Thank you, Mr. Bayley, and good morning to everyone. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the important issue of UK relations with Russia. Recent weeks have shown that this subject is very much on the minds of the Government, Her Majesty’s Opposition and many hon. Members. For the record, I am the chairman of the all-party group on Russia.

Despite the events of the past few weeks, there is more to unite than divide the United Kingdom and Russia, and it is important to start the debate on that note. Currently, the UK and Russia co-operate on a range of important international issues, such as nuclear non-proliferation, climate change—both countries are, of course, Kyoto signatories—and people trafficking. Russia is also a key member of the middle east Quartet, and is a member of the G8 and the UN Security Council. In many of those international bodies there is good co-operation between the two countries, and long may that continue. I hope that relations will soon be restored on the important issue of co-operation on counter-terrorism.

One certainty on which I hope that we can all agree today is that organisations such as al-Qaeda are as much a threat to Russian interests and the way of life of ordinary Russians as they are to UK citizens. I hope that the Minister will comment on how quickly he feels we will be able to restore co-operation on the important issue of counter-terrorism and intelligence gathering and sharing.

The other key issue is trade. Russia and the United Kingdom are doing more trade than ever before. Twenty years ago, trade was minimal, but 400 UK companies now operate in Russia. In the first three months of this year, the UK invested $3.1 billion in Russia, and last year bilateral trade was around $10 billion to $12 billion. Those who watch the City will know that there are currently $13 billion-worth of stocks in Russian companies on the London stock exchange and the alternative investment market. In fact, about 42 Russian companies are listed on both exchanges. Later this year, the Rusal mining company will hopefully be listed in London. It is important that London remain the place where many Russian companies want to raise their finance and capital because there are other continental competitors.

The last few months and weeks have been dominated by the case of the sad and tragic death of Alexander Litvinenko. His death was tragic and sinister in equal measure, and his killers deserve to be brought to justice. It is completely unacceptable that anyone should be murdered in such a way: with a nuclear toxin on British soil, which also put other UK nationals at risk. That put extreme danger on to the streets of London and I hope that we will soon be able to resolve the current impasse and bring the main suspect before the courts. I will return to that later.

More recently, it was alleged that somebody was sent from Russia apparently to assassinate a political dissident who is resident in the UK. If somebody was allegedly prevented from doing so, it is a great mystery that they were not arrested. The charge suggested by the police through the newspapers was that of conspiracy to murder. If it was known that a person was going to attempt to kill a Russian dissident living in London, why were they not arrested, subsequently charged and brought before the courts? A court date should certainly have been given. Why was the person supposedly allowed to return to Russia? It seems contradictory that we are asking for a Russian national who is suspected of murder to be extradited, while at the same time releasing a Russian national in London about whom we have evidence of involvement in a conspiracy to murder. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

The Litvinenko case raises the issue of political dissidents of whatever nationality living in the United Kingdom. It is not acceptable for such people to endanger UK citizens through things that they might do or say. If we can have acceptable behaviour contracts for people who graffiti our towns and villages, we could at least have some sort of behaviour contracts for political dissidents. It is extraordinary that many of those people are increasingly abusing the good faith and trust put in them and using the political asylum system as a cover from which they will often make unhelpful comments about other nations. It is unacceptable that certain political dissidents in this country have called for the violent overthrow of a democratically elected Government, even if the integrity of the democratic election in Russia seven years ago is questionable. Nevertheless, the Government were democratically elected and it is absolutely wrong that President Putin should be put in the position of having somebody in London calling for his violent overthrow.

A further point is that of extradition. Again, it appears slightly contradictory that the Russian Government have asked for the extradition of 21 people from the United Kingdom and, as I understand it, not one of those requests has been granted, and yet the UK is demanding the extradition of the main suspect in the Litvinenko case. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to draw some kind of moral equivalence between the extradition requests from Russia and from Britain. The truth is that when the extradition of Mr. Zakayev was sought by the Russian authorities, the British judge, who acted on an entirely independent basis and had nothing to do with the Government, pointed out that one of the reasons why his extradition was being sought was that he was meant to have murdered a Russian Orthodox priest. The Russian Orthodox priest concerned gave evidence in the case to point out that he had not been murdered.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, but that was not one of the cases to which I was referring.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is important because Britain has a well-established process under which extradition is operated that is independent of the Executive. The decision is made by the courts on the balance of evidence put before them. There is a world of difference between that and the case of Mr. Lugovoy, in which it was a decision of the Executive in Russia to refuse even to contemplate extradition. We in the House of Commons ought at least to say that we have faith in our court processes.

I do have faith in our court process—certainly a lot more than I have in the Russian court process. I am merely asking questions; I am not necessarily stating a position in the comments that I have made thus far. This is a debate, and I think that it is right that such questions be raised. Certainly, some people have commented to me on the contradiction.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised the issue of law and, in particular, extradition law. Again, it seems rather puzzling that the Government have asked for the extradition of the main suspect in the Litvinenko case, Mr. Lugovoy, knowing full well that the Russian constitution forbids the extradition of Russian citizens. It might be said that Russia could just change its constitution, but could it? How easy would that be? Basically, to change the Russian constitution, two votes in Parliament and a national referendum would be required. I think that, 18 months ago, some pro-Putin MPs suggested that the Russian constitution be changed to allow President Putin to serve a third term. That was refused. Even if Putin himself wanted to extradite Mr. Lugovoy, he could not because the Russian constitution forbids it.

I am a supporter and fan of the Foreign Office, but am puzzled by the discussions that must have gone on in the Minister’s office. Why ask Russia for something that clearly it could not deliver? Would it not have been more sensible to ask Russia—robustly even—for something that might cause it a little diplomatic pain but could at least be delivered? If the British Government continue to ask for the extradition of Mr. Lugovoy, we will not make progress where it is needed. Clearly, as I have said, the Russians cannot change their constitution unless it is voted on twice by Parliament and followed by a national referendum.

Does my hon. Friend accept that even if the constitution could be, and were, changed, it would not accord with our principles of the rule of law for it to be applied retrospectively?

As always, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I would add that we should put the shoe on the other foot. If the United Kingdom was in the same position, would we change our constitution over a murder suspect? I suspect not. Of course, there is also a big difference because we do not have a written constitution, whereas the Russians do. That is an important legal point that follows on from the comments of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).

I shall return to Russian political dissidents and one gentleman in particular living in London for whom, in the last 10 days, I understand, an arrest warrant has been issued by a Brazilian judge over allegations of money laundering and other crimes. Will the Minister put on the record whether a formal extradition request has been made by the Brazilian authorities for Mr. Berezovsky? It would, again, seem contradictory if the UK Government said no, at the same time as asking for the extradition of Mr. Lugovoy from Russia. I hope that if that request has arrived or is to arrive, the UK Government will assist our close ally and friend, Brazil, with its extradition request. I think that that would be very helpful because it would send out a clear message that the British public are sick and tired of having to pay for the cover of many of these people.

We have heard about close protection. Forgive me for raising quite a few questions, but will the Minister tell us who is paying for the close protection of those whose lives are apparently under threat? Is it the British taxpayer or the individuals themselves? My constituents in Shropshire are more interested in protecting their streets and their homes from burglars, than in paying for the close police protection of political dissidents who perhaps could be a little more circumspect in what they say. I think that it would be rather surprising, given the scarce resources of the Metropolitan police, to find that armed, or even unarmed, protection is being given to such people.

