house was searched, even though no warrant had been shown, and he was taken away and detained in Jiutai city detention centre in Jilin province. He was kept there until 6 June, when he was released.

Zhao is a prominent local house church leader who oversees about 18 churches in the area. He was recently asked to join the Government-sanctioned Church three times, but he declined each time. According to reliable sources, his arrest document accused him of using other means to instigate and disturb social stability, but did not mention religion or Church activities. About 20 boxes of Christian books were confiscated during the police raid.

Meanwhile, according to reports, police and public security bureau officers simultaneously raided about 100 churches in the area of Changchun, the capital city of Jilin province, and nearly 600 house church Christians were taken into custody. Most were released after interrogations lasting between 24 and 48 hours. However, at present, about 100 of the leaders of such house churches, including professors at Changchun university, remain in custody in various detention centres.

It is reported that large proportions of the congregations of the independent unregistered Churches that have been targeted are drawn from among university students, professors and young intellectuals. It is thought that the campaign is co-ordinated to rid the university areas of house church influence. Just more than a week earlier, on 13 May, 20 house church leaders were arrested while conducting a Bible training class at Pinglu county, Shanxi province. Among them were two well-known local house church leaders, Pastor Zhang Guangmin and Elder Li. Although most of those arrested were released almost immediately, Pastor Zhang and Elder Li were held for two weeks and one month respectively at Pinglu county detention centre before they were released.

On 24 May, three female house church believers were arrested by four Public Security Bureau officers at Yiyang county, Henan province while visiting a Christian leader's home. Miss Liu Lianying, Miss Xue Haimiao and Miss Zhang Xiulan were all released after extensive interrogation at Yiyang county detention centre. None of them were given or shown any arrest-warrants or release papers. They were accused of attending a religious black hole, which was a reference to their attendance at house churches. According to an eye-witness report, the three women were brutally beaten. Miss Liu Lianying was released before the other two women because the beatings caused her to suffer a heart attack.

Last month, several hundred house church Christians were detained at Xinjiang construction military corps. The corps consists of several large paramilitary units and was sent to the remote north-west province by the Chinese Communist party in the 1950s to suppress the so-called rebellious Muslims, who resisted the communist occupation. After suppressing the Muslims successfully, members of the paramilitary units along with their families were ordered to stay in the area and become civilians. Many have since become Christians and secretly hold house church worship services at their homes. According to a representative of one group of house churches there, the local authority has clamped down increasingly on them over the past three years with punitive measures, such as imprisonment, deduction of welfare payments and arbitrary fines if they were found believing a religion.

A few weeks ago on 24 June at about 8 am, while house church leader Pastor Chen Dongming was leading a church leadership training meeting at his home in Hezhai village in Henan province, more than 50 Chinese police and public security officials raided and searched his house without a search-warrant. They had first surrounded the entire village, as if they were hunting dangerous armed criminals or terrorist suspects. Instead, their target was a harmless, middle-aged Christian pastor who was doing nothing more than trying to serve God. After bursting into the building, the security officers conducted thorough body searches of each of the pastors—both men and women—and then arrested Pastor Chen and others. Private property, including cash, chairs, TVs, books, blankets and rice, was confiscated and carried away by police trucks.

In raids around the same time, about 100 pastors from several major cities in the province were taken away and detained at Qi county detention centre. While most of the pastors were released later the same day after intensive interrogations, nine of them, including Pastor Chen Dongming, remain in jail. One pastor who was released said that they were accused of engaging in an illegal religious gathering.

Meanwhile, even before the crackdowns based on the introduction of the new regulations in March, Christians were continuing to suffer in many parts of China. Among the many Christians in detention, Pastor Zhang Rongliang is a figure of particular concern. He is the leader of the China for Christ Church, which is estimated to have about 10 million members. He is one of the most prominent house church leaders in China and has been featured in Time and Newsweek magazines. He was arrested on 1 December 2004 in Xuhai villague, Zhengzhou in Henan province. The arrest was followed by wide-ranging raids on other churches in the area. His family all fled into hiding.

Pastor Zhang, who is 53 years old, suffers from serious diabetes and there are particular worries about his welfare and safety. He had been wanted for his religious activities for many years and has already spent 12 years in prison for his faith during five separate detentions. He suffered severe torture during those detentions and, according to the last report that was received about his whereabouts, it appeared that he was being held incommunicado in the Jinshui area in Zhengzhou.

There are real fears for Pastor Zhang's health and whether he will be able to endure the mistreatment that he is likely to be facing. The likelihood of renewed torture has been increased by his international profile and because he is the leader of a large house church network. The Chinese authorities are afraid of large religious groupings and label them as evil cults. That is done even when the groups are part of mainstream Christianity, with no theological deviation.

The account to which I shall now refer gives a graphic example of the brutal way in which many Christians are treated while being held in detention in China. It consists of a few brief extracts from an account by Liu Xianzhi of a series of interrogations that she underwent between 27 May and 9 June 2001. She delivered the account at a gathering of the National Press Club in February. She could not make public her sufferings much earlier, as following her interrogations in 2001 she was sentenced to three years of hard labour, and she was released only last year. Although her sufferings occurred several years ago, they are still relevant today for two reasons. First, they are based on a recent account, so they have not been in the public arena for long and need to be aired. Secondly, and more importantly, they provide a good summary of the sort of suffering that many Christians are undergoing in detention in China.

Liu was a committed member of the South China Church, and her accusers were trying to force her to incriminate her pastor, a well known Chinese house church leader. Liu says:

"Two men came and held me down by the feet and two others came and shackled me. They told me to run up and down the room. As I ran they all started making crude remarks about me. One of them said that I had slept with Pastor Gong. I was deeply upset to have such a thing said and it cut right into my heart. It was very tiring to run and when I stopped one of them came and took a clothes hanger and hit my toes until they were swollen. Another hit me from the back. As I was trying to move forward one of them stood on my shackles so I fell forward. As I was on the floor another came and took me by the hair and flung me to the wall. I had to walk so much that I started to bleed, leaving a trail of blood on the floor. After a while I really could not move any more. The shackles had cut deep into my ankles causing extreme pain. I still have the scars from these wounds today. Eventually the pain was so unbearable that I could not take it any more and I passed out on the floor."

She continues:

"Two men came and grabbed my shoulders and started to fling me around, dragging the lower part of my body on the floor. They violently threw me to the ground . . . The chief of police said he had orders giving him the authority to do all he could; even beat me to death, and that even if I complained it would do no good. He told me, 'We have dug a ditch outside especially prepared for you. After we beat you to death we will bury you and no-one will know.' . . . He told me that if I did not confess that day he would not let me die easily. I said I would never falsely accuse someone. He used his leather shoes to kick my mouth, saying I was stubborn and would not talk. Then he continued to grind his shoe on my hand . . . When the pain was so excruciating, one of them took my arm and put a pen in my hand and tried to move my hand to sign on a piece of paper."

It is important to put extracts from this account on the record.

The Catholic Church is also heavily persecuted in parts of China—I am referring, of course, to the underground Roman Catholic Church rather than the Government-controlled Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association. The Chinese Government consider the underground Church to be an illegal organisation. Its activities must therefore be conducted in secret. Penalties for belonging to the underground Roman Catholic Church include exorbitant fines, imprisonment, house arrests, beatings and internment in labour camps. Bishops from the underground Catholic Church have been targeted by the Government. For example, Bishop Su Zhimin, the unofficial Bishop of Baoding, Hebei, was arrested in 1996. He escaped and was rearrested in 1997. He was then not heard from or seen for six years. Finally, in November 2003, he was seen by chance in a hospital in Baoding. As soon as the authorities discovered that he had been seen, Bishop Su was spirited away again and disappeared. He has not been seen since. Inquiries to the Chinese Government from various United States Government agencies and non-governmental organisations about Bishop Su's whereabouts and well-being have never been answered satisfactorily.

Bishop An Shuxin, the unofficial auxiliary Bishop of Baoding, was arrested in 1996. He has been seen only once since then, when, several years ago, he was permitted to go home to visit his elderly mother. It is not known where he is today, or even whether he is still alive.

Bishop Han Dingxiang, unofficial Bishop of Yong Nian, was arrested in 1999. He is elderly and in bad health, but he has been kept in detention for the past six years. Bishop Shi Enxiang, unofficial Bishop of Yixian, Hebei, was arrested in 2001. He is now over 80 years of age, and he has been detained for the past four years. Bishop Gao Kexian, unofficial Bishop of Yantai, Shandong, was arrested in October 1999. His whereabouts were unknown until he died in jail in January.

