I am pleased to have been able to secure the opportunity to make an oral statement to the House today in place of the written statement that I had tabled.

As the House knows, the Government are committed to the transformation of defence logistics support as an essential part of the ongoing and extensive programme of modernisation of the armed forces. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made an announcement to that effect to the House on 21 July. We believe that logistics transformation is a critical part of providing more effective support to our armed forces while releasing resources for the front line and making the best use of taxpayers' money. The National Audit Office recognises that the Ministry of Defence's logistics transformation programme will deliver about £2 billion of efficiency savings to the Ministry by 2010–11.

Our objective is to deliver more adaptable, efficient and effective support structures—forces that are better configured to enable our expeditionary operations. Let me make it plain to all hon. Members that every penny that we refuse to release by not implementing our modernisation programme is a penny less that is available to provide our forces with the life-saving support they need. Let me also make it plain that I know how much our employees have contributed to providing that support over the years and how proud they are of the role that they have played. Nevertheless, we have to accept that we must adapt to the changing strategic environment, and that means having more adaptable, efficient and effective support structures, which are better configured to enable our armed forces to conduct expeditionary operations.

We support those forces with two businesses that provide depth support in the air and land environments. They are DARA—the Defence Aviation Repair Agency— and ABRO—the Army Base Repair Organisation—which provides depth repair for the land and armoured vehicle fleet. DARA and ABRO were established as trading funds in 2001 and 2002 respectively, thereby recognising their need to operate on a largely commercial basis at arm's length from the Ministry of Defence. In common with all parts of logistics support, DARA and ABRO are significantly affected by the modernisation programme. It has already led to a number of significant savings, including a planned reduction of more than 2,000 RAF personnel by 2007–08. After careful analysis by my Department, it was determined that there was no strategic need to retain in MOD ownership the capabilities that those trading funds provide. I announced that to the House, in respect of DARA, in December 2004. Instead, judgments on their future must be based on the best balance of value, cost and risk, compared with the alternatives.

In the case of DARA, on 25 November last year I announced in a written statement to the House the introduction of new depth repair arrangements for the Tornado aircraft, in addition to those made earlier for the Harrier. Under those arrangements, maintenance and repair is being consolidated at two RAF main operating bases. Previously, there had been four levels of support for aircraft, stretching from industry to the front line. These are being reconfigured to just two—depth support and deployable forward support—concentrated at the most cost-effective location.

Those arrangements are proving successful and have already increased operational effectiveness by reducing the number of aircraft in maintenance. In the Harrier fleet, for example, the number of aircraft in maintenance and upgrade at any one time will reduce from a planned 24 to an average of 13, freeing 11 additional aircraft to the front line at any one time. Similar benefits are expected once the Tornado future support arrangements are fully implemented.

Those improvements, together with the implementation of complementary and innovative changes to the way in which logistic support is provided, will significantly enhance our ability to deliver required front-line readiness, and will do so at much lower cost. Consolidating support for fast jets and helicopters will deliver net savings of some £70 million over the next four years, with recurring annual savings of £40 million thereafter.

I come now to the future of DARA's five business units: St. Athan in south Wales; Almondbank in Perth, Scotland; Sealand in north Wales; and the two units at Fleetlands in Hampshire. I shall deal first with DARA's fixed-wing business at St. Athan. Fast jet workload has reduced for a number of reasons. We have announced the withdrawal of the Jaguar fleet. We have also reduced the number of operational Tornado F3 squadrons, resulting in a reduction in the required Tornado operational fleet of 17 aircraft. We have increased the interval between major servicing for the Tornado F3 and GR4 fleets and, as part of our end-to-end review of air logistic support, migrated maintenance of Harrier and Tornado GR4 aircraft to the RAF's main operating bases at Cottesmore and Marham.

DARA has been unable to secure commercial aviation repair business in a market that faces overcapacity and is fiercely competitive. My judgment, therefore, is that, regrettably, the fast jet business at St. Athan does not have a long-term future, so I am announcing, subject to consultation, that it should close by April 2007 with the loss of up to 500 jobs, primarily in south Wales. However, the same end-to-end review has resulted in more VC10 work transferring to DARA's large aircraft business, helping it to remain a viable and sustainable business and to secure about 350 jobs at the St. Athan site. I am therefore announcing, again subject to consultation, that this VC10 business should be taken to the market now, to test whether sale might deliver improved effectiveness and value for money for our armed forces and a better long-term future for the work force.

The Department's investment in the Red Dragon project has enabled DARA and the MOD to achieve major reductions in operating costs, and it has enabled significant site rationalisation at St. Athan. We anticipate that we should have recovered our investment at St. Athan by April 2007. By investing in that facility, in partnership with the Welsh Assembly, we have provided south Wales with a state-of-the-art engineering capability that can form the centrepiece of the proposed St. Athan aerospace park. I therefore make no apology for taking the bold decision to build this world-class facility—a decision that was taken in good faith, based on the best available information at the time. Not to have done so would have immediately rendered DARA uncompetitive. We are continuing to examine, with the Welsh Assembly, a number of military and civil aerospace opportunities for the future use of the facility.

The next area concerns DARA's helicopter repair and associated component businesses at Fleetlands in Hampshire and at Almondbank in Scotland. Those businesses continue to offer a cost-effective repair capability. The facilities will continue to employ in the region of 860 people: more than 580 at Fleetlands and more than 270 in Almondbank. Again, I am announcing, subject to consultation, that those two parts of DARA should be taken to the market now to test whether sale might deliver improved effectiveness and value for money for our armed forces and, again, a better long-term future for the work force.

I come now to DARA's engine maintenance business at Fleetlands in Hampshire. Regrettably, this business has become uncompetitive and is unable to sustain its market share. This has followed DARA's recent loss to Rolls-Royce, in open competition, of work on the RB199 engines for the Tornado aircraft. Also, DARA did not secure the Gnome and Gem helicopter engine repair contracts. That work will now be carried out by Rolls-Royce. I have therefore decided, subject to consultation, that this business should close by April 2007, with the loss of 225 jobs in Hampshire.

The final business unit in DARA is the electronics business, based in Sealand, north Wales, which employs some 600 people. This will be retained within MOD ownership. That business provides critical support to our current aircraft and has scope for further growth as we optimise the Department's future avionics support arrangements.

I want to deal with ABRO's future. ABRO provides depth repair of much of the Army's fleet of armoured fighting vehicles, as well as other military vehicles and fighting equipment. Change at ABRO is essential for a number of reasons. First, the Defence Logistics Organisation is introducing a series of reforms to improve the efficiency with which the fleet is being managed and maintained. That reduces the requirement for deep repair. Secondly, ABRO has become more efficient, reducing the required manpower. For example, the cost of base overhaul of the Warrior armoured vehicle has been reduced by 15 per cent. and the time taken cut by half, from 107 days to 53. As a result, it has been possible to release 40 more vehicles back to front-line commands.

Thirdly, the reality is that while ABRO has some unique capabilities, it is facing increasingly direct competition as a result of new and more efficient DLO contracting strategies. While there is no long-term strategic need to retain ABRO within MOD ownership, I judge that we will not be ready to expose all or parts of the business for sale for a number of years. However, the business needs to become significantly more efficient and some of the MOD's long-term support strategies need to mature. The consequence is that significant rationalisation is necessary so that ABRO can become more competitive.