I hope that soon we can find a third or middle way to deal with Mr. Lugovoy—the main suspect in the Litvinenko case. That is how I started today and it remains my position. What about having a court in Russia, with a Russian, British and an independent third-country judge? Or what about a court hearing in a third country, again with a Russian, UK and an independent judge? A range of options are available that might allow someone to be brought to justice for this vicious and cruel crime and provide the Russian Government with a way of getting round the legal point on the constitution. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

The hon. Gentleman is putting forward some interesting suggestions, but does he share my concern about the quality and independence of the Russian judiciary? Does he recognise the comments of the chairman of the Russian constitutional court, which were reported in Izvestiya in October 2004? He said that

“the country’s judicial system is in many aspects worse now than it was in the Soviet era”,

and that, in reality, people who try to take a case to the European Court of Human Rights, for example, find that mysteriously their legal advisers are arrested or disappear. As a result they are intimidated when trying to take such cases forward. How can we have any confidence in a justice system that is so manipulative?

There is no doubt that there is a great deal of need for improvement in the Russian judicial system. Some might say, however, that the same applies, although not on the same scale, to the UK judicial system and that some of our judges are completely out of touch with reality when they hand down laughable sentences for quite serious crimes. That is not a fair comparison, but I wanted to put it on the record. In defence of the British judiciary, if we had a British judge, alongside a Russian judge and an independent judge, those challenges could be overcome.

I am very glad that, in the last few days, the Russian Foreign Minister has stated that Russia would like to see the normalisation of relations with the United Kingdom. That is to be welcomed. I think that the Russians could have done a lot more than expel the four UK diplomats. I am glad that they did not, and I hope that we can now move on. If a third, middle or independent way cannot be found to bring Mr. Lugovoy before the courts, what will the Government’s position be? Will more Russian diplomats be expelled or will we sit around the table and find a way forward?

Over the next few weeks, the UK Government need to work with Russia on some key issues, one of which is Kosovo, on which I hope that the Russians will not use their veto. I hope also that Prime Minister Çeku of Kosovo will not use Albanian independence day to declare unilateral independence for Kosovo. That would be unhelpful. I must say, however, that it was also very unhelpful of the US President to declare Kosovo de facto independent. We need far more robust evidence of United Nations resolution criteria being implemented in Kosovo. A mutual agreement is needed on Kosovo. I am very concerned that the previous agreement on the region is starting to come apart. It is important that that does not happen, but Russia must play its part and not use its veto in the United Nations.

Another issue is missile defence. The Russians and the Americans have been discussing a possible joint venture in Azerbaijan. I am not talking about the Polish or Czech ballistic missile shield. Nevertheless, our relationship with Russia indirectly affects on occasion the relationship that the United States might have or seek to have with Russia. On ballistic missile defence, it is important that nothing that the British Government do over the next few weeks and months unsettles the discussions that are going on with regard to Azerbaijan and the potential for partnership.

The other key issue is Iran. Russia, being a key ally of Iran, is a key player. We need to ensure that we work closely with Russia on that.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Rhondda is present, because he amended early-day motion 1424, about human rights and freedom of speech in Russia, which was originally tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that Russia needs to do far more to protect its religious minorities, get off the backs of non-governmental organisations and promote equal rights. I saw the scenes in Moscow some weeks ago. The physical and brutal attacks on homosexuals were completely unacceptable. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will comment on his research on human rights in Russia, because I know that he has done a lot of work on that.

It is also completely unacceptable that journalists continue to be killed. If Russia wants to be taken seriously in the international bodies that I have mentioned and if it wants the west to have new engagement, many of these issues must be addressed. They are not soft issues; they go to the very heart of how a country thinks and operates. I hope that the Minister shares my concern about the number of journalists who have been murdered and will comment on that.

There is, however, a future, which is a post-Putin future. I understand that President Putin is going off to Sochi to run the winter Olympics, which the Russians have just won; he will oversee that project. I hope that, somewhere in the Foreign Office, people will be discussing a post-Putin relationship with Russia. On that overarching umbrella point, I would be interested to hear what the UK’s position is vis-à-vis relations with Russia. It was only some years ago that we were talking about Russia being part of the wider European family and involved in closer co-operation with Europe, yet over the past few weeks and months—perhaps over the past two years, to be precise—we have heard less talk of that.

I think that, by Russia coming alongside Europe, we will be able to lock in trade, and if we lock in trade, hopefully we will be able to lock in democracy, and if we lock in democracy, hopefully it will follow that some of these important issues relating to freedom of speech, protection of religious minorities, equal rights and human rights are addressed. I therefore hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to say what the UK position is on Russia and future strategic partnerships.

To conclude, the murder of Alexander Litvinenko was completely unacceptable, and the way in which it was done was, as I said, sinister and tragic in equal measure, but I hope that, as a result of that murder, the Government will begin to have a policy on how political dissidents operate in this country. If anything positive could come out of Mr. Litvinenko’s death, it would be new thinking on how political dissidents are allowed to operate in this country.

I should like to put it on the record, in case Mrs. Litvinenko reads the record of the debate, that our thoughts and prayers are with her and we are all very sorry about the death of her husband. We all hope that his killer will be brought to justice.

I congratulate the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on seeking the debate, which is important. Clearly, the bilateral relationship with Russia has moved on, in a very difficult way, over recent days. However, I must distance myself quite considerably from some of the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, at least the first part of which seemed to be far more critical of the British position than the Russian position. That is not a reality that I recognise. We should say from the outset that the murder of a British national, Alexander Litvinenko, in the streets of Britain, even if he had left Russia and whatever his background was, is unacceptable in every way. That is unequivocal. There is no redeeming feature; no other side to it. We can only condemn the murder and the murderers.

I do not know what the trail of evidence is in respect of the person named—Mr. Lugovoi. That ought properly to be a matter for the courts, but it ought to be something on which the Russians want to co-operate, because unfortunately the Litvinenko case has crystallised many of the concerns that people who are well disposed towards Russia have about our bilateral relationship with Russia and more generally about the role that Russia wants to play in the wider Europe and on the wider world stage.

The hon. Member for The Wrekin is absolutely right: we have a long-term interest in a good relationship with a Russia that itself wants to be a good partner. The difficulty, frankly, and it has been an increasing difficulty over recent years, is to know what the motive is not of the Russian people—I emphasise that—but of the very specific narrow clique of people who run the Kremlin, round President Putin and round those who work within that ambit, because it is difficult to have a benign interpretation of developments in Russia in recent times.

The hon. Gentleman rightly talked about what I think he described as the failure to make progress on human rights. In fact, it can probably be more bluntly put—the erosion of standards in respect of human rights in recent years. The spate of murders of journalists may be fortuitous, but it has certainly served the purpose of limiting the political criticism that did exist in Russia from people such as Anna Politkovskaya, who was killed not so long ago. As with the case of Mr. Litvinenko, nobody has been brought before the courts in respect of the Politkovskaya case. Of course, that is a case in which the Russian authorities could have brought somebody before the Russian courts for a crime committed in Russia, but we still await developments in that respect. The rather sad interpretation of the situation is that it is not the ambition to bring those who murder journalists to court, because it is a very effective way of controlling criticism in the media. That has to be central to an understanding of Russia.

It also has to be central to an understanding of Russia that we have seen the Putinisation of the Russian economy, whereby the control of the economy is probably as tight now as it was in Soviet times. That is one of the paradoxes. Russia now has a quasi-market economy, but it is used for sectional and narrow ends and not in the interests, frankly, of the broad Russian population. That ought to concern us. The hon. Gentleman says that we ought to lock Russia in by way of a trade relationship. I would be delighted if I believed that that could be the case, but although many hon. Members have espoused in the House over a number of years the view that trade and economic freedom automatically implies political freedom, that no longer fits the reality of the modern world—not simply in Russia, by the way, but in other parts of the world. It is quite possible to run a successful trading economy—particularly if it is plumped up, as the Russian economy is, by the one factor of the massive increase in oil and gas prices—at the same time as deteriorating the objective circumstances of political democracy and human rights and basic freedoms.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to refer to the Putinisation of the economy. Putin is doing a great disservice to ordinary Russian people, who get little benefit from high oil and gas prices. Nor are his actions in the medium and long-term interests of the Russian economy, whose failure to observe international norms is deterring badly needed investment in Russia’s oil and gas industries.