Currently every one of the approximately 50 bishops of the underground Roman Catholic Church is in jail, under house arrest, under strict surveillance or in hiding. One of them was rearrested just a few days ago. Bishop Jia Zhi Guo, the underground Roman Catholic bishop of the diocese of Zheng Ding in Hebei, was arrested by two Government officials at his home on 4 July. He was driven away to an unknown location. The Government officials telephoned him in advance to notify him that he was being picked up. They ordered him to tell people that he was being taken away to visit a doctor. However, he is not currently sick and there is no need for him to visit a doctor. He is 70 years old and was ordained as a bishop in 1980. He was previously in jail for approximately 20 years and has been under strict surveillance for many years. He takes care of approximately 100 handicapped orphans in his home. He has been arrested several times since January 2004.

In September 2004, the prominent Beijing house church leader Pastor Cai Zhuohua was abducted by three plain clothes officers, who were believed to be from the state security bureau. Shortly after his abduction, his wife, sister and brother-in-law were arrested while in hiding. Pastor Cai's wife has a prominent role alongside her husband in the Beijing house church leadership. What was his crime? Pastor Cai had allegedly run a printing business and used it to print about 200,000 copies of the Bible and other Christian literature, while making a profit out of it. Officially, only one publisher, belonging to the officially sanctioned Three Self Patriotic Movement, is allowed to publish and print a limited number of Bibles and other Christian books. The strict regulation does not allow the production of sufficient Bibles to meet the high demand of the house churches. Sources close to Pastor Cai's churches insisted that the confiscated material was solely for internal house church use and that he had made no profit from it whatsoever. The conditions of strict controls on the house churches made such production necessary.

The abduction of Pastor Cai, the arbitrary detention of his wife and relatives, and the use of torture during interrogation to extract a confession indicate clearly that the Chinese authorities did not follow proper procedure during the prosecution of the case. Pastor Cai was finally put on trial a few days ago. The trial lasted only half a day. I understand that the verdict has not yet been announced. The authorities seem to have gone out of their way to be obstructive. Nine lawyers had volunteered to be part of Pastor Cai's legal team, but only five were allowed in court. His family and friends were originally told that they would be allowed 10 seats in the court, but only three were permitted. The US embassy sent an observer to the trial but they were denied access. Only one defence witness was allowed. During the trial, Pastor Cai pointed out that the confession his interrogators claimed he had given consisted of statements that they had written. He had not seen the statements and he was forced by torture to sign. Three other accused Christians at the trial said that they signed their confessions under threat of torture.

The Chinese Government have attempted to fob off criticism by arguing that it is not a religious trial but an economic one. However, as one of Cai's lawyers said:

"The court should not be used to oppress religion and religious freedoms, but the authorities are always using economics as a pretext to deal with religious and political issues."

The verdict in the case will be announced at some point in the future. Sources say it could be a week or it could be a year. It is believed that the Chinese Government will try to find a time when political fallout from the decision will be least.

The cases that I have described are illustrative, but they are only the tip of the iceberg. They ought to serve as a stark warning to the international community of China's willingness to disregard universally agreed international human rights obligations. The fact that Pastor Cai Zhuohua and his wife are at present languishing in prison, that Bishop Su Zhimin is still unaccounted for, that people such as Liu Xianzhi can be brutally tortured, and that Zhang Rongliang remains detained without charge—in addition to many other cases, known and unknown—sends a stark signal that China has not softened and shows little sign of doing so.

The issue of the North Korean border crossers remains a key concern regarding China's respect for human rights. When refugees fleeing North Korea are caught in China, they are usually sent back to an uncertain fate. China still refuses to accept that they are genuine refugees, despite much evidence to the contrary. Obviously, this is not primarily a case of persecution of Christians. However, even in this instance, persecution of Christians is a subsidiary issue.

A few years ago, Dr. Alan Hobson, of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, travelled to the region and interviewed some survivors who had fled North Korea. Most of them had gone through China. Those who had been caught the first time, and sent back to North Korea by the Chinese, faced severe punishment. However, they said that the North Koreans were particularly harsh on any returnees whom they suspected to be Christians; thus persecution of Christians becomes an issue in the area of Chinese human rights abuses as well. China needs to take seriously the terms of the 1951 UN convention on refugees and start dealing a lot more sympathetically with those who flee the terrible sufferings and human rights abuses in North Korea and end up in China. Despite the Chinese Government's ratification of several human rights treaties, its stated adherence to the UN declaration of human rights and a provision in the Chinese constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion and belief, China continues to commit serious violations of religious freedom and belief.

I realise that the Foreign Office has often taken a robust line on China and that the China section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has done a lot of good work on taking up the issue of human rights abuses with its Chinese counterparts. However, there is still much to be done. I urge renewed effort to champion the cause of persecuted Christians in China, including the cases that I have raised today, and to impress on the Chinese the importance of allowing freedom of religion in China.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on securing this debate and on his choice of subject. He has a strong and detailed interest in this area, as was shown by the way in which he opened the debate.

On a day when 25 innocent children were killed in Iraq and 20 more children were killed in an attack on a school in Kenya, and in a week when London suffered 50 deaths in an outrageous terrorist attack, it is clear that throughout the world persecution and attacks are taking place on people of all religions and of no religion. Today we are concentrating on the persecution of Christians in south-east Asia and China, and it is sad to say that there is persecution in many other regions of the world.

During the past few months in the lead-up to the G8 summit, the Make Poverty History campaign has understandably resulted in an international debate centred on Africa and the need for international effort in that region. During the previous Session we debated attacks on Christian communities in Africa. However, the hon. Gentleman has done us and the House a service by reminding us of the continuing need for this country, working with our allies, to help those suffering from violence and persecution elsewhere in the world—in this case, south-east Asia and China.

I come to this debate remembering that the persecution of Christians in Asia was one of the first issues that I had to look into after being elected in 2001. Days after arriving in Westminster I received a detailed letter from a constituent, who wrote specifically on the plight of Indonesian Christians in the Malucca islands. I had not come across that issue before, but the more I looked into it, the more appalled I became. It did not take much research to realise that that problem was not isolated in those islands: it affected countries throughout south-east Asia.

It should be noted that although today's debate has focused on Christianity, this problem is not isolated to that group. There is a catalogue of evidence showing that Buddhists—especially Buddhist monks—are facing imprisonment and violence, and that problem is not isolated to one country or region. This problem should concern those of all religions and those of none.

Article 18 of the United Nations universal declaration of human rights clearly states:

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

That is a clear and definitive statement that should be respected and followed, yet in many parts of the world—particularly in south-east Asia—respect for freedom of religious practice and expression is not happening.

This issue is far from being confined to one country, as previous speakers have mentioned. In China, despite a constitution that states that citizens should enjoy total religious freedom, the Chinese Government have continually attempted to restrict all religious practice to Government-authorised religious organisations and registered places of worship. The regulations, which were introduced earlier this year, have in many ways simply been used as a means of attacking those religious groups that are not registered with the authorities. Hundreds of Christian leaders remain imprisoned, churches have been raided and many followers have been forced into hiding.

Similarly, in Burma, where almost 2 million of the population are Christians, the only people allowed the freedom to practise their religion are those who are registered. Religious publications are censored, and it has been illegal to print translated Bibles. One Burmese army commander, after attacking Christian communities of Karen, was quoted as saying:

"I do not respect any religion. My religion is the trigger of my gun."

In Vietnam, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Stroud, there continue to be major restrictions on Christian practices, religious schooling and even the charitable activities carried out by religious organisations. When some groups seek to register their church through the official channels, their church is raided and their meetings are labelled illegal. There remains a general and profound distrust of, and fundamental opposition to, religion in principle in Vietnam.

In Laos, there is ongoing Government-organised persecution of Christians, helped by the wording of the country's constitution, which allows the authorities to declare Protestant Christianity its foremost enemy.

A recent report by Aid to the Church in Need covered its investigations into persecutions in China in 2004. The report was covered by Zenit, the international news agency, which said the following:

"'During 2004 religious freedom suffered substantial and systematic violations in China,' the report observed. The Beijing government permits religious activity only by registered associations. It conceives of religion as being in the service of state security and the nation's progress. Thus, freedom of worship is not an innate right for people but a concession by the state.

New national laws on religion led to little"

or no

"real improvement: the statutes contain provisions allowing the government to arrest and imprison as common criminals those acting outside the controlled organizations.

Yet, churches continue to attract ever-greater numbers of followers throughout the country. As well, conversions to Christian groups have increased among professors, intellectuals and students.

During 2004 there was a series of arrests of clandestine Catholics practising their faith outside the recognized associations. Arrests, intimidations, compulsory participation in indoctrination courses and interrogations have been reported in"

a number of regions, including

"Fujian, Zhejiang, Inner Mongolia, Henan and . . . Hebei.

In North Korea, over the last 50 years about 300,000 Christians have vanished . . . Believers are obliged to register in organizations controlled by the Communist Party. Those who fail to comply face frequent, and brutal, persecutions. Religious freedom has yet to go global."