Subject to consultation, I am announcing that ABRO's armoured vehicle and engine facilities, together with its one-stop shop for unscheduled repairs at Donnington in Shropshire, will close by March 2007, with up to 628 redundancies. Instead, depth maintenance and repair of the armoured fleet will be concentrated at Bovington in Dorset, retaining some 384 jobs, although up to 107 will be lost by 2010. ABRO's one-stop shops at Warminster in Wiltshire and Colchester in Essex will close by March 2007, with up to 281 redundancies. There will be up to a further 210 redundancies across other ABRO sites, including the head office function based in Andover in Hampshire.

In addition, and to provide more efficient and effective service, ABRO will create a number of new smaller facilities closer to the Army front-line customer, including in the Warminster and Colchester areas. Up to 165 new posts will be created. Having rationalised its core defence business, ABRO will be looking to develop profitable commercial revenue across the defence sector and beyond into other markets. There are no guarantees of success, and of course we must ensure that the taxpayers' position is protected, but if it can become much more competitive, ABRO could have the potential to grow into new markets. It has already had some success in the rail maintenance and public sector fleet management markets.

I pay tribute to the excellent service that the employees of DARA and ABRO have provided to our armed forces. The redundancies across both DARA and ABRO will have an impact on individuals and their families. I am particularly mindful of the impact of this announcement on south Wales, Donnington in Shropshire, and Hampshire.

We are working with the Welsh Assembly in Wales, and we will of course engage with the other regional bodies to mitigate the consequences of these necessary decisions and to provide appropriate outplacement services to help those affected. As a good example of that, we have already been able, through joint working with the Welsh Assembly, to attract ATC Lasham, a civil commercial aircraft maintenance and repair company, to St. Athan, creating up to 300 new jobs. We will help those affected by these announcements to find alternative employment and we will make every effort to use natural labour turnover, redeployment and voluntary redundancy to mitigate the loss. However, while we will seek to keep them to a minimum, a significant number of compulsory redundancies can be expected.

We are committed to modernising our armed forces. To do so, we must continually look for more efficient support solutions to enable us to invest more resource to support our men and women in the front line. These changes are an essential part of that strategy.

I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of what has been an extremely lengthy statement, and for his courtesy in affording me more than the conventional amount of time to consider it.

I doubt whether I am alone in experiencing a shudder every time this Government announce a plan to modernise. If it relates to our institutions, it generally means to destroy. In the case of our national defence, it usually heralds a cut. Sadly, today's announcement appears to be no exception.

I feel particularly sorry for the DARA operation in the constituency of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith). The Government built up hopes of creating a substantial aviation repair facility to provide a valuable skills base in south Wales, only to dash them again. Just months after agreeing a £70 million investment in the Red Dragon site, a new chief executive, Archie Hughes, was brought in to undertake the challenging task of preparing the business for sale. No sooner had he arrived than Ministers promptly announced the removal of Tornado GR4 work to RAF Marham, cutting the ground from beneath him and his team. That followed the transfer of Harrier work to RAF Cottesmore early last year, at a cost to DARA St. Athan of 550 jobs. Removing business from a company is not a sensible way to sell it as a going concern.

The indecision over DARA has led to what can only be described as a shambolic state of affairs, and great uncertainty for a work force to whom the Minister has rightly paid tribute—some reward they have had for their commitment. I have a number of questions to ask the Minister in respect of DARA.

First, what was the result of the market testing carried out by Morgan Stanley earlier this year? Is it true that there has been no serious expression of interest in a purchase? Secondly, can he tell us how the front-line servicing operation for Harriers at RAF Cottesmore is performing? Is it true that, as Amicus claims, the cost of transferring work from DARA St. Athan to Cottesmore was substantial?

The Minister says that he intends to remove all fast-jet work from St. Athan, but what about the Hawk contract currently placed there, which he did not mention? He said that the VC10 business has been transferred there, but that he is planning to market-test that, too—I presume that he is going to sell it, so what will be left of St. Athan if that goes? He said that DARA had been unable to secure commercial aviation repair business following the rundown of military work, so what is his plan for the future of the facility? I dare say that his hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan will put that question to him even more vigorously.

Again, the Minister said that he was planning to sell the helicopter repair business at DARA Fleetlands, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers). If that goes, what will be left there? Can he explain why, uniquely, DARA's electronics business at Sealand will not be market-tested, when that is apparently being done with everything else?

As for ABRO, that organisation has been subject to a steady process of attrition. In July, the Ministry of Defence announced the loss of 250 jobs across the country, with today's phase 2 leading to a further 1,061 net redundancies. The NAO's major repair and overhaul report of 2002—I acknowledge that it is from three years ago, but I would welcome the Minister's response—stated:

"Despite trends towards contractor logistics support, however, parts of industry acknowledge that they do not have well developed repair and overhaul capabilities. Some manufacturers are therefore looking to ABRO to provide this expertise and capability. In addition, Alvis Vehicles Limited and Vickers Defence Systems both entered into partnering arrangements with ABRO in 2001. And ABRO intends to work more closely with other potential industrial partners on future equipment programmes."

Can the Minister tell us whether the deficiency identified by the NAO has been resolved?

Will the Minister explain why he now sees no further need for deep repair for military land vehicles? It seems that the closure of the one-stop shops at Warminster and Colchester will take out a whole capability. He referred to smaller units being placed there, but what will they do that is not currently carried out by the existing one-stop shops? Although we welcome any moves genuinely designed to make the logistics back-up for our armed forces more efficient, we shall resist measures that have the effect of so cutting our logistics capability that they starve the front line of vital support, or which eliminate scope for spare capacity that may be required during conflict. It is against that yardstick that we shall judge today's announcement.

Our front-line forces are at full stretch and they need to have confidence that the essential back-up is actually there. My initial fear is that the announcement today represents a substantial cut in capability, which far from reinforcing the front line will only serve to weaken it.

That shows that one should not give out a statement too far in advance. The hon. Gentleman should look at his own statements in the run-up to the last election—statements on which the Conservatives campaigned. Does he remember the James report? It referred to savings of £1.6 billion in addition to the £2.8 billion we have announced, taking £4.4 billion out of defence logistics support. It proposed a sell-off of ABRO and DARA. It did not propose to test the market, but made a simple commitment to sell it off, along with the Warship Support Agency and everything else to do with defence agencies. I can take some criticism—I am sure I will get it—but not from the Conservative party.

In terms of DARA St. Athan, I set out why the business has contracted: because of platforms being taken out of service—that was going to happen anyway; they were just brought out of service earlier—and because increased periods between maintenance reduces the number of aircraft going downstream. It is also a result of the transfer of the Harrier and the Tornado to RAF main operating bases. That means that the totality of the workflow had ceased to exist, by and large. Of course, the work could have remained there, but it would have done so at cost greater than that which I set out in my statement.

I indicated that the savings made as a result of the Harrier transfer were substantial and they will be replicated for the Tornado. If the view is that the RAF main operating bases cannot maintain those aircraft, it is a significant charge—effectively, the hon. Gentleman is saying that the technicians cannot maintain aircraft to the same standards and ability as those within DARA.

The purpose of market testing is to find out if there is an expression of interest. If there is, we will have to see if it satisfies us in terms of cost and guaranteed support for the future, with the element of risk contained within that. There is no guarantee that market testing will necessarily lead to the sale of VC10 business, although I must say that I am under some pressure to do that. Whoever buys it could, effectively, grow the capacity of the engineering aerospace work that is carried out at St. Athan, because the large manufacture capability could bring in other work using the facilities built there.