I totally agree. Any examination of Russia’s economic future would show a number of things, one of which—this should be obvious—is that Russia is using the high value of gas and oil and will continue to do so for a long time. However, the benefits should be transferred not simply to narrow areas of exploitation and to industries downstream from oil and gas, but to the Russian economy more broadly. To do that, however, Russia’s antiquated oil and gas production process will have to be modernised, which means that a deal must be struck, not necessarily with the west itself, but with western companies, which have the technology to transform that production process. The hon. Gentleman is right, however, that uncertainties in Russia mean that there will be increasing reluctance to reach such a deal.

That takes us back to a central issue that I have discussed on many occasions with Members of the Russian Duma and with other people in Russia. There is a real issue about the incompetence of the Russian courts and the lack of certainty about what they will do, because there is a perception that they can be pressurised by the political elite. As long as that continues, and the courts are not prepared to treat fairly all those who use the Russian legal system, investors from this country and elsewhere will remain uncertain about whether it is possible to get a proper economic return on their investment. There are therefore major issues about the weakness and, indeed, the deterioration of the Russian institutions that should provide the framework for the trading system that the hon. Member for The Wrekin recommends.

I do not want to take up too much time, because other colleagues want to speak in this important debate. However, we have a genuine problem around the Litvinenko case, and the Government must pursue the matter and take a high-minded and proper view of what happens, because the issue is not negotiable. A technical solution involving institutions such as those created for the Lockerbie trials—third-country trials—might be a possibility. The difficulty, however, is that an extradition process that prevents the extradition of any Russian citizen to Britain would also prevent extradition to a benign third country. Equally, although it is interesting to speculate about courts in Russia made up of British and Russian judges and all the rest, there would still be a lack of confidence about the capacity and ambition of the Russian legal process to guarantee a trial that is fair to the accused and, in this case, the Litvenenko family, and which allowed the pursuit of justice more generally, so that those who are properly accused and found guilty know that their sentence reflects the crimes that they have committed.

I would like the main suspect, Mr. Lugovoi, to come before a court—wherever that might be—but does the hon. Gentleman agree that it might be difficult for Mr. Lugovoi to have a fair trial in a UK court, given the sum of the media coverage?

Lawyers will always argue about the capacity to hold a fair trial, but we should never allow people to argue that media coverage prevents trials such as that of Lugovoi, although such claims are made in respect of celebrities appearing within our own judicial process. It is unacceptable that someone who is guilty can get off by so publicising their case that it is prevented from ever coming to trial, and most of us would not accept that as a principle of justice in this county or more generally. We want Mr. Lugovoi to make a voluntary decision to stand before a British court, although I have no great expectation that he will do so.

Where the hon. Member for The Wrekin is right is that our relations with Russia will proceed over a long period. That is an important point, and neither we nor the Russians should underestimate how important our relations are to Britain. However, we must work at that relationship. This might not please every member of the Conservative party, but working through the European Union will be important in our long-term relationship with Russia. It is important that EU countries are not seduced by the flow of oil and gas and that we are absolutely adamant and clear that we have a collective interest in our relationship with Russia being one between equals, and that we cannot be bullied and bought with supplies of gas and oil.

It is important that Russia understands that message. Unfortunately, we have seen a growing self-confidence in Russia on the back of rising oil and gas prices. That is not a bad thing in a way, because Russian morale was unhealthily low after the cold war, which was dangerous for internal Russian politics. However, the emergence of a Russia that sees itself as a bully regionally or on a wider scale is equally dangerous. We want a Russia that we can deal with as a member of the Security Council and the United Nations—one that is a leading player in the world economy and a country of real influence.

We can treat Russia with respect, but if we are to have that respect, we must be able to depend on Russia to begin the process of reforming its political institutions. It must do that in line with the international commitments that it has made to uphold the proper standards of a law-based democratic society. In such a society, the basic human rights to which Russia has signed up under Council of Europe and United Nations conventions must be properly honoured. If we can get that message across to Russia, we will be able to have the relationship that we should have with a mature member of the world family.

rose—

Order. Three hon. Members are trying to catch my eye, and I will try to start the winding-up speeches at half-past 10. I hope that hon. Members will co-operate so that everybody has an opportunity to speak.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on securing this important debate, not least because he has had the courage to say something a little unorthodox. It would be all too easy simply to go along with the Government’s line on Russia and although I agree partly with their line, my hon. Friend has made an important contribution. We also had important contributions from the hon. Members for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who know much about these matters.

One of the great concerns in our debates about Russia is that there is perhaps a lack of understanding about the importance of respect, face and a sense of courtesy and consideration, and many Russian politicians feel that they have not had those things from the west for quite some time. The Soviet Union was one of two global superpowers until 1991, and as the hon. Member for Manchester, Central rightly said, there was a real sense of damaged pride in the years following its collapse and the emergence of the Russian Federation, first under Boris Yeltsin and, more recently, under Vladimir Putin.

I do not suggest for one moment that there is a direct equivalence between our extradition demands on the one hand and the various demands from the Russian side on the other, but it is easy to see that Russia feels that there is a lack of respect for its system, when compared with ours. As I said, I do not suggest that there is a direct equivalence, but the issue goes to the heart of some of the concerns that now face the Foreign Office. It is eight years since Vladimir Putin became the Russian President, and there have been high hopes of a good, strong relationship between our two countries, and between Russia and the European Union, and it is a great shame that things have soured so quickly, to the extent that bilateral relations have deteriorated.

I want to talk about two main things in my brief contribution. First, there are the economic issues. Obviously, my constituency contains the Cities of London and Westminster, which are important economic areas, but the benefit that they receive from Russian money and bilateral trade has been upset, and could be further upset, by the difficulties between our two nations.

To go back to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin about the conduct of the Home Office and, indeed, the Foreign Office, in relation to individuals such as the late Mr. Litvinenko who come to this country, I several times expressed concern in the House to erstwhile Home and Foreign Secretaries about the procedure by which individuals have come into this country and put my constituents at risk—because it was in the west end of London that the appalling poisoning in question took place.

In many ways our trade and economic relations with the Russian Federation have been a great success story in recent years. British investment reached more than £2.5 billion in the first nine months of last year, which makes Britain the single largest investor among G7 countries. That figure is expected to be much higher this year, not least because of the thriving oil and gas sector alluded to by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central. I understand that that bilateral trade has trebled in the past five years, and Britain is the world’s third largest destination for Russian investments. That is, I think, reflected in the great number of Russian companies coming into the stock exchange and the alternative investment market, and the large number of Russian nationals coming to live here, many of whom have not fallen out with the Russian regime at all. It must be stressed that such problems are very much the minority.

As has been pointed out, Russia is the world’s largest gas producer and exporter, and is currently the second largest oil producer. There is little doubt that, given the difficulties that the Soviet Union and Russia faced in the past 20 years, that fact has been used to exert a certain amount of political muscle, which is a matter of concern to us all.

There are some very wealthy—and some less wealthy—Russian individuals working in London. We want to encourage that, and to encourage many of our nationals to have the experience of going to work in such an exciting country, on the trade side. I fear, however, that because of the current concern, and our problem over extradition arrangements, we will encounter difficulties in the years ahead. I have a fax that arrived this morning from Count Andrei Tolstoy-Miloslavsky, a constituent of mine. As a businessman he said:

“Please could you convey to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister”—

we have not quite got the organ grinder here, although perhaps we have the monkey; but this is a serious point—

“that together they are in the process of ruining a very successful business relationship that we in business have built up with great difficulty and hard work over the years between the Russian Federation and Great Britain.”