Another report by the same news agency described how the destruction of Catholic schools throughout Asia has become the new trend, and is aimed at suppressing religious freedom. The director of AsiaNews said that

"those influenced by religious fundamentalism . . . are no longer content with suppressing individuals; they destroy all objects and buildings linked to freedom of worship".

Those buildings are not just churches; they include schools and the homes of Christians. The aim is not just to silence the expression of faith but to prevent all social cohesion within Christian communities.

I appreciate that it is easy to document the problems. In many ways, it is much more difficult to come up with the solutions. When I was preparing for today's debate, I visited the excellent website of International Christian Concern, which lists in some detail the problems faced by Christians in south-east Asia. I noted that it provides a list of recommendations. The first suggested course of action in each country is prayer for the Christians affected. I practise no religion but respect the rights of others to do so, and I hope that the Minister will do more than just pray. I hope that he will do all that he possibly can, working closely with officials in his Department and others, to put pressure on the foreign Governments who at best allow the attacks and at worst orchestrate them.

In addition, all help must be given to those fleeing persecution, many of whom are living in camps on country borders and creating a new humanitarian challenge. I appreciate that, in many cases, the UK Government's power to influence such matters can be limited. There is no magic wand to be waved, but those difficulties should not prevent the Government from speaking out in the strongest possible terms against such atrocities or from applying as much pressure as possible on the affected countries and their Governments to change attitudes and bring about swift action.

Where the Government do have influence and scope to make a real difference is in the assistance of those who flee their own country because of religious persecution and who face challenges in a new land. I have asked the Government before about the border between Thailand and Burma, over which many Burmese people have fled, where they have lived in refugee camps. It is imperative that all help required by those people is forthcoming, whether that is food aid or, more probably, housing and medical equipment.

Will the Minister update Members on what action the Department for International Development is taking, both by itself and through the European Union, to help other displaced people within either their own or neighbouring countries? Access can be difficult, but when the UK has an opportunity to help, it would be good to know what help is offered and provided.

Many people will listen closely to the Minister's remarks today. He can be assured that he will receive strong cross-party support for the measures that he and his Government take to address the problem. It is not a new problem nor something that can be solved overnight. However, in the 21st century, violence against innocent individuals whose only wish is to practise their faith peacefully and without fear of oppression cannot be allowed to continue.

May I take this opportunity to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Taylor, and say what a great pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship?

I also welcome the Minister and add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), whom I am almost tempted to call my hon. Friend. I congratulate him on securing the debate and on his well thought-out and well researched contribution. He was modest enough to say that he was third choice as proposer of the debate. I am sure that, in the Westminster Hall book, he is always our first choice.

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) in recognising the trauma of the illness suffered by our hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes). We wish him a full and speedy recovery. He will be incredibly disappointed not to be with us today, but the hon. Member for Stroud has done justice to the debate. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire on his contribution. The fact that we have had such a good and positive debate across the parties means that we can bring the subject of persecutions on grounds of faith to a wider audience.

I am sure that everyone will join me, particularly in view of the events last Thursday, in recognising the significance of the good relations and tolerance that we enjoy in our multicultural and multi-faith society. I pay tribute to, and pause to recognise, the work of the Church of England, the Catholic Church and all Christians, particularly considering that we heard yesterday that the perpetrators of last week's atrocities were home grown and came from not far from my constituency. We all stand four-square behind the Prime Minister, offering cross-party support to show that all faiths are able to stand firm against the threat of terrorism and threats to any or all faiths in this country.

Tolerance of other faiths, religions and creeds is a hallmark of modern society and benchmark of any parliamentary democracy. It is important to recognise the right of individuals to enjoy life's freedoms without fear of persecution or violation of basic human rights, and the right to worship remains a fundamental human right. The Conservative party condemns the oppression of individuals on the grounds of religious belief. As the official Opposition, we deplore the persecution of any faith and the prevention of any individual from lawfully practising their religion anywhere in the world. We monitor closely any curtailment of such a basic human right in China, North Korea, Vietnam and other parts of south-east Asia, not to forget those African countries and regions, such as Zimbabwe and Darfur, that have been discussed in previous debates.

I welcomed the announcement of my hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary on the establishment of a human rights group in the Conservative party. We are dedicated to publishing an annual audit of the human rights and foreign policy development records of various Governments around the world. It will be carried out in an informed and transparent manner.

Regrettably, human rights abuses are not confined to south-east Asia and China. Last month, my hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary spoke to a Zimbabwean priest whose parish is at the heart of Mugabe's operation, "Drive out the trash". The priest said to my hon. Friend:

"Tell people what is happening in this country. We need the world to know about our plight."

The long history of abuses and persecution on the grounds of religion is deeply depressing. The Library prepared an excellent supplementary note for this debate. It states:

"Religious persecution in this part of the world"—

south-east Asia and China—

"has been a human rights issue for many years."

I had not previously been familiar with Wikipedia. Its entry for the persecution of Christians in China in the 9th century states:

"Tang Wu Zang (of the Tang dynasty) ruled from 840 to 846. Known as a Taoist zealot, he first suppressed Buddhism in China for its perceived excesses. He then attacked all other "foreign" religions, including Christianity. Nestorianism, the only Chinese Christian branch at that time, was virtually wiped out in China."

An entry about more recent times states:

"When Jiaqing Emperor of China declared the close door policy, Christianity suffered the first drawback. After the Opium War, Christians became a target of hatred, and many Christians were killed in the Boxer Rebellion."

Regrettably, the persecution of Christians in south-east Asia, China and other parts of the world has been going on for many centuries, but it is right that we bring it to the light, as the hon. Member for Stroud, my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) have done this afternoon. It has been an excellent debate, and we have had a good discussion of the issues. I hope that through this debate we can bring those harrowing tales to the attention of the wider world.

I would like to praise and recognise the work of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, which has had a large hand in preparations for this debate. We congratulate it on its work and on the thorough research that it does in bringing issues to the attention of the wider public.

I would also like to pay tribute to the work of the Foreign Affairs Committee, particularly its fourth report, which was completed in 2005. The Library took from that report quite a few examples of multiple persecutions in China and Vietnam, and also quoted a long extract from the excellent US State Department's report on human rights. Those extracts set out the limits of religious freedom for all religions—not just Christianity—in the countries that we are discussing. In China, for example, Buddhists, Muslims and Christians have all suffered restrictions in recent years, and particular attention has been given to the Falun Gong, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire referred.

I want to take the opportunity to ask the Minister what work our Foreign Office does. I am sure that he is familiar with the United States of America's State Department's annual religious freedom report. That report has documented cases of persecution of Christians in the region, particularly in China and Burma, which are the main Government offenders. There are also examples of human rights abuses by the Vietnamese Government. In Indonesia and the Philippines, Islamist terrorist groups are responsible for most persecutions. That shows, in the words of the Prime Minister today, that Islamic terrorism has gone on in many countries for many years.

With your permission, Mr. Taylor, I will leave the Minister with an extract from that excellent US State Department report at the end of the debate and ask him to comment on the well documented cases in it from the Foreign Office point of view.

The Minister will recall that, when his Government were elected in 1997, the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), spoke about ethical foreign policy at length and at every opportunity. We hear little mention of that now. I am interested to hear what audit of abuses the Government carry out, how regularly audits are done—is it on an annual basis?—and what organisation the Government use. It is a source of some disappointment that Human Rights Watch, which has done some excellent work, has not reported on the persecution of Christians since 2000.

I also ask the Minister whether he is minded to act on the request made by his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Stroud to make representations to the authorities in China and Vietnam and to urge them to respect human rights in their entirety. In particular, the right to worship and to practice one's faith should be recognised.

I welcome the excellent debate and the contributions that we heard and place on record our condemnation of human rights abuses wherever they occur, particularly persecution on the grounds of Christianity or of any other faith.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Taylor. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on securing the debate. The fact that he was third choice, which he admitted, does not in any way detract from the erudite and eloquent way in which he made his contribution. I also offer my best wishes to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) and hope that he makes a speedy recovery.

I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government's position and to respond to the points of concern that were expressed by hon. Members in the debate. I share hon. Members' deep concern about the persecution of Christians in south-east Asia and China. I recognise that it is an issue that hon. Members and many people in the United Kingdom feel deeply about. I have been a Foreign Office Minister for about two months and from my mailbag I already know about the strong interest that hon. Members have in the subject. First, I will set out some general observations.

Promotion of human rights, including freedom of thought, conscience and religion, lies at the heart of our foreign policy. We condemn cases where individuals are persecuted because of their faith or belief, wherever it happens and whatever the religion of the individual or group concerned. Persecution is frequently counter-productive. Rather than crushing religious belief, it often has the opposite effect and inspires people. For example, the Chinese Christian Brother Yun, while suffering in prison in Burma in 2001, saw himself as a seed

"ready to spring to life and to produce a harvest that will feed many."