The hon. Gentleman talked about Fleetlands and the decision to take that to the market; again, it is proving to be effective. It is right that we test the market on helicopter support, using the same criteria for the fast-jet business and for the rest of the fixed-wing business. In one sense, that is not too dissimilar to what the hon. Gentleman was campaigning for before the election, although he was not going to market; he was going to sell to the first bidder. We will market-test to see if there is a bidder and then get value from that.

Sealand is being retained within the MOD for a good reason—it does very important work at present. With the Typhoon coming along, we believe that it is important that capacity be retained at Sealand. We are looking into whether we can invest to give the work force a better future, either in the public sector or in an area where market testing may be necessary.

As was said three years ago, the market has changed and ABRO is under intense competitive pressures. The way in which it is structured has made it inefficient, so we are rationalising. The depth support that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is going to Bovington, while other work will be distributed across other sites. As I said in my statement, there will be 185 additional posts. The aim is to get closer to the customer and closer to front-line need.What we are taking from ABRO is excess capacity, not capability. The situation had to be assessed properly before we acted, and we will still have a 40 per cent. surge capability to meet any of the demands to which the hon. Gentleman rightly alluded.

My right hon. Friend will be well aware of my utter dismay at the incoherence of the Government's policy of depth support for their front-line military aircraft, which will undermine the RAF's capability in the defence of the nation. In the light of his statement, can he assure me that his Department will work very closely with the Welsh Assembly Government to retain as much of the highly skilled work force at St. Athan as possible, both by helping to secure more aviation business for the area and by expanding the DARA VC10 work that will be market-tested? Will my right hon. Friend also tell me whether he will accept in-house bids for any market testing of DARA business?

I know of my hon. Friend's deep concern. He has been constant in both his comments and his trenchant criticisms. I pay tribute to what has been a high-profile campaign on his part, but I must balance what constitutes reality for the MOD against the reality in which he exists.

My hon. Friend has asked me important questions. I think it right to look to the future. Yes, we will work closely with the Welsh Assembly Government and other Government agencies to see what more can be done to protect the level of aerospace activity. I mentioned our success in attracting a major aircraft maintenance supplier, ATC Lasham, to the site. That will provide about 300 jobs, and the business could grow, but that is up to it. It is, after all, in the commercial sector. It may well be interested in purchasing the VC10 work. We will erect no barriers to any attempt to grow the business; indeed, we will do the opposite. We will do all that we can to ensure that that skilled work force is retained, and it may even increase over the years.

I would not write out an in-house bid. We have shown a willingness to participate in such bids in the past, and will do so in the future. The future defence supply chain initiative, for instance, went in-house after an intensive period of assessment of what the market was offering. If a bid matches our requirements against commercial demand, we would be prepared to consider it if it offers value for money and covers the risk elements, and if we can ensure the sustainability of the fleet.

The Minister's statement was important and I am grateful to him for providing an advance copy.

No one would dispute that we must modernise logistics provision for the armed forces, but anyone who has studied reports from the Defence Committee and the NAO will be aware of the massive gap between aspiration and reality. The cost overruns highlighted by the Minister's own answers to parliamentary questions make the situation worse, not better. On a quick calculation, the Minister has announced a net 1,500 job losses, which will be a major blow to each of the communities represented. Can he give the House further details of the redundancy and welfare packages that the affected individuals will receive?

On the fast jet business at St. Athan, can the right hon. Gentleman remind the House of how much the taxpayer has invested in the site in recent years? Can he set out, now or later, the figures that allow him to say that the investment will be recovered by April 2007? Given that he says that the commercial aviation repair business operates in a market with overcapacity, what will make the proposed St. Athan aerospace park viable?

Finally, when the Minister announced the creation of the DARA and ABRO trading funds, the idea was to improve both the efficiency and effectiveness of their operations. So what confidence can people in the armed forces, and the civilians who support them, have that when the MOD talks of modernisation, it does not just mean cost-cutting on a grand scale?

The hon. Gentleman says that we have failed to match aspiration with reality, but the Liberals have perhaps failed in that regard for the last 100 years or so. The standard redundancy and welfare package will of course apply, and every effort will be made to find alternative employment. Indeed, in some areas, one or two other developments are taking place within the MOD that could create a small number of none the less real opportunities. There may well be opportunities for people to relocate if they are mobile employees, and we will do everything to assist in this regard. I do not minimise the scale of this announcement—that is why we are making an oral statement. It is right that we do so and that we be questioned on it.

The hon. Gentleman asks about investment at St. Athan. There was a view that the Red Dragon facility should not have been built—I do not know where the Liberals stood in that regard—and this issue certainly had to be debated. Had we not done so, we would not now be best placed. Nor would DARA at St. Athan have been able to achieve many of the efficiencies that it subsequently achieved, which in turn assisted the rest of defence. As a result of that initiative, the investment in that project that was due to break even in 2008–09 will do so by 2007. I do not know whether we can release the relevant information—I know of no reason why not, but sometimes there are commercial or confidentiality issues—but if we can, we will.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the commitment given to St. Athan's viability in announcements that were made when the trading funds were set up. That was so, but following what happened with the Warship Support Agency—new ways of delivering support to the fleet were examined—both the RAF and the Army decided to do something similar. This initiative was driven by people who realised that the previous arrangement was inefficient, ineffective and extremely costly. Was there a better way? Yes, there was, so we engaged consultants to look at the entire air support process in an end-to-end study. The new approach of reducing four levels of support to two emerged from that study.

The hon. Gentleman may want to retain four levels of support, but I consider that inefficient. If we reduce them from four to two, such support can be provided at the main operating base, or at the other base. What happened was that the St. Athan business moved to Cottesmore and Marham, and the rotary fleet returned to a civilian base at Fleetlands, so the process is not simply one way; it was carefully considered and subjected to a thorough investment appraisal. Of course, that stacks up in terms of the benefits to defence.

I have many constituents who work at Donnington, and I have to say that the Minister's decision today is plain wrong. It flies in the face of the Lyons review, which encourages us to move jobs to the midlands and the north. This decision simply reverses the Lyons proposals. I hope that he will think again, but if we are to proceed, I ask him to consider two issues. First, through a taskforce, will he work with Telford and Wrekin borough council, its leader, Councillor Keith Austin, and the regional development agency to try to secure new jobs and replacement jobs in Telford? Secondly, would he also look at the site on which the current ABRO plant sits, as there may be opportunities, working in partnership with the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency, to increase the defence presence in that location and build on the proposed rail freight terminal for Telford in close proximity to the ABRO site?

I am sorry that my hon. Friend thinks that the decision is wrong, but I can well understand it. The work done there has been distributed not to the south-east, but to other areas; and I have already mentioned Bovington in Dorset. That is clearly a Lyons area and there will be a consolidation there. Obviously, when it comes to rationalisation, someone has to win and someone has to lose.

I would also like to remind my hon. Friend of one salient fact. I have already mentioned the future defence supply chain initiative, which we announced earlier this year, and it should be noted that Donnington was the beneficiary when the decision was taken to close Stafford and locate a large part of the main operation at Donnington, albeit with a rationalisation of a number of jobs. The defence footprint is there for a long time ahead.

I am only too willing to assist as best I can with the taskforce in several areas. It is not just the Ministry of Defence that has a role to play, as we are doing our best to co-ordinate our efforts across government. My hon. Friend is right about the ABRO site. It will free up facilities, and DSDA, as part of the in-house process for the future defence supply chain, has indicated an interest in using some of those facilities, which may result in job creation. I admit that it will not match the loss of jobs, but it is an example of how we are attempting to provide the best logistic support while minimising the overall losses.