The decisions to be made are difficult and I do not suggest for a minute that economic or financial considerations should bypass all others; they certainly should not. However, I have several times expressed deep concern about extradition arrangements. There are, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin pointed out, 21 outstanding requests for extradition of people in the UK, many of whom are connected to the now bankrupt Yukos oil company.

I have a great concern in relation to the Litvinenko case; I asked the Home Office several times for full details—and it was appropriate, not least given the circumstances of his death, that we should have such full details—of the precise arrangements that were made for him to get a passport in double quick time. I worry that we are allowing individuals into this country, not just from the Russian Federation but from many other parts of the world—including, in particular, areas of the middle east, giving rise to long-term problems—who are effectively using Britain as a safe haven from which to agitate against other sovereign states. We rightly have a proud record in this country of giving asylum to political refugees. We are obliged to do so under various international conventions. However, we need to give serious consideration to what is going on.

I am not naïve about the possibility that in certain cases individuals who come to this country from the Russian Federation and elsewhere may assist our security services, and that that is a reason for fast-tracking their passport claims. However, ultimately, if individuals come to this country and agitate against another sovereign state—against President Putin, in the present case, but the point also applies to people from Pakistan or Saudi Arabia who create difficulties—it is likely to be my constituents, and those of other hon. Members, who will be put at risk if there are shootings in the street, or poisonings and the like. It is vital to ensure that people who come to this country to settle, or who seek political asylum or are given British passports, do so on the basis that they understand the importance of the rule of law in this country, and that they accept those standards. We should send the message loud and clear that those who do not want to abide by those rules, and want to use Britain as a safe haven for agitation, will not be accepted.

In my constituency it was often thought that somehow we were protecting ourselves against terrorist attack by allowing people who were effectively agitating against sovereign states to come from the Arab world to Londonistan, over in the Edgware road. That is a naïve thought, and that naiveté was shown up two years ago on 7 July 2005. I hope that the Minister will give the matter serious consideration. I should have liked to say more, but I appreciate that other hon. Members want to say something in the debate. It is an important one, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

I will be brief. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) will no doubt have more to say than I will. I want to take up a point that arose earlier, but I shall be careful about how I phrase it, because it concerns a constituent who came to see me some months ago; I shall not name him or his company. He is part of the arrangement to do with the residue of Yukos in the west. He came to see me, as constituents do, to explain to me some of the repercussions of what has happened, and the Russian Government’s pursuit of anyone and anything that has a relationship with the former Yukos company.

We all know that the Yukos affair has dragged on for a long time. Obviously, Khodorkovsky and Lebedev are currently in Russian prisons, and likely to be there a long time. However, it is probably less well known that other individuals—the majority of whom are not, I think, Russian—have been subject to a vigorous campaign from the Kremlin, which shows no sign of abating. That means that my constituent is no longer able to carry on his business to the extent that he used to. He has even to be wary about where he goes on holiday, because of the repercussions of action taken against him through the Russian Government in a third country or even this country. That is deeply worrying.

I accept that there have no doubt been occasions, and perhaps will be in the future—let us hope not—on which the Russian state has been behind some targeting of individuals, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that some people have been killed, injured or kidnapped by people from criminal gangs and competitors in the black markets in which they deal?

I am sure that that may be the case, but it is not really the point that I am making. I want to keep my remarks brief, and to ask questions of the Minister, given that the Foreign Office has been helpful in the individual case I have described.

To conclude, there seems, from what I can see, to be a serious anomaly in current extradition provisions relating to Russia. Russian citizens who have been granted asylum in the UK cannot be extradited to stand trial in Russia; they are subject to our court process. As we know, Russian citizens cannot, according to the constitution, be extradited to this country. However, UK citizens in the UK, let alone those in a third country, have no such political protection. That is also the case with mutual legal assistance requests from Russia, which are subject to the court process, rather than any greater protection.

Through my hon. Friend the Minister, I ask the Government to call on the Russian Federation fully to respect the human rights of those who have been involved in the Yukos affair and to ensure that the rule of law and international treaty obligations apply. Until that happens, the Government should call on our European partners to deny extradition requests from the Russian Federation. They should also review its status as a category 2 territory under the Extradition Act 2003. These are important matters, and there is a matter of precedent here. Someone took on the business commitment of dealing with the residue of Yukos in the west and further afield, which someone had to do, and they are now liable to the Russian Government’s efforts to curtail their freedom. There is no more important issue for the British Foreign Office to deal with.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) not only on securing today’s debate, but on becoming the chair of the all-party group on Russia only yesterday. However, I must say that his speech is one of the most dangerous that I have heard since I became an MP, because, as I shall try to elucidate, he fails to understand or recognise fully the dangers of the human rights abuses in Russia. He makes a moral equivalence between extradition requests and proceedings in this country and those in Russia, which is a dangerous equivalence to make. He underestimates the direction in which Russia is going—a direction that will not only damage commercial interests in the medium and long term for the people of Russia and this country, but lead to a dwindling of democracy in that country with the steady advance of a totalitarian regime. He might think that I am exaggerating, but we will see, in future years, who proves to be right.

I agree completely with the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) that Russia faced a particular difficulty after experiencing an enormous political convulsion such as this country has not had to live with for many centuries. In a tiny space of time, it has had to address the sense of national and personal pride that attaches to being Russian. We have talked about Russia today when we mean the Russian Federation. The concept of Russia that many Russians, or people in the former Soviet Union, grew up with has been completely dismantled and changed. We, as a country, our European allies and anyone who wants to work closely with the Russian Federation needs to be conscious that it is a great nation with an extraordinary cultural history. Few countries can match the talent of that country in so many different areas, such as culturally, with Tchaikovsky, Pushkin and Rublyov. Few countries can match its enormous mineral and physical resources, its geographical dispersal or its historical complexity, which is woven into many different understandings of the relationships of religion to the state and of the individual to society.

Of course, we must walk with trepidation when we talk about our relationship with Russia, because, all too often, it is easy for us—the hon. Member for The Wrekin might accuse me of falling into my own trap—to face up to the Russian Federation in a way that makes it feel that we do not respect it. That would be dangerous. However, it is important to say that the level of human rights abuses in Russia today is so significant that no country that respects human rights and believes in the foundation of the principle of law can engage in an open relationship with the Russian Federation without being explicit about the problems there.

In our society, we believe in the fundamental right of non-governmental organisations to operate and to criticise the Government, the institutions of society and the state in whatever way they want. The situation for NGOs in the Russian Federation is getting worse year by year. Only recently, political parties have faced more difficult actions involving the courts that have made it much more difficult for people to enjoy their full political freedoms. Life was made more difficult for NGOs in Russia in April of last year, when President Putin signed into law a Bill demanding that they register their activities and funding sources with the federal registration service or risk facing closure. Immediately afterwards, there was a series of attacks on a large number of NGOs in Russia, which made many organisations close down.

There is also a problem with media oppression, which has been adverted to by a few Members. It is not only the death of Anna Politkovskaya that has worried many people in the west. According to the International Federation of Journalists, more than 80 journalists have been murdered because of their work in Russia since 1993, and there has not been a single prosecution in any of those cases. The organisation says that of 289 journalists killed in Russia in the past 14 years,

“more than 80 of the deaths resulted from the work the journalists were doing directly”.

The Russian state now has a virtual—indeed, actual—monopoly over the entire national television network, which means that there is no opportunity for political opponents of the regime to have a fair opportunity when it comes to election time. Several television channels have been deprived of their licences by the Government, and several have been taken off air, so it is, perhaps, not surprising that President Putin has said:

“We have never had freedom of speech in Russia, so I do not understand what can be violated”.