It is, in my view, important not only to condemn persecution but to take action on a case-by-case basis. A large number of cases have been raised and I will refer to some of them. I will ask for further information on the others so that we can take them up. We raise our concerns in relevant international forums such as the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. We raise specific cases of religious persecution both bilaterally and with our EU partners. We take every opportunity to urge states to promote tolerance and mutual respect and to protect religious minorities against discrimination, intimidation and attacks.

In general, we believe that dialogue with individual countries, wherever possible, is the best way to achieve our goals. Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials, both here and overseas, work closely with representatives of religious groups and non-governmental organisations, such as Christian Solidarity Worldwide. I pay tribute to them and acknowledge the work that they do in this field.

I want to discuss how that works in practice and mention some of the specific cases that have been raised by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud set out a number of alleged instances of persecutions of Christians in Vietnam. I share his concerns over any instances where individuals are persecuted or victimised for their faith. We are particularly concerned about the situation of the many unofficial churches in Vietnam, which can be the focus of abuse and mistreatment, particularly by local officials.

I assure hon. Members that human rights, including freedom of religion, is firmly on the agenda in our relations with the Government of Vietnam. We have an open and frank dialogue with Vietnam over human rights, including freedom of religion, both bilaterally and with our EU partners. For example, on 22 March my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, South (Mr. Alexander), raised the issue in this very House with the President of the Vietnamese National Assembly.

As part of our regular EU-Vietnam human rights dialogue, on 7 June the EU, including the UK, pressed the Vietnamese Government on freedom of religion, restrictions on religious organisations and the situation of Protestant groups. We have urged Vietnam to guarantee in practice the right of all religious groups to practice their faith freely in a community.

I believe that international pressure, including by the UK and the EU, is having some positive effect. Vietnam is now moving in the right direction on religious freedom. The US ambassador for international religious freedom, Ambassador Hanford, has recently recognised that and there is now positive engagement between the US and Vietnam on the issue of religious freedom. The Vietnamese authorities have recently eased restrictions on officially recognised Protestant groups and granted recognition to a number of new congregations.

Relations between Protestant groups and the authorities have shown a modest improvement. For example, the new ordinance on belief and religion published last November, and the prime ministerial instruction on Protestantism in February, are steps forward. We hope that they will lead to the recognition of more Protestant groups, so that those groups can worship free from official harassment. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud that the implementation of those new regulations is a key issue.

The EU list of prisoners and detainees of concern enables us to raise specific cases with the Vietnamese authorities. Seven of the 17 cases on the list are religious figures. So far in 2005, nine persons on the list have been released. We welcome that, but we will continue to press the Vietnamese Government for progress on the remaining cases on the EU list, as we did most recently on 7 June. Pastor Truong's case, which we are well aware of, was raised. We share the concerns that have been expressed in the debate over his treatment and are particularly concerned at reports that he has been given drugs. At our suggestion, he has recently been added to the EU list of prisoners and detainees of concern. His case was raised on 7 June. We have also asked to meet him and are awaiting a response.

My hon. Friend also raised the case of Miss Le Thi Hong Lien. We welcome the Vietnamese Government's decision on 26 April to free Miss Lien. We are aware of reports that since release she has faced further harassment, but is still free. We continue to monitor her case.

We remain in touch with the Vietnamese authorities about Pastor Quang's case and those of his Mennonite colleagues, such as Pham Ngoc Thach. Our request for attendance at Pastor Quang's appeal in April was denied, but we will continue to monitor and raise his case. My hon. Friend argued that the EU should have been stronger on the case of Pastor Quang. I assure him that we have ensured that the case is very closely monitored by the EU, and the Vietnamese authorities are well aware of our concerns and interest in the case. We hope that the positive developments that we have seen in recent times will continue.

I shall now turn to the case of Christians in China, and I address the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and the hon. Members for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb), for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) and for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). The UK Government are concerned about the freedom to practise religion in China and follow developments in this area carefully. We raise our concerns at every appropriate opportunity.

As hon. Members will know, the Chinese state constitution permits freedom of religious belief and we acknowledge that the number of people practising religion in China, including Christianity, has increased greatly in recent years. Reports suggest that there are more than 140 million official religious believers in China and that some 21 million people practise through official Protestant and Catholic churches. However, it is very clear to us that the Chinese Government and the Communist party want to control strictly religion in China. That is done through a number of mechanisms: state registration of all churches; state approval and vetting of all religious personnel; and strict controls on the publication of religious materials. In our view those and other sorts of controls seriously undermine, and in some cases effectively deny, the freedom to practise religious belief in China today.

We receive regular reports about the harassment of unofficial Christian groups in China—many such cases have been mentioned today—that cause us grave concern. In September 2004, Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials raised concerns with Chinese Government officials about the mass arrests of unofficial Protestant church leaders in Xinjiang, Kaifeng, and Wuhan and about the detention of several members of the Baoding diocese clergy.

Of course, sometimes people who are detained by the Chinese authorities are released quickly, but others are held for long periods and are sentenced to terms of re-education through labour or sent to prison. We have received credible reports of torture and abuse of such people in detention. Chinese officials tell us that people are never arrested for being religious believers and that a person must always have done something else to warrant punishment, but in our view there are people in prison in China for doing things that we consider to be the peaceful and legitimate expression of their religious beliefs. Chinese Catholics who, for example, recognise the authority of Rome rather than the Chinese Communist party should not, in our opinion, be harassed or imprisoned.

We have raised, over the years, a number of religious cases of concern with the Chinese authorities, including most recently that of Pastor Zhang Rongliang. Foreign Minister Li and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke about this case during his visit to China in January. We continue to urge that Pastor Zhang has access to a legal adviser of his choice and, if he has to stand trial, that the trial should be open.

The hon. Members for Preseli Pembrokeshire and for Edinburgh, West referred to the new regulations on religion that China introduced in March 2005. The regulations reaffirm restrictions on religious practice and maintain the requirement for all religious groups to register. Penalties are set out for non-compliance. There is an appeals mechanism that may allow local authorities that take a particularly hard line on unofficial believers to be challenged. However, our assessment is that those regulations are aimed primarily at limiting and controlling the development of religion. We do not expect that the situation of unofficial religious believers will improve.

The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire raised a number of cases, and I shall refer to some of them. We are aware of the case of Jilin province: indeed, Christian Solidarity Worldwide notified the Foreign Office of it. We are monitoring the situation, and our embassy is making inquiries about the incident.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the situation of Pastor Cai Zhuohua, who leads an official church and appeared in court on 7 July accused of illegally printing more than 200,000 bibles. He has been charged with illegal business practices, and the case has been adjourned without a verdict. Again, we are closely monitoring that case. We had 10 religious cases drawn from different backgrounds on the list of individual cases of concern that we handed to the Chinese Government as part of the UK-China human rights dialogue in June. The cases include that of Bishop James Su Zhimin, which was also raised by the hon. Gentleman.

We monitor the situation in China carefully, and we raise incidents and cases with the Chinese authorities, through the human rights dialogue, through ministerial activity and through our support for EU activity. We are always willing to consider action when we have specific information. My officials have heard his speech and the particular cases that he raised. We shall require further information, and I am sure that they will approach either him or Christian Solidarity Worldwide about these matters.

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for giving way, and for the kind offer that he has made. Will he also make a special effort for the North Korean Christians who have made their way to China and who are always under threat of being returned to North Korea? I know that the six-party talks are largely about security issues, but North Korea must understand that it must have a realistic approach to human rights. One way to ensure that is to put pressure on China.

I understand entirely what my hon. Friend says. I raised the issue of human rights when I visited China last week and spoke to the Vice-Foreign Minister. Coincidentally, I had a meeting with the ambassador of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea only this morning, and I made strong representations to him about general human rights issues and about how they treat their people.

One case brought to our attention by NGOs is that of Jiang Zongxiu. She was allegedly beaten to death in police custody on 18 June 2004 after she was arrested for handing out bibles in Guizhou province. It is clearly unfortunate that Jiang was arrested at all, but one positive aspect of the tragedy—if there can be a positive aspect—was the openness with which the Chinese official press reported her death. The UK Government welcomed that openness and the steps taken later by the Chinese Government to tackle torture. However, as I mentioned in a recent debate in the House on Tibet, more transparency would help to transform the situation for vulnerable prisoners in China and for the policemen and the prison warders who look after them. Our experience in the UK has shown that transparency helps to improve the situation radically, and we hope that China will bear that in mind.

I want to assure the House that the UK Government regularly raise concerns about the freedom to practise religion in China. On 6 June in London, at the most recent round of the UK-China human rights dialogue, which is a bi-annual, high-level Government exchange, we had an exchange about religion. We shall hold our next human rights dialogue with China in the autumn, when we lead the EU-China human rights dialogue.