The Fleetlands aircraft repair yard in Gosport has been rationalised and reorganised time and again, but we have always drawn confidence from the fact that excellent facilities, combined with a loyal and skilled work force, will provide continuity for the yard's future. It has taken the present Government to prove that wrong.

The Minister said that there was overcapacity in aircraft repair at present, but how can he be completely confident that it will continue, and what will he do if he finds that overcapacity has not continued and that we are short of capacity? I challenge him to say, in the context of modernisation, that the work force has failed fully to co-operate with any of the many changes imposed on the Fleetlands aircraft yard. What have they failed to do and why have they been put in this position?

Finally, so many changes have been announced that I believe that the work force will not accept this harsh judgment without having the opportunity to challenge it by talking to the Minister. Will he agree to a meeting and prove to us that the facts that he has given to underpin his judgment are correct?

I think the hon. Gentleman has made his mind up before listening to the facts. He says that he wants to hear the facts, and I would happy to discuss the details with the trade unions. I have said that the part of the business at Fleetlands connected with engine support has lost major contracts in a competitive bid. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should have ignored that, placing on-costs on the defence budgets? If we are trying to drive efficiency into the system and make the yard competitive, we have to face the consequences of losing bids. That is what happened with engine support and it is not a consequence of any lack of commitment on the part of the work force. The hon. Gentleman is right that they have tried to achieve the new efficiency standards, but the contracts were at a mature point and had to be placed.

The hon. Gentleman is asking an impossible question. He asks me to predict the future of the aerospace market in this country—I do not know how far ahead—but I cannot do that. No one can do that. If he is saying that the MOD should retain facilities with inefficient operations at extra cost simply because something—we know not what—may happen in the future, he is not living in the real world. The other part of Fleetlands, however, has a future and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman heard what I said. We took a decision, on which I thought the hon. Gentleman would compliment me, to move work from Army and naval bases back to Fleetlands, providing the civilian work force with greater opportunities for the future. I just wish that, in some of his criticisms, he would recognise that.

People in my constituency who work at Fleetlands will be deeply affected by today's announcement, and I should like to express my support for those who will lose their jobs, and for their families. I thank my right hon. Friend for his assurances that all possible help will be given to mitigate the effects of job losses and to help people find alternative employment. There is never a good time for people to lose their jobs, but does my right hon. Friend agree that at least they have a better chance of finding alternative employment when the economy is successful and thriving? I do not underplay the devastating effect of job losses on people and their families, but it is the Government's responsibility—

Order. I think that the Minister can answer that point with what the hon. Lady has asked so far.

I thank my hon. Friend for her balanced views, and she is right to say that there is never a good time for people to lose their jobs. My father was an aircraft fitter who moved in and out of employment under the Tory Governments of many years past. I sometimes say that I have oil in my blood, and that makes today's announcement extremely difficult for me, but we have to do what is right for defence. I am grateful that my hon. Friend understands that, and she is right in what she says about job losses in a strong economy. We have created a strong economy and will do everything in our power to ensure that the rest of the Fleetlands facility is maintained. I am sure that many of her constituents are part of what is a first-class work force with a long-term future. The question that we must consider is whether that future lies with the Ministry of Defence or private industry. If people go into industry, there is always the possibility that the rate of growth in that sector will be even greater.

The Minister will understand that today's statement is a bitter blow to people in the communities represented by the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith). In respect of the sale of the VC10 business, how will he get right the balance between maximising the return on public investment and securing the work force's long-term future? Will potential purchasers have to give guarantees about employment levels and rights, and about the long-term continuation of the remaining business at St. Athan?

We must always balance public investment against all the other issues involved. We must take risk into account as we test the market, and make a judgment about it. We must also ask questions about the identity and commitment of potential purchasers, and determine whether they can guarantee future support. If they cannot make that guarantee, they can go no further with the purchase. I should add that BAE Systems also has an interest in this matter, as it is the design authority.

I suppose that one should never say never, but I see no possibility that the work will move away from St. Athan. With the right ingredients, and if the right company purchases it, the facility could have a greater ability to provide support for wide-bodied, fixed-wing aircraft. Clearly, what is being lost in terms of fast jet support is very painful, and that loss is happening over a relatively short period, but we are trying to put in place the potential for future growth. We will do everything that we can to that end, as we do not want to lose the key workers in that area.

Finally, I remind the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) that the VC10 is used extensively in support of NATO forces in Iraq. I do not think that his party supports what we are doing in that particular area.

I do not want to question my right hon. Friend about any particular element of his statement, as I shall leave that to hon. Members with constituencies that are affected. However, does he accept that the House needs to recognise the general principle involved in this matter—that the Ministry of Defence's logistics organisation can be improved in many ways? The problems—a lot of duplication, and many inefficient structures, both geographical and otherwise—need to be tackled, regardless of which party is in office. The current Government have been tackling the problems and, although I know that my right hon. Friend does not need encouragement, I urge them to press on. If we do not make the savings, we cannot pass them on to the front line, where they are really needed.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment, and he is right that we have to tackle those inefficiencies. Every penny saved is a penny that goes to the front line. The arrangement with the Treasury is that if we do not save the £2.8 billion, there will not be an investment in the front line. We have to do it. It will be a hard target to reach, but it will ultimately be good for our defence and the men and women on the front line. That is why I will continue to press on with it.

Are other areas of the Ministry of Defence subject to the modernisation process likely to yield similarly substantial job losses in the next five years? If so, will there be any consequences for MOD employees in Northern Ireland?

The hon. Gentleman tempts me again. I visited the Province last Friday. It was not a public visit, but I met the Royal Irish and MOD civilian staff. The closure of Army bases in Northern Ireland will have a significant impact and we are working out how best to deal with that. We know the numbers, but we are examining the quantum of the financial consequences. However, the consequences arise not from the efficiency savings, but from the peace process that is under way.

We will scrutinise other parts of the MOD to see if there are better ways of doing things. We have made some announcements about co-locating headquarters. If there are two parts of an operation, it is sensible to co-locate them if the business case stacks up. We will continue to consider such cases, because we have to achieve a reduction of more than 20,000 back office jobs over the next few years across the MOD to ensure that we achieve the £2.8 billion saving.

I remind the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) of his additional commitment to £1.6 billion savings on top of our £2.8 billion. We are finding the latter hard, so I do not know where he would get £4.4 billion savings.

I welcome the statement about DARA at Sealand, although I regret the job losses elsewhere. May we have a period of stability now? That is vital, because having one review after another saps the morale of employees. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to secure the long-term future of DARA at Sealand?

I said in my opening statement that there is no strategic need for Sealand to remain in the MOD, but it is important as we introduce the new aircraft, as well as for the legacy systems. High grade work is carried out at Sealand and it is essential for the new Typhoon that that be maintained. The potential for Sealand is great. Investment will be required to change some of the tooling and support equipment to move from analogue to digital avionics, and that could allow Sealand—whether it is in the public or private sector—the opportunity to join the Typhoon support and supply chain for other countries. I cannot predict that that will happen, but if that part of the business is properly resourced and configured, it could win such additional business. Sealand has a good long-term future.

I am grateful to the Minister for providing me with advance notice of the statement. Earlier this year, the Defence Committee said that one of the reasons why DARA was created was to provide assured access to repair capacity and also capacity for surge workload. Is the Minister confident that, given the announcement he has made today and the Treasury-strapped budget that he has, such surge capacity will continue to exist?