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that that kind of repression of the media by Russian agencies is not confined to Russia? They are attacking the media in neighbouring countries, particularly Estonia and, I was told yesterday, Azerbaijan. Websites operated by opposition groups have been targeted and taken out by sources inside Russia.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but I shall not talk about those issues because I want to discuss extradition and I have only a few minutes left.

Only last week, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation upheld a law requiring that political parties must have a minimum of 50,000 members to be allowed by the federal registration service to take part in elections. That will close down several political parties in Russia—yet again we see human rights being eroded. In its report of last year, Amnesty International referred to systematic torture across every part of the Russian Federation. The use of torture in prisons, police cells and the criminal justice system is one reason why many people there have less confidence than the hon. Member for The Wrekin seems to have in the criminal justice system.

British organisations have also suffered. The British Council has been systematically targeted since 2004 for its activities in Russia. The Russian authorities have refused to clarify the council’s legal status, and recently ordered it to close its offices in Yekaterinburg. On top of that, the British ambassador and several other members of the British Embassy staff in Moscow have been systematically harassed by a distressingly named organisation, the pro-Putin youth organisation, Nashi. I am afraid that the Russian authorities have been very reluctant to intervene. We should be standing by our ambassador.

I come to my main point. The hon. Member for The Wrekin makes a moral equivalence—I have heard him do this twice—between the 21 extradition requests that Russia has made to the UK and the one that we have outstanding regarding Mr. Lugovoi. That is entirely inappropriate. If he were to read any of the proceedings, as I have—they were all considered in this country on an entirely independent basis by the same judge, Judge Timothy Workman—he would realise that the basis of the Russians’ extradition cases are extremely weak. The hon. Gentleman cited 21 cases, which must include that of Akhmed Zakayev. Judge Workman said of that case:

“I…find as a fact that the Russian Government are seeking extradition for purposes of prosecuting Mr Zakayev on account of his nationality and his political opinions.”

That is something that we would never countenance.

In 2005, in the case of two former Yukos executives, Dmitry Maruev and Natalia Chernysheva, Judge Workman said that it would be unsafe to extradite the pair because in their dealing with the case

“there is a substantial risk that the judges of the Moscow City Court would succumb to political interference”.

That is another fundamental reason why it would be impossible for us to extradite.

In the case of Mr. Alexander Temerko, Judge Workman said:

“I am satisfied that the request for Mr Temerko’s extradition is in fact made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him for his political opinions. I am satisfied that, if he were extradited, he would be prejudiced at his trial and punished or detained by reasons of his political opinions.”

That is another reason why there is no moral equivalence between the extradition requests from Russia and the one that we have made.

Order. I am afraid that we must move to the wind-ups.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr. Bayley. I congratulate the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on securing the debate, in which several interesting contributions have been by hon. Members from both sides.

The debate is particularly timely, given the events of the past few weeks, which have brought UK relations with Russia back into the news regularly. It is important to recognise that those events came at the end of a period in which the bilateral relations between the countries deteriorated. We would all agree that, after an interlude of relative co-operation between Russia and the UK in the 1990s, it is sad and distressing that there has been renewed tension.

The UK’s relationship with Russia is, without doubt, hugely important in the wider context of ongoing east-west dialogue. Russia’s co-operation on security is extremely valuable, as is its collaboration on many other international issues, such as climate change and, of course, terrorism. It would be a great loss to both parties if the relationship were not to regain its stability.

I reiterate that Liberal Democrats fully support the measures taken by the UK Government to convince the Russian Government to extradite Mr. Lugovoy to the UK. The crime of which he is accused is a terrible one and the charges that he faces are most serious. The deliberate poisoning of Mr. Litvinenko by the administration of a lethal dose of polonium-210, a highly radioactive substance, in London in November 2006 was premeditated, cold-blooded and appalling. Not only was the death of Mr. Litvinenko slow and painful, but it put at risk the lives of hundreds of others with whom the perpetrator came into contact, both in London and abroad. The crime demands to be pursued to an appropriate conclusion—justice needs to be done and to be seen to be done. All hon. Members would agree that the rule of law needs to be upheld in this case, as in any other, and that Russia’s refusal to extradite Mr. Lugovoy is both disappointing and worrying in the context of future UK-Russian relations.

If Russia seeks a profitable and positive relationship with the UK, it needs to commit to co-operation on matters of justice. In the light of these events, is the Department planning to press for criminal justice to be included in the next EU-Russia partnership and co-operation agreement? Is the Department considering revisiting the UK-Russian extradition arrangements to ensure that the relationship is fairer and more equitable than it appears to be at present?

The UK Government’s moves in the past month to put pressure on the Russians have our full support. The expulsion of four Russian embassy staff was proportionate, as was the suspension of visa negotiations with the Russian authorities. However, it is important to acknowledge that the Russians’ reaction in turn could have been much worse than it was. Although we deprecate their unjustified expulsion of our four UK embassy staff, there might be room for optimism: the Russians might not want to prolong this dispute and there might be a willingness to avoid any further dramatic escalation in this crisis. We must hope so, and we must hope that Russia appreciates that it, too, has a lot to lose if this relationship falters.

Other concerns about Russia should be aired in this debate. One of those relates to Kosovo. The delay in resolving that matter is of great concern, and the arrangements established when NATO intervened to stop the bloodshed and violence engineered by Milosevic are by no means stable. The conflict is likely to escalate unless it is resolved soon. The recent actions of Agim Ceku, the Prime Minister of the province, confirm that. He announced earlier this month that, unless the international community could overcome Russian opposition, Kosovo would declare its independence in November. I put it on the record that, although we strongly support Kosovo’s independence, it would be inadvisable to go through with the announcement, because it would undoubtedly increase friction in the area and could result in a renewed outbreak of hostility from Serbia.

It is clear that, despite the Russian objections, the matter must be resolved through an international process, ideally via the United Nations. The fact that Russia has promised to veto any UN Security Council draft resolution that would give Kosovo “supervised independence” is, therefore, disappointing. It has caused the Security Council to delay a vote on the draft resolution and may mean that any decision on the future of Kosovo will take place instead through the contact group. What is the UK Government’s view on the progress towards a resolution of this dispute?

Another matter that deserves mention in any debate about Russia is human rights. International concern about human rights in Chechnya remains a particular concern. In March, the Council of Europe’s human rights chief, Thomas Hammarberg, visited Chechnya where he said he found evidence of a

“real widespread pattern of serious ill-treatment and many cases of torture against those who have been arrested.”

Such cases included beatings and the use of electric shock.

The concerns continue within Russia itself. There have been reports from non-governmental organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch of torture, racially motivated attacks and the victimisation of opponents of Vladimir Putin. Perhaps the Minister could update us on human rights violations in Russia. What, if any, recent discussions have taken place between the two Governments on this important matter?

A climate of fear and intimidation, cultivated by the Russian Government, impedes and restricts the actions of NGOs in Russia, apparently because of a belief that they are connected to western espionage. Will the Minster tell us what the Government are doing to support the valuable humanitarian work of NGOs in Russia, and whether any negotiations with Russia on this issue have taken place?

Russia’s energy policy has also caused considerable concern in recent years. There is much debate in international circles about whether Russia’s near monopoly on oil and gas is being used as an instrument for its internal and external policy ambitions. The expropriation of Shell and BP interests in Russia has been seen by many analysts as facilitating the Russian state’s reassertion of control over the energy sector. Does the Minister agree that Russia is using its control over energy in eastern Europe—and now much of western Europe—as a lever with which to influence or perhaps manipulate foreign policy? If so, does he share my concern about that development?