Ministers and officials also raise human rights concerns, including religious issues, with Chinese counterparts at every available opportunity. I did so last week. I have raised our concerns with the Chinese ambassador to the UK, and we shall regularly press China about its progress on the ratification of the international covenant on civil and political rights, which contains provisions about freedom of belief, freedom of assembly, and the prevention of torture.

What audit do the Government carry out? How dependent are they on non-governmental organisations rather than the resources of the Foreign Office? I have listened carefully to what the Minister said about his discussions with individual countries, and they are very welcome. However, what audit do the Government separately carry out?

I shall answer the hon. Lady's question, which she raised during her contribution, but I shall talk first about other issues that have been raised, such as those of Laos, Burma and Indonesia.

Our contacts with the authorities in Laos are limited; relations are covered by our embassy in Bangkok. However, we regularly raise with the Laos authorities our concerns about the persecution of Christians. Only last month a representative of the British embassy in Bangkok raised the issue with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Vientiane.

We also regularly raise the situation of the Hmong people with the Laos Government; most recently, that was done by an official from our embassy in Bangkok. Like the UN Secretary-General, we welcome reports that those Hmong people recently coming out of remote areas have been treated humanely, and we call on the Laos Government to continue to provide the necessary humanitarian assistance to them.

A number of hon. Members raised the situation in Burma. I agree that there remain instances of restriction on the right to exercise freedom of religion in Burma, and we have condemned that in successive, highly critical UK and EU-sponsored UN resolutions—most recently in April's United Nations Commission on Human Rights resolution on Burma, which expressed grave concern at discrimination and persecution on the basis of religious or ethnic background.

We are very concerned that offensives continue in Karen state, despite ongoing ceasefire talks with the Karen National Union. The Burmese Government are well aware of our concerns about human rights abuses in the ethnic minority areas. Most Burmese Christians are able to follow their religion relatively freely, but their freedom of assembly and expression are severely curtailed, as is that of other groups in Burma.

Our views on the human rights situation in the country are extremely well known and we will continue to press the Burmese Government to improve human rights. However, our simple trouble is that the Burmese authorities show no great willingness at all to listen to the representations that we and others make. We will continue to work with our EU partners and throughout the international community to promote national reconciliation in Burma so that all faiths there can live freely. We shall continue to put what pressure we can on the Burmese authorities to ensure that they address the issue of human rights, as they are clearly not doing at the moment.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud raised the issue of religious freedom in Indonesia and the case of three women recently arrested there. Members of the British embassy in Jakarta are looking into those reports. We have not been able to verify them so far, but will continue to look into the case. Together with our European partners, we are in regular dialogue with the Indonesian Government and we encourage them to ensure religious freedom, to maintain law and order and promote reconciliation in areas of conflict.

We have regular contacts with NGOs, including Human Rights Watch, on the human rights situation in China, and we take their concerns very seriously. They have a part in the UK-China human rights dialogue in that we give them feedback on how that dialogue goes.

The hon. Member for Vale of York raised the question of what auditing we do and gave the example of what is done in the States. We produce an annual human rights report, which is an extremely well researched and thorough document, drawing on a wide range of reliable sources, not just the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our embassies and consulates. Last year it ran to more than 400 pages. This year's human rights report is due to be published this month. I can assure hon. Members that it covers religious persecution in south-east Asia and China, as well as human rights abuses in all other parts of the world.

Let me finish by assuring hon. Members of the seriousness that the Government attach to human rights abuses in south-east Asia and China. We take every appropriate opportunity to raise human rights abuses both bilaterally with the relevant countries and working with our EU partners and through all relevant international forums. We have a proud and strong track record when it comes to raising human rights issues, and we will continue to do that while we are in government.

I initiated this debate because the problems associated with development are an important issue facing my constituency today, and it truly resonates with many other communities throughout the south of England. It was also an important issue during the general election campaign. There was overwhelming concern that house building plans are not necessarily achieving the Government's objective of providing affordable housing and that the scale of their development plans and what they are imposing on Basingstoke, as well as throughout Hampshire and the south-east, are leaving local services struggling to cope with the extra demand. That concern has also been somewhat heightened by a recent South East England regional assembly consultation on further increasing the Government's house building targets in the south of England.

Basingstoke is a great place, and I can understand why more people want to live in my constituency. Location is everything, and Basingstoke is in the right place, being near the capital and the European markets. It is one of the bigger employment centres in the south of England, and it retains an attractiveness as a place to live and a place in which to work and set up a business. Growth has been a good thing for our communities, but at a pace that is sustainable and set by local people with the best interests of Basingstoke at heart. There is a fine line beyond which overdevelopment becomes a burden to communities if investment in local services is not forthcoming. So, we have a responsibility to ensure that services receive the investment they need to cope with that change.

Deep concern has been expressed that, in the past few years, the switch from local control of development to centrally determined house building targets might be forcing the pace of house building in the south-east beyond what is sustainable within our community. We are starting to see worrying signs of overdevelopment, and the funding of services is simply not keeping pace with that change. I initiated the debate today to highlight that and to call on the Government to change their approach. I also want to reassure my constituents that the Government will listen on how they want their community to develop.

As the Minister will be aware, house building targets are set by central Government. Basingstoke is building 800 houses a year. That number is significantly higher than that determined by my local authority as being required to meet the needs of local families and to ensure the future prosperity of our important business base. More than 6,000 houses are being built throughout Hampshire, which makes my area one of the highest developed in the country.

The impact of overdevelopment manifests itself in many different ways, and there is an ever-present threat to the local environment, be it farmland or countryside. At the moment, there is a particular concern about rural communities to the south of the M3, which are remaining in what has been designated the western corridor by the south-east regional authority. The Minister will be aware that that is a high-density development zone. We will continue to protest about that and challenge it, but I want to focus today's debate on the Government's targets for house building and their effects on local services.

The Minister will be aware of the Roger Tym report, which identified a deficit in infrastructure investment of £8 billion across the south-east of England. Hampshire county council has examined it and has inferred that there is an infrastructure deficit in our county of £1 billion. That means there is a shortfall of £1 billion in spending on the roads we use and on the public transport, schools and water supplies that we need.

For my constituents, that means we have overcrowded trains and a lack of money to support other forms of public transport. That leads to ever-increasing congestion on our roads. I was recently told that we will have the honour of being the first county in the country to have two cars per household. I imagine that the accompanying congestion will have to be considered.

Separately from that, the health care system in north Hampshire—indeed throughout Hampshire—is approaching a perilous state. This year, there is a £40 million shortfall in health care funding in Hampshire, which means a £10 million shortfall for my primary care trust. The Minister will be only too well aware that north Hampshire receives only 80 per cent. of the national average of health care funding. What does that mean for my constituents? It simply means that, although we are still building 800 houses a year, we have no money to build any new doctors' surgeries. There is no money now, nor will there be in the foreseeable future. That is causing deep concern among GPs and their patients.

We are fortunate in Hampshire because we have what I believe the Government term an excellent authority. I find Hampshire county council excellent as well. We are perhaps experiencing a shortfall in funding for some services, but Hampshire has been considering ways to help us out. From its own resources, it has found some £15 million to invest in a new secondary school in Basingstoke to replace the John Hunt of Everest school. We very much welcome that, because we need to ensure that our schools are being built where the new development is. I thank Hampshire county council for the support it is giving Basingstoke in that.

All too often, however, we find that promised improvements in services are not forthcoming. I will outline two brief examples, the first of which is Chineham station. Chineham is a prosperous area and a strong community in my constituency. Part of the development there was to include a station to serve not just the large and vibrant residential community, but two significant business parks—Chineham and Hampshire International. Some years on from that initial promise, we are still waiting for the station to be built.

The other example is a new development in Sherfield park involving some 800 new houses. Quite rightly, my predecessor, Mr. Andrew Hunter, insisted that within that new development a new primary school should be located. Indeed, the developers set aside land for that use. Unfortunately, I have heard in recent months that that land has been released and will not be used for a new primary school now or in the future, because it will be built on for residential purposes. That is deeply disappointing, because it could have provided an opportunity to improve the infrastructure of the area.

All too often there is a lag between building houses and building the necessary services. For example, in a ward in my constituency, one resident in four is aged under 16. It was rightly agreed that money should be set aside to build youth facilities, but several years after the residential development, those youth facilities have not been built.

Most worryingly, the Government's objective of affordable housing is not coming to fruition. There has been investment in Basingstoke to provide more access to affordable housing and shared ownership, but house prices have continued to rise and homelessness continues to be a key issue. The objective is not being met as the Government anticipated when their house building targets were established.

I hear local businesses express concern about the loss of business land to residential use. Business is an important part of the Basingstoke community, and a number of service sector businesses are concerned that if we continue to lose land from business use to residential, that could tip the balance against the success of our local community.

Similarly, if the Government are setting targets and forcing the pace of development, they must ensure that there is investment in services for people who live in the area. It seems, however, that those targets may not be as sustainable as was originally thought because local services are being stretched to the limit. It is inconceivable that we should consider increasing that building rate if the situation persists. The Government rightly set a benchmark for communities to be sustainable, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on how Basingstoke fits into that model.