I am not going to agree that we have a Treasury-strapped budget. I have always said that the budget is under pressure: if it were not, we would not be trying to save £2.8 billion. We have had the largest increase in real terms for 20 years, although any Department will say that it wants more support.

The assured capacity and the surge workload are part of the risk that has to be examined. Although Ministers ultimately have to sit in judgment, the review has been delivered by senior RAF personnel.

I make this point: if what we were doing was wrong pilots would not fly those fast jets. If they thought for a moment that the aircraft were unsafe or had not been properly maintained, they would not take them into the sky. That is the final arbiter. Much of the work on fast jets was already being carried out at the main operating bases. What we have done is transferred it to those areas. There is still an element of private company support alongside it, although the work is carried out predominantly by RAF technicians and personnel. They need that capability when aircraft go to the front line, to maintain them wherever they are posted. The judgment of those who need to examine such things in detail is that, yes, there is an assured capacity and, yes, it can meet the surge demand. That is the really big issue; that is what they are there for in the first place, to ensure that they have aircraft capable of meeting the needs of the country.

May I too express deep disappointment and concern about the proposals for DARA St. Athan? It is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith), but many of my constituents work there. Is my right hon. Friend aware of how huge the loss is for the area and of how great the sense of betrayal and outrage is among the workers and the unions, who have campaigned so hard on the issue? Is he aware of the loss of high-quality apprenticeships that offer opportunities for young people in the area? Their withdrawal will threaten the local college, so what will he do to help?

I do recognise that there is a huge loss. It does not come easy to me, or any Defence or Labour Minister, to make such announcements. I do not feel a sense of betrayal. I have tried to set out the logic of what we are doing: why it is inevitable, why it is good for defence and why we believe that it best configures that aspect of logistic support for the RAF. My hon. Friend made a particular point about apprenticeships. I have said elsewhere that bits of British industry would not exist without MOD investment, and I sometimes question what the rest of British industry is doing about apprenticeships in the aerospace sector. We are mindful of the issue, however, and will work with the Welsh Assembly to try to find a way of ensuring that the apprenticeship stream is maintained. It may not be wholly to do with the MOD, but we realise that it is vital. It is not simply for the MOD to provide aerospace apprenticeships; the rest of the industry has something to contribute as well.

The Minister has spent time in Iraq and will have seen ABRO in action at the front line. Does he agree that these days the distinction between the front line and the logistics tail is increasingly blurred, and thus his announcement today is not just a blow to some hypothetical background backroom boys but is in fact a blow to our defence commitment overall?

No, I do not. I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says. There is increasingly a blurring, but things must also be carefully defined. We cannot put non-uniform personnel into areas of risks, and such judgments have to come into play at all times. In my statement, I said that part of the reconfiguration of ABRO is to put capacity closer to the front-line customer. Admittedly, that will be in the UK, but it is closer to where the vehicles will be and the work will be integrated with that of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, which may have a beneficial spill-out in terms of front-line deployment. We are making the changes to improve support, not to diminish it. We have to reconfigure ABRO to that size to make it capable of withstanding the competitive pressures out there. Industry is well marshalled and understands the volume of work out there. We are seeking to retain ABRO jobs for a good number of years in the future, to ensure that we give that key support to the Army in everything it does, either in the UK or in areas of conflict.

Does the Minister recognise that today is a dark day for many families along the whole stretch of the M4 corridor, including those in my constituency? Many of those families' menfolk will be incoherent with frustration and anger, given that the work force at DARA have met every possible hurdle and every target thrown at them to cut costs, to increase efficiency, to meet time scales and to prove efficient and effective. Will he acknowledge that today's decision is no fault of the quality of workmanship of those dedicated people in that work force?

I can agree completely that the decision is not down to a lack of quality on the part of the work force. If there were any doubt about that, the MOD, working in concert with the Welsh Assembly, would find it had to attract others on to the site to use some of that capability. Of course, the Welsh Assembly was able to announce earlier this year that ATC Lasham would come on to the site, and we are working actively with the Welsh Assembly to extol the virtues of what is going on there. I pay tribute to the work force for all that they sought to do, but when legacy platforms have been take out of service, the work flow is not there. When we make a decision, because of a very careful financial analysis, that four levels of support can be collapsed into two, and the consequences of either moving back to St. Athan or moving forward into Marham and Cottesmore stack up in favour of the latter, we must do what is right for defence. That is my job, and I believe that we are doing what is right for defence and what is right for the country as well.

This is a huge slap in the face for my constituents, 628 of whom will lose their jobs as a result of today's announcement—40 per cent. of the overall job losses. Are the MOD and the Government committed to Shropshire, which has a huge defence sector? We have the defence training review at Cosford. Sapphire House, which is in the constituency of my colleague the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright), is under review, and we now hear today's announcement about the DLO, ABRO and the defence centre. In particular, I am interested in what the Minister will say on the future of Donnington. Are the Government committed to Donnington? Are they committed to Shropshire?

FDSCI is the acronym that I will give the hon. Gentleman. We have made a commitment about the in-house bid. He would probably not have supported the in-house bid; he would have preferred to go to one of the private sector companies, which, of course, may not have decided to locate at Donnington. I accept that there are reductions as a consequence of making part of the support to the MOD and the front line, again, much more efficient.

The hon. Gentleman mentions the DTR. Well, the DTR is out there, but it will probably be anything up to 18 months before we reach a conclusion. A number of bids have come in, and all of them must be evaluated. I do not know whether he is saying that we should ignore the quality of the bids and just give a commitment to Shropshire. That is not the way in which Ministers should make a decision. We must balance the various bids and decide where the best benefit lies.

The Government are offering a subsidy to Wales in the DTR.

I find that offensive, in a sense. I am making an announcement today with, 500 mainly engineering jobs being lost to DARA St. Athan. That is not a subsidy to Wales; it is very painful. It will be very difficult, and we must work our way through it. The MOD will look at what is best for the United Kingdom and best for our front-line soldiers. That is what we must seek to achieve, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman was aware of that and be on our side.

Obviously, it is a sad day across the House. We are talking about almost 2,000 jobs going directly. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the impact on the supply and service industry? I do not know how many jobs may be lost there. Following today's review, can he guarantee that those platforms that have been maintained in the past will be as good for our front-line troops in the future?

I do not quite know what point my hon. Friend is making about the assessment regarding the supply and service industry.

Parts.

Of course, the flow of parts is a key component of any support mechanism. If my hon. Friend is talking about his other concerns regarding the situation in Chorley and munitions support, we have put in place a comprehensive agreement between ourselves and BAE Systems to ensure that the munitions supply chain is maintained for the good reason that that is 110 per cent. essential.

As for whether the new platforms will be better than the old ones, I have to say yes. They are certainly more expensive. I do not know which platforms and maintenance my hon. Friend is talking about, but we want to ensure that we get the best capabilities to maintain the supply chain and the supply and support mechanism. What we are doing is fundamentally correct. I know that the process is painful and difficult, but if we did not do it, we would be spending money unwisely on defence.

The Minister says that ABRO has become more efficient. Does he accept that many of the loyal, dedicated and skilled work force at Colchester ABRO will lose their jobs? He has combined Warminster and Colchester in the assessment of job losses and creations, so will he give me a breakdown of the figures—I assume that the respective figures must be known? When Colchester is being developed as a super-garrison, what is the logic behind taking away logistical support to such an extent? Is it not the case that what was before the Minister was the fact that the REME Workshops, as ABRO used to be known, sit on a prime edge-of-town-centre site and that we are thus seeing asset stripping?