Our relationship with the Russians is vital for all those reasons and for those mentioned at the beginning of my contribution. The Government need to continue to work to maintain a constructive relationship with Russia, but they must also ensure that areas of real concern are dealt with appropriately and effectively. I hope that the Minister agrees that, to achieve that, the UK needs to work closely with the rest of the European Union to create a coherent and co-ordinated foreign policy towards Russia.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Bayley.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on his recent achievement of becoming chairman of the all-party group on Russia, and on securing this debate on an important topic. He introduced the debate in typically robust style.

I noted the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) who brought his considerable experience as an ex-Foreign Office Minister to our deliberations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) not only tweaked the Minister’s nose, but rightly reminded the House that the tragic murder that I am about to touch on took place in his constituency. He also raised the implications of those events for other constituents whom he represents.

The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) raised a constituency point in the context of the debate and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) raised Russia’s human rights record, particularly the treatment of journalists, which concerns us all. That was also touched on by the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter).

It is a pleasure to see the Minister, my opposite number, in his place. For some curious reason, we seem to be seeing rather a lot of each other, and I believe that we are meeting later this afternoon on an entirely different matter.

The debate is on the relatively broad topic of UK-Russia relations, and I do not want to use the limited time available to speak only about the Litvinenko case. Nevertheless, this issue clearly affects the relationship between our two countries, so I want to make a few comments on where matters now sit. Let me say at the outset that Her Majesty’s Opposition have supported and continue to support both the tone and substance of the Government’s response to Russia's refusal to extradite Andrey Lugovoy. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said in his response to the Foreign Secretary's statement on 16 July,

“Across British politics, we are united in regarding this matter with the utmost seriousness.”—[Official Report, 16 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 23.]

That remains the case. Britain has the right to expect co-operation from Russia in the extradition of Mr. Lugovoy but, unfortunately, that has not been forthcoming.

Given that failure, it was right and proportionate for the British Government to take action to expel four Russian diplomats. The Russian reaction to the expulsion of the four diplomats came on 19 July with the expulsion of four British diplomats from our Embassy in Moscow and a statement that it might end co-operation in the fight against terrorism, which we would obviously regret. That is an entirely unjustified act, and the only correct response, as the Foreign Secretary made clear, remains the extradition of Mr. Lugovoy.

The Russians have stated that one reason for their failure to extradite Mr. Lugovoy is that its constitution disallows it. However, on Monday, Britain’s Ambassador to Russia, Sir Anthony Brenton, said:

“Russia’s constitution, like those of other states, is clearly capable of interpretation in the light of circumstances”.

I am sure that the Minister heard that.

As the Minister knows, I have a great interest in the interpretation of constitutions, particularly at the moment, so I would be interested to know what advice he has received on Russia’s constitution in the light of its responsibilities under the 1957 European convention on extradition. I would be interested to have some insight into the Foreign Office’s legal advice on that.

On 20 July, the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, apparently began to lower the temperature by suggesting that the

“Kremlin is interested in having relations with Britain brought back to normal."

The following day, President Putin suggested to the Moscow Times that what he described as a “mini-crisis” would be resolved. Unfortunately, accordingly to reports of a television interview, President Putin yesterday apparently accused Britain of colonial thinking in pursuing the matter. It is to be hoped that relations will eventually normalise, provided that the Russian Government accept that the Litvinenko issue will not simply go away and that it will eventually have to be resolved one way or another.

Another reason for concern in Anglo-Russian relations is the recent announcement by President Putin in mid-July that he would no longer be bound by the conventional armed forces in Europe treaty, which was signed in 1990. The hon. Member for Rhondda raised the matter last week during the Government’s statement. As an ex-Territorial Army infantry officer during the cold war, I once had a very close interest in Russian tanks, and in my present position I still do, albeit for slightly different reasons. The CFE treaty limits the number of heavy conventional weapons between the Atlantic ocean and the Ural mountains, and when it was signed it was generally regarded as a key development in ending the cold war and in Russia’s re-engagement with the west.

As I understand it, Russia has technically suspended the treaty rather than withdrawn from it wholesale, and a practical effect is that it will no longer permit inspections or exchange data on its troop deployments in line with the treaty’s provisions. That is a worrisome development, so will the Minister say what recent representations, if any, Her Majesty’s Government have made to the Russian Government on this issue and what response, if any, they have received? Similarly, will he give us at least a feel of what discussions he has had with our NATO partners and what their response has been?

Despite those differences, it is worth restating that there are many areas where co-operation between Britain and Russia is desirable: trade, the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, drugs, crime, and the Middle East peace process. In addition to areas of mutual co-operation, there are areas where Russia could specifically benefit from British help. Russia needs British investment in its industries and for Britain to buy its energy—something that we are willing to do in principle, but without becoming over-reliant on Russian supplies. Several hon. Members touched on that briefly this morning.

In return, Russia could usefully benefit from British investment and technical expertise to exploit increasingly hard-to-reach reserves of energy in hostile environments. It is in the nature of business that British companies thinking of investing in Russia will look for political stability and positive relations between our countries when making investment decisions and those points should not be lost on Russia, not least as it faces its own energy challenges, particularly in the decade ahead.

Russia and the UK would both gain from normalisation of relations and mutual co-operation on the issues of the day. However Russia should be under no illusion that there is anything but a united political front in Britain that deplores the murder of one of its subjects, and that is determined to seek the extradition of the main suspect to stand trial on British soil. Russia should not expect a full normalisation of relations until it plays by normal internationally accepted standards of behaviour.

Similarly, Conservative Members are concerned about the recent Russian decision to suspend the CFE treaty, which we view as something of a retrograde step. The treaty has been an important part in normalising military relations since the end of the cold war, and we would like the Russian Government fully to rejoin that agreement as soon as possible.

We hope that Russia will look for opportunities to work positively with the UK in a range of areas including trade, the fight against drugs and terrorism, and the development of new energy supplies, which could potentially benefit us all. We hope that the Russian Government will bear all those points in mind, but before we hear what they think about it, we are interested more immediately in what Her Majesty’s Government think about it.

Thank you, Mr. Bayley, for overseeing our proceedings this morning. Not only because it is customary, but because of his deep knowledge and interest in Russia, I congratulate the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on securing the debate, and on the knowledge and perspective that he brings to it.

It may predate our time in the House, but in previous years there was always a conversation about Russia with some analysis of Marx and other issues associated with that, but today we have heard from four different Marks. The hon. Members for The Wrekin, for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) and for Cheadle (Mark Hunter), all brought their own perspective as Marks and their own kind of Marksist analysis to the conversation.

We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who raised an important point. He rightly did not want to provide additional details, but I am happy to discuss it with him formally and in more detail if he wishes. I thank him for his kind words about the support of Foreign Office staff, which will be heard with great gratitude by those who have been working on the important issue that he raised. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and others for their points about the work that our ambassador, Tony Brenton and his fantastic team do to look after UK interests in Russia. As my hon. Friend alluded to, they sometimes work in unjustifiably difficult circumstances. I wish only that we had had the opportunity to listen to the end of his excellent speech. I hope that, at some point, we will have the opportunity to hear the rest of his analysis.

I shall now deal with the substance of the points made by hon. Members. I shall come to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) later in my short comments. I will not have time to respond to the dozens of questions that have been asked.

I thank the Opposition Front-Bench teams for not only the content but the tone of their remarks. It is important that we have unity on this important matter across the European Union, although I do not want to make a wider point about that, because it is for another day. That we have had two strong, unanimously agreed EU presidency statements is of real significance and heightens the importance of our co-operative role in the European Union. It is also important that the House of Commons and the House of Lords speak with one voice on the matter, both in their content and tone. Opposition Front Benchers have done that today and it is important that, where possible, we retain that consensus in content and tone. As we now know, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central is well aware, tone is often as important as content in some aspects of our conversations with our friends in Russia.