My constituents have voiced their concern to me and to the South East England regional assembly through its recent research study, which shows that the majority of Hampshire residents have called for a reduction in house building. That is surprising. Why have they done that? Perhaps because they are not seeing the necessary progress in affordable housing or are experiencing local overstretch in GP services or congestion on the roads. They are not seeing the necessary investment and are questioning sustainability.

I believe—many people agree—that we need to do more to increase our investment in local people and the skills that they hold locally, rather than just import new people to meet the needs of local employers.

My county has more than £1 billion of deficits and is facing an infrastructure crisis in Basingstoke. The Government must address that issue directly. We know that SEERA is due to make new announcements on the next round of Government house building targets for the south-east, so perhaps this debate is timely. The Minister may find it useful.

In advance of discussing serious recommendations today, perhaps the Minister will put my constituents' minds at rest and give some guarantees about listening to the people of Hampshire and what they want for the future of their community. More than two thirds want a reduction in house building targets. People in Hampshire know what is best, and the Government should consider giving more responsibility back to local people. They should also consider reviewing the funding for affordable homes and do more to value the character of our towns in the way we do as residents.

The Government should give some guarantees today to fill the infrastructure gap that I identified and to ensure that future development is truly sustainable. I look forward to hearing the Minister's assurances on those issues.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) on securing the debate on such an important issue for her and her constituents. I hope that I will be able to answer her questions. When I cannot do so satisfactorily and to her liking, I hope that I will at least be able to give her some arguments to justify the Government's policy.

It is right and proper to start with some broad-brush policy issues, because how we plan for development such as housing—the hon. Lady concentrated on housing and infrastructure—is fundamental. We thus recognised the need for a faster, fairer and more flexible planning system—in short, a better planning system that addresses many of the concerns and paradoxes that existed previously. That is what the new Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 seeks to achieve. We have constantly emphasised that planning needs to facilitate development, which, as she said, must be sustainable and inclusive.

We need also to tackle the economic, environmental and social needs of our communities, and I hope that we can agree on the policy objectives. The hon. Lady clearly does not agree with the practical implementation and I shall try to address that. The fundamental question is why development is needed in Basingstoke and in the south-east generally. We must address the need for housing. It is not the Government as such who are putting the south-east under development pressure. Our actions are reflecting that pressure, which exists for a number of reasons. The important question is how those pressures are best managed.

The hon. Lady's council, Basingstoke and Deane council, has an excellent attitude towards housing planning. It is proactive and encourages developers, and it wants affordable housing and growth. I welcome that approach. It is making progress on delivering housing in the district, and several meetings have taken place with the Government office for the south east, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and council officials about that.

However, there is no doubt that we have not been building enough homes generally. In the wider south-east, build rates have been significantly lower than those planned for, but need is increasing because the population is living longer and more people are living alone. The affordability of homes is also a serious problem. According to the latest available figures, there has been a 160 per cent. increase in house prices in the hon. Lady's constituency and there is pressure for housing for key workers. An important part of the infrastructure that she rightly identified involves providing homes for the people who work in the essential services.

The pressure for housing is not because of the population increase in the south-east, but because of how people choose to live their lives and the fact that they are living longer. Given the increase in average house prices, which are running ahead of estimates, it is obvious that those who suffer most are those on lower incomes, yet when in opposition many hon. Members campaign against proposed new homes in their constituencies. The hon. Lady mentioned public opinion, referring to the numbers opposed to new home building. I have no doubt that if such a question were asked, that answer would be given. However, public opinion would have a different slant if the question was, "Do you think that house prices are too high, and do you feel that your children will be able to stay in your area and buy a home there?"

Let us consider the results produced by asking the question, "Do you want continued or increased economic growth?" Public opinion surveys across the south-east of England show that 43 per cent. of the public want economic growth to continue at current levels for the next 20 years, that 26 per cent. want increased levels of growth, and that only 25 per cent. want there to be less economic growth.

I understand why the public in a particular locality might not wish there to be what is perceived as overdevelopment.

Let me clarify my point. I am not arguing about building houses. As the Minister pointed out, there has been great diligence in respect of building houses in my constituency. The point is that Basingstoke is not getting sufficient investment to ensure that the people who move into those houses, or the people who are already resident there, are able to continue to enjoy the quality of life that attracted them to the town in the first place. That is what I want to address, rather than the need, or lack of need, for houses to be built.

I understand the hon. Lady's point, which I suppose she would sum up as, "Don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg." In other words, if development happens in the wrong way, the reasons that attract people to live in a place will be removed. I accept that, but I am trying to establish the fundamentals of why this is taking place. It is incumbent on any Government to address them. Fifty years ago almost to the month the Conservative Government of the time planned to build 125,000 houses across the south-east of England under town and country planning legislation. That was opposed vigorously by Labour Members and the arguments employed were exactly the same then as they are now.

The Minister raises an interesting point. It is incumbent on all Governments, regardless of their political hue, to examine policies, such as that of Wandsworth borough council, which is called "Hidden Homes". It focuses on existing council housing stock, and addresses whether there is space within it to create fresh housing stock that is more cost-effective to build because there is no need to erect an entire building from scratch. Doing that often tackles antisocial behaviour problems—old garages might be converted into new flats, for example. It is incumbent on all Governments, and especially on the current Administration, to look at ways of using existing housing more effectively to prevent building on green belt land when that is not necessary.

I understand what the hon. Lady says. If I can finish laying out the policy framework first, I will then address her particular point.

The housing market in the south-east is tighter than it has ever been. The region's vacancy rate of 2.3 per cent. is the lowest in the country; the national average is 3.4 per cent. The south-east is also below the Government's empty homes target and the level that is necessary to allow flexibility in the housing market.

What about future housing numbers? Let me establish the background before coming on to the main point. The regional spatial strategy has the purpose of addressing long-term housing needs in a sustainable way. The South East England regional assembly comprises representatives from local authorities, social, economic and environment partners. It is currently preparing the south-east plan to cover the next 20 years—to take us from 2006 to 2026. Local authorities from across the south-east, including the county councils, are engaged in the process. I mention the county councils because there has been controversy about their role. The preparation of the south-east plan involves a statutory process that is clearly set out in legislation, regulations and national guidance. That framework includes extensive consultation, which is built into the process, including an examination in public held by an independent panel. In finalising the plan, the Government will need to take into account all views expressed during that process and the recommendations made by the independent panel. I hope that that goes some way towards assuring the hon. Member for Basingstoke that her views and those of her constituents and other stakeholders—I think that that is what we call them nowadays—will be listened to during the process of the plan.

Clearly, communities are, as the hon. Lady said, about much more than just housing. We will need to work together across the public, private and voluntary sectors to ensure that the new housing development that she talked about is supported by the right infrastructure, facilities and services. The Government have made significant investment in infrastructure in the south-east overall. However, I am aware that the South East England regional assembly and others are concerned about the future provision of infrastructure, and the hon. Lady reflected those views today. Infrastructure is an important element of the south-east plan, and we are in constant dialogue with the assembly about that key point. We clearly want to make the best use of existing mechanisms and to improve on them where necessary. We also want to make the processes for identifying infrastructure potential and requirements and for investment decision making more open and transparent.

I know that in Basingstoke there have been particular concerns, and the hon. Lady mentioned many of them. They include waste water, and she mentioned transport infrastructure in particular. Thames Water is working with the Environment Agency and the regional assembly to model and examine the impact of house building on water quality and supply, which is obviously an important part of the infrastructure. Again, that will feed into the south-east plan. In relation to transport, I understand that the Highways Agency objected to developments set out in the Basingstoke local plan. That was examined at the local plan inquiry, and I gather that the inspector who held that inquiry is due to report in autumn 2005.

Some of the points that the hon. Lady raised about infrastructure are recognised. Although there has been investment, there are gaps to fill to ensure that the housing development taking place has the services to back it up. Her point is recognised in Government planning policy guidelines. That has been one of the big changes over the past few years. She mentioned affordable housing in particular.

The Minister says that there are "gaps to fill" in investment in infrastructure. Perhaps he could clarify whether the Government intend to fill those gaps and fund that?

I commend the hon. Lady for asking the obvious question. However, the Government cannot fill all the gaps. The way in which—[Interruption.] To be fair, the Government have, as I outlined, put significant investment into infrastructure in the south-east, although I am not surprised that she asks for more. I commend her for doing so because her job is to represent her constituents.

During the process of the 20-year plan and the process of the local plans that have been brought forward already, her main concern about whether such points are being listened to has been taken on board. However, all councils across the country, in growth areas and non-growth areas, argue that they need more money for infrastructure development. I have never yet met a councillor or a Member of Parliament who said that they had more than sufficient money for infrastructure investment.