No, we are not. The hon. Gentleman asked for figures, so these are the round figures based on the current best information. The maximum number of redundancies at Colchester will be 96, after which 69 personnel will still be employed in the Colchester area. Those people will primarily be in barracks, so the support for the brand new multi-billion pound facility will be closer to the REME support. I was pleased to cut one of the first sods for that facility in the hon. Gentleman's presence not so long ago. We are retaining close engagement between the support end of ABRO and the engineering end of the Army. That is what the Army wants, so we are meeting its requirements.

I am sure that the vast majority of my constituents will understand that the Ministry of Defence has to deliver operational efficiency for every single penny at the front line. However, does my right hon. Friend understand that many of my constituents will feel perplexed, angry and frustrated when they see a Government building up DARA at St. Athan, but then effectively dismantling it only a few years later? When he talks to the Welsh Assembly Government, will he please ensure that the support package for my constituents who lose their jobs will be provided not only near to St. Athan, but close to the valley communities in which people live, many of which will be just as affected as the Vale of Glamorgan?

I hope that those people will not be perplexed after they have heard our reasoning and logic, although I well understand the anger of people who lose their jobs. I make this point about the Red Dragon facility. If it had not been built, DARA would have had no future. Anyone who has followed the matter will realise that I took a long time before reaching that conclusion. We were able to deliver the facility because of close engagement with the Welsh Development Agency. There was a bit of trading with the agency because it said that certain things would happen on the back of the development, so it had to make a contribution to the overall package because of its role on economic attraction. That investment was correct. The facility still remains and will be highly marketable. VC10 work will remain and its capacity to attract a major player, ATC Lasham, to St. Athan shows that there are prospects for development if we get the right ingredients. That is what we are seeking to do—we are not walking away, and we will maintain our commitment while we have an MOD interest in that area.

Given the work that RAF Marham in my constituency will undertake, can the Minister give me an assurance that the decision will not be detrimental to local employment on the base nor result in additional environmental damage or noise pollution?

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to stop noise pollution perhaps he does not want an air force base in his locality. RAF bases cause noise, but they bring a great deal of useful and important work. We must ensure that the RAF, which deploys fast jets to the front line has the capability to sustain them in theatre. That is important, and it goes back to my point that the pilots who fly those jets are the ultimate arbiters. At the end of the day, they do not care who maintains those jets as long as they do so properly and provide an effective fighting machine for the front line. That will only be the case, however, when RAF personnel work alongside them. As for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that opportunities will be lost, RAF Marham is gaining an opportunity and has a long-term future. I should have thought that he would welcome that.

The Minister may recall that last week I pressed the Secretary of State on the availability of Warrior armoured fighting vehicles in Iraq. Given his statement this afternoon, in which he rightly told the House that the overhaul time has been cut by half to just over a couple of months, will his new costing strategies allow that target still to be met? The shortage of that excellent vehicle matters to people on the front line, and he was right to highlight the implications of his statement for those individuals.

I think that the hon. Gentleman was complimenting me on the announcement. If that is the case, I welcome it, because I have not received many compliments today. However, he is right. The proposal aims to improve the throughput of vehicles, so that they are not sitting in a maintenance yard but are being worked on and turned around and can reach the front line. We have increased throughput and tempo, as it is important that front-line soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere are properly supplied. However, we must also tackle logistics, which is why difficult decisions must be taken.

I cried out, "Shame" when the Minister made the announcement about Donnington, because many of my constituents work at that facility. It has come as a great shock to me, as well as to the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) and my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard). I concur with everything that they said, but I have two further questions for the Minister. Will he come to Shropshire to explain his decision to our constituents, and what retraining schemes does he intend to put in place for them? There was a great deal of help for Rover in the run-up to the election, but I hope that, even though there is not a general election in the offing, he will help our constituents to find new jobs.

I could have shouted "Shame" at the hon. Gentleman, given that, during the election, he campaigned to get rid of ABRO. His party did not want to try to reconfigure it, or make it better able to deal with future supply chain needs. The decision on the future defence supply chain initiative was a good one, as it provides a long-term commitment. I reiterate the point that the winner of the FDSCI contract competed against the private sector. At the election, the hon. Gentleman campaigned for the private sector to run almost the entire supply chain for the armed forces. If he wishes to see some shame, perhaps he should look in the mirror.

As for retraining schemes, cross-Government agencies are working to minimise the effect of the announcement on individuals. Responsibility does not rest with the MOD alone. One of my hon. Friends asked whether we would engage a taskforce, and the answer is yes. We will do all that we can to mitigate the effects of the proposals. The Defence Storage and Distribution Agency already has a commitment, and it will look at the facilities to see whether additional jobs can be provided.

Representations from across the sector would lead us to believe that the Government have announced a poor decision today, and only time will tell how the well-being of the men and women who serve in the Army and the RAF will be affected. The announcement is demoralising for south Wales. The St. Athan aerospace park sounds good, but it will have an empty ring unless it is accompanied by real investment. Will the Minister provide an assurance on behalf of the MOD that any resources from the sale of the VC10 servicing facility will be available in combination with funds from the Welsh Assembly to make the aerospace park an attractive place for industry to relocate?

There is a long answer and a short answer, and I shall try to give the short one. The hon. Gentleman has asked for investment in St. Athan, but what was Red Dragon? It was an investment, which I was criticised for making, so I hope that he welcomed it, because it is an opportunity. Does the VC10 facility provide a good platform for future growth? Yes, potentially, and we will work with all partners—the Welsh Assembly and the private sector—to try and ensure that growth occurs. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises and welcomes the fact that the money saved by all those efficiency measures goes to the front line.

Will the Minister confirm that in his response to the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), he said that he had not reduced ABRO's capability, but had increased its efficiency? If, as I believe, he said that, will he explain the efficiency measures that he has taken to allow the sizable reduction of 944 jobs while retaining the same capability, or is the truth that he kept those people employed until after the election, even though there was no economic case for doing so?

That is absolute rubbish. A new chief executive was appointed; he was charged with examining ABRO's structure; and, as a professional manager, he then developed a plan. He concluded that reconfiguration is the only way to survive given the layers of overheads, inefficiencies and uncompetitiveness and the new, extremely competitive, aggressive marketplace. He brought his plan, which we studied and examined, to me, and we have introduced the proposals, so jobs were not protected because of the election. If the hon. Gentleman had followed the process, he would know about the dramatic announcements that I made in the run-up to the election. Earlier, one of my hon. Friends asked me to press on, which we have done regardless of electoral considerations. In defence, we do what is right for defence.

BILL PRESENTED

Childcare

Secretary Ruth Kelly, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Ms Secretary Hewitt, Mr. Secretary Hain, Secretary Alan Johnson, Beverley Hughes and Margaret Hodge, presented a Bill to make provision about the powers and duties of local authorities and other bodies in England in relation to the improvement of the well-being of young children; to make provision about the powers and duties of local authorities in England and Wales in relation to the provision of childcare and the provision of information to parents and other persons; to make provision about the regulation and inspection of childcare provision in England; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 80].

Breastfeeding etc.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it an offence to prevent or stop a person in charge of a child who is otherwise permitted to be in a public place or licensed premises from feeding milk to that child in that place or on those premises; to make provision in relation to the promotion of breastfeeding; and for connected purposes.