I shall make some general points and then come on to specifics. It is important to say clearly that the UK is a partner with Russia in more international organisations than almost any other country. Those organisations include the UN Security Council, the G8, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Council of Europe. The UK’s relationship with Russia is crucial and we must not lose sight of the fact that Russia is a key player in enabling us to deliver on our international priorities, including Afghanistan, climate change, chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, energy and, of course, trade and investment.

Hon. Members have already reflected on the fact that in 2006, the UK was the largest foreign investor in Russia. In the same year, our trading relationship with Russia reached an all-time high, with annual exports of more than £3 billion, which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary noted in his statement to the House on 16 July. Russia is, and will remain, a key international partner of the United Kingdom. It is for precisely that reason that we need a relationship based on trust and mutual respect.

All hon. Members recall the detail of the horrific circumstances in which Mr. Litvinenko, a British citizen, was murdered in the heart of London, and in which hundreds of residents and visitors were put at risk. I emphasise that it is precisely because we have ambitions for the UK-Russia relationship that we needed to take the measures that my right hon. Friend announced in his statement on 16 July. The Government neither sought nor welcomed the situation, but it was vital that we addressed it. A set of shared values is the foundation of an effective international partnership. Russian failure to co-operate made inevitable the necessary specific, targeted action that we took. Our action was intended to uphold the key individual rights and vital principles of independent judicial process in the United Kingdom.

In that context, we must ensure that such acts do not happen again. Ensuring the safety of British citizens and our visitors, as well as the 40,000-strong Russian community in the United Kingdom, is of paramount importance. We have been especially heartened by the statements of support from not only the European Union, but the United States.

My hon. Friends the Member for Rhondda and for Manchester, Central asked about a number of specific points and made some telling observations about human rights in Russia. In response to that, I repeat comments that I made to last week’s meeting of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, on our relationship with Russia and our attitude to human rights there. Russia has not made the progress on human rights that many of us expected and hoped that it would in the early to mid-1990s. Hon. Members have reflected on the limits to media freedom, the murders and intimidation of a number of journalists, the heavy-handed policing of political demonstrations, and restrictions on political parties. At each opportunity, the United Kingdom Government have sought to raise our concerns with the Russian authorities. This is not about seeking to export UK values, as some have said, but about our determination to ensure that Russia upholds international standards of human rights and freedom. That is what is at stake in this matter.

I know that the Minister will regret leaving the room without having answered at least one or two of the questions that I raised. On the subject of export, will he confirm that the Brazilian Government have asked for the extradition, or export, of Mr. Berezovsky?

I do not wish to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, particularly given his newly elevated post as chair of the all-party group, but I will have to do so on this matter, because we do not comment publicly on whether we have received requests for extraditions from another party. He will understand that, although he might be disappointed.

On support for non-governmental organisations, we have raised those issues with the Russian authorities. The UK Government fund Russian NGOs and Government agencies. We are funding a system of public prison inspectors, for example, and we have helped the Russian Union of Journalists defend journalists’ rights in Russia, which we will continue to do where we can. We also worked with the EU on human rights in Russia.

The suspension of the conventional armed forces in Europe treaty is regrettable. Within the dynamic of the CFE process, there is no reason why the Russians should be driven to take such action on that issue. It is suspension rather than something else, of course. There have been some outstanding issues in the conversation on the matter between NATO and Russia, not least about Georgia and Abhkazia and Transnistria and Moldova. We are working through those issues and we continue to find ways, through the NATO-Russian Permanent Joint Council, to discuss those issues with Russia.

Time has beaten me, and it has not allowed me to respond to all the points that hon. Members raised I conclude by saying that we continue to work with Russia in an important way in the UN, the G8, the NATO-Russian Permanent Joint Council and the European Union. Despite the events of the past week or two, Russia remains an important international partner of the United Kingdom. We are determined to ensure close engagement with Russia, which is vital on so many bilateral and multilateral issues. This morning, I hope that I have made it clear that we seek an active, open engagement with the Russian Government and the Russian people. When we disagree with Russia, we say so, and where obstacles exist, we will seek to resolve them through transparent, open, honest dialogue.

I thank you, Mr. Bayley, and I thank my colleagues for their warm welcome while leaving a debate on a subject important not only in my constituency but in many parts of the UK, and not just to motorcyclists but to many in the wider industry. I should declare an interest. I have never ridden a motorcycle, although my wife would encourage it. Nevertheless, it is a serious subject to many people. I am grateful for the interest that the Minister and his office showed before this debate, and hope that it will help us make some progress.

I shall provide a bit of history before detailing some general and specific concerns about the Driving Standards Agency’s processes for centralising motorbike testing facilities. To put the introduction of new multi-purpose motorcycle test facilities into context, we need to go back to 2000, when the second EU directive on driving licences was agreed. A set of EU standards was produced requiring motorcycle tests to include a variety of new low-speed and higher-speed manoeuvres.

Under the new standards, extra and more demanding special manoeuvres must be included in every practical motorcycling test: at least two manoeuvres executed at low speed, including a slalom; at least two manoeuvres executed at higher speed, of which one should be in second or third gear at a speed of at least 30 kph; one manoeuvre to avoid an obstacle at a minimum speed of 50 kph; and at least two braking exercises, including an emergency brake at a minimum speed of 50 kph. The new EU standards imply significant changes to the UK’s practical test for motorcyclists. The only special manoeuvre in the current UK motorcycling test is an emergency braking exercise undertaken on the road at about 20 kph. Although the new standards specify what a test must contain, member states have flexibility to organise the details.

In January 2001, the DSA issued a consultation paper describing the new requirements and seeking views on the matters in which the directive allows member states flexibility to determine locally. In particular, it asked whether the higher-speed manoeuvres should be conducted on the road or off the road, and whether they should be part of the practical motorcycling test or a separate manoeuvres test.

In August 2002, the DSA published the responses and explained Ministers’ decisions as follows. The new standards require low and higher-speed special manoeuvres to be added to the motorcycling test. A fair and consistent assessment is best achieved by using a pre-determined layout—that is, ground markings and cones—and it would be impractical to use one on a public road with other traffic. That implies a need for secure testing areas even if one discounts the risks to the candidate and other road users of testing the manoeuvres on the roads.

The DSA’s second point is that the new standards also require the test to include a higher-speed emergency braking manoeuvre at 50 kph. At that speed and in good road and weather conditions, a motorcycle needs a minimum of 23 m to stop, compared with about 12 m in the current braking exercise. The DSA reported that there are overwhelming road safety objections to conducting higher-speed emergency braking exercises where there might be pedestrians or other traffic. A requirement for secured testing areas appears conclusive, regardless of how the higher-speed obstacle-avoidance manoeuvre is assessed.

In consequence, the DSA has extensive plans to roll out a network of multi-purpose test centres by October 2008. The plans include using the test centres not just for motorcycle activities but for car tests. That brings me to the reason for this debate. Where will the new test centres be located, and what practical and economic impact will the changes have?

Until recently, we in Moray have benefited from car and motorcycle driving test facilities, an LGV test centre and a theory test centre. Unfortunately, the theory test centre has been withdrawn and replaced by a visiting bus. The motorcycle test facilities are under threat, and motorcycle instructors, learner riders, local driving instructors and business owners are concerned that plans to move test facilities to Inverness will be detrimental to learners, businesses, bike and bike equipment retailers and the overall economy of Moray.

That seems somewhat divergent from the DSA’s stated priorities. I draw the Minister’s attention to a quote on the DSA website from its chief executive, Rosemary Thew:

“The driver training industry bodies consider the presence and accessibility of test centres as being crucial to their business. The location of test centres therefore provides direct employment and encourages associated employment at local rider training and driving instructing schools.”