To get the full picture, we have to take into account the investment that has been made in health, education and other public services. Although the hon. Lady says that new schools and health centres are required but not available, the main drive on infrastructure predominantly comes not from increases in population, but from housing development to reflect changing lifestyles. However, that is not to say that there is not some pressure on population, as she outlined.

On affordable housing in Basingstoke, failure to deal with the availability and affordability of housing will have serious knock-on effects for the more vulnerable residents. Nearly 100,000 resident households are housed in temporary and/or overcrowded conditions. In the borough of Basingstoke and Deane, there is a need under the assessment for 534 affordable housing units per year alone for those unable to afford or rent their own home. The issue is important. House prices are rising significantly. The gross lower quartile annual pay in Basingstoke is £14,082 compared with an average Basingstoke terraced house price of £218,000 in the first quarter of this year. Even a 50 per cent. share in a house in Basingstoke is not affordable for most people. We must deal with that huge problem.

The problem is similar for key worker housing. A £725 million key worker living programme will be targeted to help more than 16,000 key workers in London and the wider south-east by March 2007. The aims of the programme are obvious, and 50 per cent. of the key worker living programme is providing new-build options through both shared ownership and intermediate renting. The hon. Lady is saying that she wants those affordable homes and key worker homes and that she does not object fundamentally to the development. Her concern relates to her perception of overdevelopment and the infrastructure gap.

The hon. Lady asked for guarantees that the Government will listen to the points that she and her constituents make. I think that I can give her guarantees, but not in respect of all the answers that she requires. I believe strongly that the centrality of our 20-year plan and the consultation programme on the need to carry stakeholders forward together is being dealt with. While accepting that she does not want Basingstoke to lose its attractiveness because of such developments—I confirm that it is a very attractive place in which to live—and despite the problems that she has outlined, the alternative of allowing either a laissez-faire attitude towards development or restricting housing and infrastructure development would make those problems even worse. There is an element of trying to move forward together with her local council, the county council and the South East England regional assembly to ensure that we square the circle.

I have tried to address all the points. I am conscious that I have not been able to give specific answers about infrastructure investment. That was not because I wanted to avoid such important questions, but because I believe that the process that is in place for the development and consultation will solicit the answers. I hope and expect that, at the end of the period of consultation, she will have achieved satisfactory answers to her questions.

I am pleased to undertake the debate this afternoon and to do so under your expert chairmanship, Mr. Taylor, especially in the knowledge that you, too, have taken a personal interest in such matters. The subject that I want to raise is of great importance, not only to the 2.7 million shop workers in the country, but to all members of the public who have a real stake in the security of shop workers who must operate the laws on under-age sales. I am grateful to the shop workers' union, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and to the "No ID No Sale" campaign for the materials that they have given me for this debate.

I am pleased to see that a Minister from my old Department is responding to the debate. This is the first opportunity that I have had to place on record my congratulations to her on her appointment, and my good wishes for her success in the important and rewarding responsibilities of her post. The fact that we were in some doubt as to whether the Minister responding to the debate would be from the Department of Trade and Industry, the Home Office or the Department for Work and Pensions illustrates an important aspect of the question of under-age sales. Different Departments are involved, and it is crucial that there is properly joined-up collaboration between them in addressing the issues related to under-age sales and enforcement.

In recent years, in response to public concern, there has been much debate and legislation on antisocial behaviour, on health concerns about smoking, alcohol and solvent abuse, and on the dangers arising from the sale of knives, We are all concerned that tobacco, alcohol, solvents and knives do not get into the hands of the wrong people, and that includes young people. When public debate demands action and Parliament legislates on such matters, it is important to remember that the people who have to put the policies into practice are the front-line shop workers. They are the ones who have to deal with abusive and threatening customers, and who face fines of £500 or higher if they make an under-age sale. I believe that, in placing those responsibilities on them, the state has a real duty to give them every support in carrying out a task that is often difficult and uncomfortable, and sometimes dangerous.

USDAW has produced an excellent and chilling report entitled "Life on the Frontline", which makes clear how exposed shop workers are. The report is based on a random sample survey of 660 shop workers over a seven-day period in June 2004. It revealed 887 incidents of verbal abuse, including being spat at, sworn at and assaulted; 224 threats, including threats to kill, stab, punch and burn shops down; 107 cases of violence, including slapping, kicking and being attacked in the street; 48 incidents of sexual harassment, including lewd and suggestive comments and touching; and 32 incidents of racial abuse, including racially offensive insults and threats.

The most common triggers of violence, threats and verbal abuse included the refusal to serve age-restricted products, requests for proof of age, the apprehending of shoplifters, and the refusal to serve alcohol to drunken customers. I particularly want to focus on the first of those triggers—under-age sales. The "Respect for Shopworkers" campaign has been meeting MPs to discuss that issue today.

As we all know, it can be difficult to assess a young person's age, and too many people become abusive or threatening if they are refused a sale. In enforcing the law, many trading standards departments conduct "sting" operations to catch out shop workers making under-age sales; there are severe penalties for those who are caught and convicted. To avoid prosecution, the seller must take "all reasonable steps" to avoid serving under-age customers, so, if they have any doubts, they must ask the age of the purchaser. If they are still even slightly unsure, they must ask for proof of age, and if no valid ID is produced, they must refuse the sale.

Shop workers do their best to comply with those requirements, but they are in a vulnerable position, as the reports in the front-line survey show. One shop worker reported:

"I refused a young lad alcohol and the next day I got a bit beaten up for it."

Another said:

"When I refused to sell a young fella drink, he hit me",

and another said:

"I was told I would be 'cut by their mates' because I refused to sell a bottle of beer."

Such experiences of people being abused, spat at, threatened and subject to sexual harassment or racial abuse are utterly unacceptable but all too common. What is more, the problem seems to be getting worse.

According to figures from the retail industry, reported incidents increased significantly last year: verbal abuse increased 109 per cent. to 146,000 cases, threats increased 161 per cent. to 127,000 cases and violence increased 17 per cent. to 19,000. Some of that may be due to a welcome greater readiness to report what is happening, but no one could dispute that there is a serious problem. Faced with this problem, it is vital that employers, local authorities, the police and the Government fulfil their responsibilities to help and protect shop workers, who are exposed to these dangers in carrying out what are, after all, statutory responsibilities.

Much else that the Government are doing—increasing police numbers, tougher antisocial behaviour measures and the forthcoming Violent Crime Reduction Bill announced in the Queen's Speech—will help to tackle the problems about which I have been talking. However, I should like to mention three specific measures to strengthen protection for shop workers on under-age sales, a factor in many of the incidents that I would like the Minister and her colleagues to take up.

First, it makes sense to have a robust, single, national age identity card scheme to take the guessing out of age-related sales. A number of such cards are in use at the moment and their very proliferation and reliability—some can be downloaded and made up from the internet—cause problems for shop workers. USDAW recommends only the cards that carry the pass hologram, such as the citizen card. As an example of what can be achieved, collaboration in Swindon between the council trading standards service, the police and local businesses, which promoted the card and "No ID No Sale" materials, succeeded in more than halving under-age sales of cigarettes and achieved a target of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister along the way. I ask the Minister to pursue within government the adoption of a robust standard card.

Secondly, such a card needs to be backed up by entrenching a culture of "No ID No Sale", which is supported not only by USDAW, but by retailers, the Association of Convenience Stores and the Tobacco Manufacturers Association. Will the Minister take up the need for a high-profile advertising and information campaign to make it clear that young people will not be served if they cannot produce their age identification card? If that were backed up by signs in shops and other materials, it would strengthen the position of shop workers in trying to ensure compliance with the law.

Thirdly, I am sure that the Minister agrees that we need to ensure that retail employers, local authorities, the police and the courts work closely together to bring to justice those who abuse, threaten or assault shop workers and give them the penalties they deserve.

The Government have done much to strengthen powers against antisocial behaviour, including parenting orders and acceptable behaviour contracts, as well as antisocial behaviour orders. We need those measures to be fully deployed, and we need to work with the shop workers and employers who are prepared to give evidence to challenge and defeat abusive behaviour whenever and wherever it occurs.

As I said at the outset, in carrying out their responsibilities on under-age sales, shop workers are acting and putting themselves at risk on behalf of the whole community. They need and deserve support through a robust age identity scheme, a campaign for a culture of "No ID No Sale" and effective back-up from the authorities. I look forward to a positive response from the Government.

I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Taylor. You will appreciate that as a Scottish MP, I have a particular interest in being under your guidance this afternoon.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on raising the important issue of violence against shop workers. I thank him for his kind words, and recognise that he served with some distinction as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. He has taken considerable interest in the subject throughout his political career, not just this afternoon. It is appropriate that we are discussing this on a day when the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers is highlighting violence against shop workers.