The Bill proposes to address some deep weaknesses in our society's attitude to breastfeeding. Those weaknesses are shown in England and Wales in a lower rate of mothers starting to breastfeed and a higher rate of mothers giving up breastfeeding than in countries of a comparable size and wealth to ours. The Bill would broaden the role of the Department of Health in supporting families in the decisions that they make about breastfeeding. It would also stop a form of discrimination that deters parents from feeding their young children in public places.

The promotion of breastfeeding is necessary. Breast milk is best. Research findings are piling up showing that milk is the ideal first food for most babies, providing complete nutrition to meet the unique requirements of infants. That research tells us that breast milk leads to fewer infections in babies—for example, gastro-intestinal tract infections—leads to healthy hearts in the long term, improves cognitive development, brings lower risks of allergies from environmental factors, offers protection against insulin-dependent diabetes, and potentially brings improved bone development. Breastfeeding is also good for the health of mums. Women who breastfeed may benefit from a reduced risk of pre-menopausal ovarian and breast cancer, greater weight loss if they breastfeed for at least six months, and a reduced risk of osteoporosis in later life.

Because of the certainty of those benefits, the World Health Organisation and our own Department of Health recommend that infants be exclusively breastfed for the first six months of their lives. Yet despite that recommendation, in England and Wales about one third of mothers do not breastfeed from the outset, and by four months of age only about a quarter of babies are still receiving breast milk. It is true that breastfeeding is not possible for a small number of mothers, but for most who do not start or give up too soon there are practical and cultural obstacles that we should sweep away.

The Scandinavian countries top the league table of breastfeeding. In Norway, 97 per cent. of new mothers start to breastfeed, with 80 per cent. still doing so at six months. The compelling health benefits mean that we should try harder in this country to match those more successful societies. The Bill would require the Department of Health to make arrangements to support and encourage families to ensure greater rates of breastfeeding in our country. The Government are committed to the promotion of breastfeeding—they already fund projects on best breastfeeding practice—but all parents of newborn babies should have access to education, supervision and support. I know from my contacts that many midwives, health visitors, National Childbirth Trust and La Leche League breastfeeding counsellors and others want to help to deliver a more comprehensive support service for all parents, especially mothers wishing to breastfeed. The Government can do more. For example, the NCT calls for a breastfeeding action plan covering training, baby-friendly facilities and peer support.

It is also important to involve employers. It is clear from the work that I have done in my constituency that many employers need help to understand the needs of employees who come back to work after maternity leave and still wish to breastfeed.

The Bill is partly about the health benefits of breastfeeding and ensuring that parents know about those benefits and have support in taking them up, but it is also intended to stamp out discrimination against parents. They want to live normal lives after the birth of their children but can be deterred from venturing out to places where other members of the public have no problem in going because they find a prejudice against feeding babies there. I have heard parents complain about a lack of family-friendly places to feed babies, whether it is breastfeeding or bottle-feeding. Some places try to stop it; others try to suggest that baby-feeding is best done in the toilets.

It beats me that so many people can ogle pictures of women's breasts in newspapers and magazines on open public display, yet complain about that most natural of sights—a mother breastfeeding her baby. Nevertheless, that is what happens. In 2003, a survey for midwives, nurses and health visitors found that nearly four out of 10 breastfeeding mothers and two out of 10 bottle-feeding mothers experienced problems in finding convenient places to feed their babies when out and about.

I am grateful to the NCT for some examples from its casebook. In a Birmingham restaurant, a GP who was discreetly feeding her baby at a table was asked to stop or go to the toilet. A patient in a GP's surgery was asked to leave the waiting room even though another mother was feeding a baby with a bottle. A woman at an ideal homes exhibition was reduced to tears when a man released a volley of abuse, picked up and threw away her pushchair and snatched the cushion against which she was leaning, all because she was breastfeeding at the exhibition. A newspaper recently reported that a doctor was told not to breastfeed in a Derby store because it was a gentleman's outfitters. Stevenage citizens advice bureau reports a case of a nursing mother threatened with homelessness who was told that she could not bring her child with her to the court hearing at Hitchin.

In aiming to outlaw such discrimination, the Bill does not discriminate between breastfeeding and bottle-feeding—it applies to and gives the same protection in each case. It applies to all children under the age of two.

The proposals are not new. For years, UNICEF has called for legislation to protect breastfeeding mothers who want to feed their babies in public areas. UNICEF does not simply wait for Parliament to act—it has developed a United Kingdom baby-friendly initiative as part of a global programme with the World Health Organisation. The initiative works with health services to improve practice in supporting breastfeeding. We should give such steps legal backing to encourage breastfeeding. The Bill would do that.

I have said that the idea is not new. Elaine Smith, a Member of the Scottish Parliament, successfully steered a similar law on to the statute book north of the border last year. Earlier this year, I was present at a meeting of the all-party group on maternity services when a Health Minister was asked to introduce a similar law in England and Wales. A similar request was made of another Health Minister at a meeting in my constituency in Stafford, again, earlier this year. The NCT supports the proposal. I therefore have support from UNICEF, the all-party group and the NCT. Scotland has already enacted such a law and the policy is fully in line with the policies of the World Health Organisation and our Government.

I leave the last word to Angela Blanchard, an NCT breastfeeding counsellor in my constituency. She said:

"In my 10 years of being a breastfeeding counsellor for NCT, the issue of breastfeeding in public places has come up in every single ante-natal session that I have facilitated—both for NCT and the NHS. Mothers-to-be say things like, 'I'd like to breastfeed but what about when I go out in public?' There is a great amount of fear and anxiety around this. Legal protection would be hugely empowering."

I beg to ask leave to introduce such legal protection.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Kidney, Annette Brooke, Mrs. Janet Dean, Paul Farrelly, Sandra Gidley, Dr. Evan Harris, Dr. Brian Iddon, Laura Moffatt, Julie Morgan and Mrs. Betty Williams.

Breastfeeding etc.

Mr. David Kidney accordingly presented a Bill to make it an offence to prevent or stop a person in charge of a child who is otherwise permitted to be in a public place or licensed premises from feeding milk to that child in that place or on those premises; to make provision in relation to the promotion of breastfeeding; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 November, and to be printed [Bill 79].

I advise the Committee that the first joint report of last Session from the Constitutional Affairs and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Committees on Electoral Registration and the evidence taken before the Constitutional Affairs Committee on 2 November are relevant to today's proceedings. Copies are available in the Vote Office.

Clause 9 — Registration officers: duty to takenecessary steps

I beg to move amendment No. 14, in clause 9, page 6, line 15, at end insert—

'(1) Each registration officer must take all necessary steps to remove individuals from the electoral register who are no longer eligible to remain on the register once they cease to be eligible.'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 30, in page 6, line 18, at end insert

'and to maximise the number of those entitled to register who do so.'.

No. 1, in page 6, line 26, at end insert—

'(ca) ensuring that registers are compiled in accordance with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 2001;'.

No. 28, in page 6, line 31, at end insert—

'(f) inspecting any records held by any person or organisation as designated by the Secretary of State.'.

No. 29, in page 6, line 36, at end add—

'"9B Duty to provide information to registration officers

The Secretary of State may require any person or organisation to provide all appropriate information to registration officers to assist them with the performance of their duties.".'.

We welcome the intention of the Bill and the Government's belated recognition that all is not well in our once-envied electoral system. It is in urgent need of attention because there is much work to be done following years of neglect. While we support many of the Bill's provisions, there are problems with what it fails to include. That is certainly the case with part 2, and specifically with clause 9. The Bill contains many ideas, but very little is offered in terms of immediate and substantive reform of the electoral system.