I should explain why a Department for Work and Pensions Minister is responding to the debate, so that there is no confusion. As the Health and Safety Executive is responsible for chairing a cross-governmental committee on this very subject, and as the DWP is the Department responsible for the HSE, I am delighted to have been afforded the opportunity of responding to the debate, which is on such an important topic.

It is a sad fact that, as a society, we can be faced with violent behaviour in pursuit of our everyday work. Sadly, as we tragically discovered over the past few days, we have to face terrible violence as we go to work, too. Violence is a disturbing problem for society in general, but it does not have to be tolerated under any circumstances, as my right hon. Friend highlighted.

We know from the 2002 British crime survey that there are about 849,000 incidents of work-related violence every year. We also know that some workers are more likely to experience violence than others, including those who work with, or deliver a service to, the public, such as shop workers. These employees work on the front line of their businesses and organisations, dealing with members of the public every day. They can face exposure to drug users and angry or disgruntled customers. As my right hon. Friend said, the behaviour is often caused by refusal to sell age-restricted goods. They are also often faced with those under the influence of alcohol or those with a medical or psychiatric problem. Often, the employees are in low paid front-line jobs, and some may resign themselves to accepting verbal and physical abuse as part of their job, although they should not have to.

Everyone has the right to go about their work without fear of physical assault, intimidation or verbal abuse. Such incidents often have serious consequences for victims and their families, and there are real financial costs to employers. Violent incidents can cause very real distress and emotional trauma. In extreme cases, people can be seriously injured. Indeed, as my right hon. and hon. Friends know, and as you know, Mr. Taylor, one of our colleagues in this House faced such a situation only a few years ago, when he was seriously injured and one of his staff was murdered.

The scale of violence and abuse faced by shop workers is a serious concern, but there is much that we can do, working with others, to reduce it. The Government welcome USDAW's initiative to promote the safety and well-being of shop workers. The abuse faced by shop workers is not merely anecdotal, but has been related in hard facts by my right hon. Friend.

We recognise the problems that shop workers face in correctly identifying the age of people who wish to purchase goods with restricted sale. We recognise the need for many people with influence and responsibility to play a full part in tackling the problem. The Government have been working hard to ensure that a series of measures and initiatives are put in place. We have introduced £50 on-the-spot fines for under-18s trying to buy alcohol—a fine scheme that is currently being piloted in certain areas of the UK. As well as the £50 fine for the over-16s and under-18s, there is also a £30 fine for those who are under 16.

As my right hon. Friend mentioned, we are also looking at the proof of age standard scheme, which will give retailers confidence that ID cards bearing the pass hologram are genuine. From September, retailers will be able to give a clear message to young people: if they have no pass, there is no sale. The proof of age standard scheme is a British Retail Consortium umbrella initiative that certifies cards to confirm that they are genuine. The card issuers will have until September to complete certification, and the introduction will follow an accreditation by the Trading Standards Institute. The scheme is replicated in other parts of the United Kingdom, such as Scotland, with the Young Scot card.

I welcome my hon. Friend's recognition of the value of the pass scheme. Does she agree that entrenching the "No ID, no sale" culture is an important part of the initiatives, and that a Government information and advertising campaign to back that up would help to buttress their welcome introduction?

I agree with my right hon. Friend that we need to make the scheme part of the culture so that we give confidence to shop workers, in particular, and deal with the problem of when young people cannot prove their age. I shall consider how the Government can promote the September initiative. I want to discuss some of the ways in which we can work together to ensure that we provide shop workers, employers and employees with the confidence to refuse the sale of age-restricted goods.

As my right hon. Friend also stated, police and trading standards officers carried out sting operations in almost 1,000 licensed premises, targeting more than 4,000 troublemakers with fixed penalty notices, and confiscating alcohol from more than 1,800 adults and juveniles. Supermarkets and large stores have taken several specific actions. For example, Asda employees have been empowered to ask for proof of age from any customer buying alcohol who does not appear to be at least 21—not 18, but 21. To deliver that change the company has produced a comprehensive training package for employees.

However, we must recognise that the most vulnerable are small shopkeepers and workers in those smaller premises. There must be help for them. The Association of Convenience Stores has helped to produce a cross off-licence industry "Responsible Retailing Guide", which was sent to more than 30,000 convenience stores in May.

I think that my right hon. Friend will agree that parents, friends and young people themselves must take their share of the responsibility. It must be recognised that retailers work against a backdrop of seemingly more widespread acceptance among parents and other adults that children drink alcohol, and that they sometimes drink to excess. Schools and the public can and do play a useful role by reporting persistent under-age drinking and the purchasing of alcohol, and by reporting gangs of youths who try to intimidate and threaten shopkeepers into selling age-restricted products. The police can then deal appropriately with persistent young drinkers, whether they are individuals or groups.I know from my experience in my constituency that it can take a bit of peer pressure from other members of the community to ensure that adults do not buy alcohol to give to people who are under age.

The way in which employers organise their work and discharge their responsibilities is also important. There is a duty on all employers to ensure the health and safety of their workers. That duty extends to acts of violence and abuse against them. Together with their employees, employers must assess the risks likely to arise from work activity, and put in place measures to control those risks as far as is reasonably practicable. The legislative framework that exists to control the sale of goods to protect vulnerable groups is in place for a good reason. It is accepted that with the responsibility for selling such goods, there is also a need to consider the implications when the sale is refused. Refusal can result in a confrontation.

The Health and Safety Commission recognises that it must adapt to the changes in our society and to the changing workplace. We must find relevant and innovative ways to help employers deal with work-related violence. That is why the commission has introduced a new draft strategy for the future. It sets out an approach that will carry through a programme of real change and, equally importantly, a strategy more relevant to the needs of the workplace in the 21st century. The new strategy recognises that the Health and Safety Executive and the local authorities cannot do it all by themselves; they need the support of stakeholders and stronger links with them. For example, managing workplace violence effectively means engaging with the interests and responsibilities of a number of different bodies, both across Government and in the wider working environment. That is why the HSE chairs a partnership group to take this important work forward. The group meets regularly and comprises stakeholders from across the Government, the TUC, the CBI, local authorities, the Federation of Small Businesses and specialist charities such as the Suzy Lamplugh Trust.

The new HSC strategy signals its intention to understand and value more the contribution that others can make to health and safety. An excellent example of that, highlighted by my right hon. Friend, is the tremendous work undertaken by USDAW through its "Freedom from Fear" campaign. The HSE is collaborating with employers, local authorities and the police, as well as with the Health and Safety Executive's own stakeholder group on work-related violence, to raise awareness of the levels of violence that shop workers face and to promote the message that violence will not and cannot be tolerated. The campaign has been a success. I congratulate USDAW on that and give an assurance to my right hon. Friend that we will build on its good work.

The commission's strategy will also consider ways of working together with local authorities, who are enforcement partners in the majority of retail premises. The aim is to make a greater impact on health and safety to develop more effective ways to get the advice and support to those who need it—the employees as well as the employers. The HSE encourages employers to manage work-related violence as they do any other health and safety issue. It has published general guidance to help employers tackle work-related violence and for the retail sector it has produced specific, practical guidance on how the problems and causes of violence might be tackled.

Training people to deal with difficult and confrontational situations is crucial. We cannot empower workers to react confidently in situations unless they are given the right support and training—training that raises awareness and understanding of the problem, and training on how to read the signs, assess a situation and defuse potential incidents. The importance of training is emphasised in the HSE's guidance and highlighted in a series of case studies on managing violence in small businesses that can be found on its website.

As my right hon. Friend is aware, the commission embarked on a challenging three-year programme in 2001 to help raise awareness and develop further guidance, particularly in sectors most at risk, such as the retail sector. Under that programme, the Health and Safety Executive has published two sets of case studies to help smaller businesses manage the risk of work-related violence. It has also funded the development of new national occupational standards in the management of work-related violence.

The programme was taken forward in partnership with key stakeholders, including small firms organisations. The HSE is now building on the momentum of this programme. The stakeholder group, for example, is looking at the problem of work-related violence, and I assure my right hon. Friend that one of its priorities is to look at work-related violence in the retail sector with a view to developing, promoting and sharing information and good practice with the aim of making that information more accessible.

Finally, I thank my right hon. Friend for securing the debate. I reassure him that the Government firmly believe that working in partnership and developing stronger links with stakeholders is the most effective way forward for tackling the problems of violence and abusive behaviour towards workers. The HSE's future initiatives to tackle workplace violence will be designed to reflect the key principles of the HSC's new strategy for workplace health and safety in Great Britain. In developing its work, it will encourage stronger links with others who have an interest in, and knowledge of, the issue, including the trade unions. It will continue to work with enforcement partners in local authorities for an increased impact in raising awareness of the issue and how to manage it. Perhaps most importantly, in light of the comments made by my right hon. Friend, we are committed to developing a more effective way to get advice and support to those who need it—those on the front line: the shop workers.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Five o'clock.