A survey conducted by MORI earlier this year found that 54 per cent. of the public think that postal voting has made it easier to commit electoral fraud. An even higher percentage thought that electronic voting would increase fraud: 74 per cent. thought that that would be the case with voting by text message and 55 per cent. with voting by website. What is needed is genuine reform that will re-establish the integrity of the electoral system. What is also needed is a Bill that will crack down on the fraud that is detracting from the electorate's faith in our democracy. What we have, however, is a Bill that promises a lot, but does not deliver as much as it promises.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the MORI poll, which I think was conducted in May and June. Is he worried that such scientific research was conducted during a period in which there was wall-to-wall coverage in the press and on radio and television about postal ballot fraud? Surely, if changes are going to be made on the back of such research, it would have been better to carry it out at a more stable time.

Order. Before the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) proceeds, I should like to draw the Committee's attention to the terms of the amendment. We are not at this point having a general debate on the Bill.

To answer the question put by the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), yes, if a survey were conducted at a different time, it might produce a different answer, but he will appreciate that there are real concerns about the integrity of our voting system. I certainly do not think that the Government would deny that.

I hope that my question is precisely on the matter for debate. One issue involving clear mischief is the repetition of names, either because people have moved and should have come off the register at address A when they registered at address B, or because they have registered in the same name at more than one place. Do the amendments, or the Bill, deal with that mischief? If not, can we ensure between us that we do so? The Minister and I know that this is an issue not only in our borough but elsewhere.

That is an issue that we shall come to later.

We must be careful not to confuse the overriding need to preserve the integrity of the electoral system with the important but nevertheless secondary issue of increasing voter turnout. The registration process should provide an accurate, comprehensive and secure foundation for the conduct of elections. Registration is the building block on which all else rests. Without a credible system, talk of increasing voter turnout would only be counter-productive. We believe that British citizens should want to vote and should be proud of our democratic system. We also believe that steps need to be taken to facilitate that by making voting more secure and more accessible, but we do not believe in focusing on making it so easy to vote that people will vote just because it is easy to do so, rather than out of genuine democratic interest.

For these reasons, I want to focus on what needs to be done to ensure confidence in the integrity of our system. Preventing offences is clearly a more effective way to build public confidence than prosecuting offenders.

I want to ask the hon. Gentleman to address an essential point. Do the Opposition believe that it should be a priority for electoral registration officers to maximise the number of people on the register, to ensure the highest possible turnout at elections?

We believe that and we support the provisions that say it, but we want electoral registration officers also to be responsible for ensuring that people who should not be on the roll are not on it. Indeed, the integrity of the system is, from our point of view, the priority issue.

Registration is the biggest single issue about which the Electoral Commission receives inquiries from the public. Between the start of February this year and polling day, the commission fielded almost 36,000 telephone calls about registration, representing two thirds of all inquiries. There were a further 318,000 visitors to the commission's voter registration website. Young people are most likely to be unregistered, with 16 per cent. of 18 to 24-year-olds unregistered—double the national average. The figure is similar for ethnic minorities and the unemployed, among whom 17 per cent. are unregistered.

Among the groups in society where registration rates are below average, lower turnout rates have also been recorded. Younger voters—those aged 24 and under—are almost half as likely to vote as the population as a whole.

There is a legal duty to return the electoral registration form. Over the past five years, how many people have been fined for not doing so?

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point that I will make on a later group of amendments. I believe that the answer is none or a negligible number.

On postal ballot fraud, can the hon. Gentleman give the figures for the number of successful prosecutions at parliamentary or local government elections over the past two or three years?

I cannot, but I would be interested to hear those figures from the Minister.

rose—

No, I shall make headway.

Longer-term analysis by the Electoral Commission suggests that there is a disfranchised generation that, as it gets older, will not turn out in greater numbers. We hear little as to what the Government propose to do about that. Increasing political awareness and interest must surely be at the heart of any attempt to increase turnout. If that issue is not tackled in conjunction with the Bill, increasing duties on electoral registration officers will, we agree, have little effect.

The commission raised particular concerns about the existing registration system, under which the head of household is much more likely to be registered than other eligible people in the home. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) will deal with that point later. We believe that individual registration is very much tied in with amendment No. 14, which is why I have taken some time to put the two together.

Clause 9, which will insert proposed new section 9A in the Representation of the People Act 1983, sets out a non-exhaustive list of the minimum steps that must be taken by the electoral registration officers to identify persons eligible for registration as electors—for example, making repeat house-to-house inquiries in connection with the annual canvass.

We support that clause and believe that there should be clear duties on registration officers to promote accurate registration. Nevertheless, the clause could go further in promoting not only registration, but an accurate register. We must recognise that over-registration and under-registration are both problems that need addressing.

We must all be clear about the fact that an accurate register that results in fewer people being registered is preferable, from our point of view, to a bloated, inaccurate register. If the registration system is secure and accurate, the risks further downstream in the electoral process are significantly reduced.

There is a fundamental difficulty with that. If someone's name is inappropriately on the electoral register and he votes, he may commit an offence, but if someone's name is not on the electoral register, he has no recourse and is precluded from voting by the absence of his name.

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point—I agree—but our position is that the integrity of the register in itself must be the priority. If there is no integrity within the electoral register, people's confidence in the system will only decline over time.

Obviously, the rules can encourage under-registration or over-registration. Has the hon. Gentleman sized those two different problems? What is the percentage of over-registration compared with the percentage of under-registration for any one given register?

I do not have those figures, but I would be delighted to hear them from the Minister.

May I tell the hon. Gentleman that the figures for under-registration are in the public domain and were produced by the Electoral Commission in September? The figure is between 3.5 million and 4 million people. If single signature or unique identifiers go ahead, there could be a further 10 per cent. drop—another 4 million. We might have 8 million people off the register as a result.

The hon. Gentleman has been dying to give that statistic, and he has now given it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one can have under-registration and over-registration at the same time, because some people, as the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) suggested, might be registered more than once without such an entitlement? The Government were happy to introduce a Northern Ireland electoral fraud Bill that was designed to prevent the phenomenon of some constituencies having more people registered than there were electors.

I agree with my hon. Friend: there can be over and under-representation on the same register, but the priority is to ensure that the register is as accurate as possible. That is the starting block of our democracy.

The amendment would ensure that registration officers had a clear duty to remove individuals from an electoral register who should not be on it. People who are no longer resident should be removed from the register, particularly in urban areas with a high population turnover. Keeping electors on the electoral roll who are no longer resident opens the door to election fraud. The amendment is designed to tackle the current problem of over-registration by creating this new duty for electoral registration officers to remove individuals from the register who are no longer eligible to be on it .

I thank the hon. Gentleman for getting on to the terms of amendment No. 14. I understand that, under the 2000 legislation, electors are removed from the register and safeguards are in place, especially where no electoral registration form is returned. What additional over-registration is the hon. Gentleman trying to reach with this amendment?

The hon. Gentleman will find that the situation varies dramatically from place to place. Best practice across the various electoral districts is a serious issue. The point of the amendment is that electoral registration officers should have a duty under the Bill in relation to those who should not be on the register, as well as in relation to those who should be on it. The wording of the amendment is no less important, if not more important, that that in the Bill.

Will my hon. Friend explain to the Committee how this amendment, which I broadly support, would work in the case of someone sentenced to imprisonment? Would that not impose a duty on registration officers to remove such an individual's name from the register for the period of his incarceration?