The key phrase is “the location of test centres”. For instructors in Moray, the removal of test facilities in the region—it is an entire local authority region—will be crucial to their businesses, but clearly not in a good way.

Moray’s various bike instructors are well thought of, and their excellent teaching speaks for itself. Moray has one of the highest pass rates of any test centre—83 per cent., compared with pass rates in Aberdeen and Inverness in the mid-60 per cent range. Testing facilities might be moved more than an hour’s ride away on a busy trunk road. I am certain that the Minister has travelled the A96; it can be a daunting road. I shall lobby my colleagues in the Scottish National party Government to upgrade it as soon as possible, but it remains a busy and at times tragically dangerous road. Having to travel to Inverness or Aberdeen on the A96 will discourage potential clients from taking advantage of the excellent teaching in Moray, as students are likely to want to learn on the roads where their test will take place. Rather than learning in Moray and then taking their test in Inverness or Aberdeen, people in those cities are likely to seek to learn in areas with which they are familiar.

I have written to the DSA about the issue, and the response has been somewhat revealing, albeit because of what the agency does not say rather than what it does. For example, the agency says that an average of only 20 tests a month are taken in Elgin, making it an economically unviable site for a multi-purpose test centre. However, the agency fails to say that Elgin has only a small capacity for tests. When I checked yesterday, Elgin’s earliest available appointment was nearly three months away, compared with half that time in Inverness. It does not take a genius to work out that the DSA is using statistics to justify its position rather than giving unbiased information. By failing to mention the Elgin test centre’s capacity, it suggests that only 20 tests are being requested each month. I am assured by local trainers that that is not the case. In effect, the figures are being artificially suppressed to make the case for concentrating testing in Inverness and Aberdeen.

If I had to wait 11 weeks for a test in Elgin but could take one in five weeks in Inverness, there is a fair possibility that I, like other people, would choose to go to Inverness. It gives rise to a concerning possibility that figures for Elgin are artificially low, while test figures for Inverness are artificially inflated. As those figures form part of the basis of the assessment for potential new test centre locations, serious questions arise about the processes and procedures used in that test centre investment programme.

I take the view that using bike test figures to assess the need for a multi-purpose test centre in more rural areas such as Moray is too narrow an approach. It would be more appropriate to consider the combined total of tests for cars, bikes and LGVs and incorporate theory tests and other DSA activities at the same location. Other possibilities could involve the local police, who operate the successful pass plus scheme. Furthermore, other emergency services could use the location for accident demonstration projects, targeting young drivers and prospective learners. Combining those activities in a single location would make a far more viable option—and support the local economy, rather than shift important resources elsewhere.

Moray’s test centre supports two full-time and two part-time instructors, and the wider bike-related business in Moray includes five shops that supply bikes and accessories; in turn, they support additional employment, including that of mechanics and sales staff. For some people, the numbers might seem relatively small and insignificant. However, the Minister will be aware that my constituency rates among the lowest wage economies in Scotland; on some criteria, it is sometimes the lowest—not something to have great pride in. The effect of the loss of any job or business on any knock-on trade is very significant. The Minister will remember the campaigns to retain RAF bases and the campaigns that needed to be fought to maintain maternity services in Elgin. He will also be aware that at a time when moves are afoot to try to bring together local government services from different local areas, there are concerns, which I share, that Moray—being part neither of the highlands, nor, in essence, of Grampian—may see many services drawn towards Inverness and Aberdeen. I wish both those places all the best, but, please, that should not come at Morayshire’s cost.

Arguably, if bikers travel elsewhere for a test, they are likely to spend money elsewhere as well. There is also the all-important safety issue, to which I alluded earlier. Holding tests in Inverness will mean that learner bikers in Moray will have to travel for more than an hour on the A96, which, as I mentioned, has a reputation for bad accidents. At a recent surgery of mine, a learner rider from Lossiemouth in my constituency said that the move would

“force young drivers on to killer roads”.

That stands in contrast with what the agency says on its website:

“We hope that communities, local authorities and driving instructors will recognise the important role of these new centres in supporting road safety.”

If the centres are sited in Inverness and Aberdeen, there could be an odd by-product: we may increase risks to the safety of riders from Morayshire. Although bikers going for their tests should generally have a good number of lessons under their belts and have had appropriate instruction, it would not necessarily be their wish to spend well over an hour on a low-powered bike on a busy road just prior to the stressful experience of a driving test—and then have to make the same journey home.

This would not be condoned, but sotto voce it was suggested to me that some bike riders who had not passed their tests might see the changes as a disincentive to doing one, at a time when we are trying to raise standards across the board. I am concerned that, far from improving road safety, the changes could put inexperienced riders at unnecessary risk.

I go back to the viability of siting a new test centre in Moray. Elgin is a market town that draws people in from many miles around. There are a variety of potential locations for such a centre—perhaps the most notable is the current LGV test centre, sited just outside Elgin at a disused Ministry of Defence airfield. There is a strong argument for trying to obtain a long-term lease or to purchase land from another Government Department. That would ensure that the money spent remained in the public sector in the locality. I am sure that the Minister would be able to facilitate such a negotiation through his colleagues at the Ministry of Defence. Other options could and should be considered, such as sharing offices in the Moray area with the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency or adding a local face-to-face contact point for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

There is significant scope for combining the variety of services that the Department provides in one location in Moray. A bit of creative thinking could bring improved access to services—indeed, it could provide cross-agency working and efficiencies, rather than centralising one aspect of the DSA’s activity, to the significant detriment of Moray. Bikers are set to join a demonstration in Moray next month, and I understand that hundreds plan to attend to express their frustration at the plans.

Will the Minister take action to ensure that bikers in more rural areas are not unduly discriminated against, and that excessive Government centralisation, which already causes substantial problems in respect of other Departments’ delivery of services, will cease? Will he also give an assurance that he will seek answers on whether the way in which test centre figures are being used is appropriate and meaningful, and, if necessary, order a review of the roll-out of multi-purpose test centres?

I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) on securing a debate on this important issue. He has presented an eloquent argument on behalf of his constituents. His concerns are understandable, and I hope that I can address them during my remarks. I hope that he will forgive me if in doing so I repeat some of the background information that he has already mentioned.

In their road safety strategy, “Tomorrow’s roads: safer for everyone”, published in 2000, the Government set challenging targets for reducing the number of road casualties. By 2010, we want to reduce by 40 per cent. the number of people killed or seriously injured on the roads and to reduce by 10 per cent. the number of slight casualties.

Motorcycling is becoming increasingly popular. More people are using motorcycles and mopeds to beat congestion and for leisure. We recognise that motorcycling has a role to play within transport as a whole. Our aim is to facilitate motorcycling as a travel choice within a safe and sustainable transport framework. To that end, in 2005 we published our motorcycling strategy in partnership with motorcycling and other interests.

Regrettably, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, motorcyclists represent a large proportion of road casualties. They make up about 1 per cent. of road traffic, but suffer about 20 per cent. of deaths and serious injuries. Although the overall number of road casualties is falling, the number of deaths among motorcyclists is increasing.

The road safety strategy gave improvements to driver training and testing, which play an important role in producing safer drivers and riders. It also identified European developments as a factor in future changes to the driving test. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, when member states translate European directives into domestic legislation, there is scope for them to take account of local conditions and to ensure a good fit with their prevailing laws.

In Great Britain, all motorcyclists and moped riders are required to complete compulsory basic training, or CBT, before riding on the road as learners. The CBT certificate is valid for two years. Applicants have to pass a theory test, including a test of hazard perception, and a practical riding test, before being granted a full motorcycling licence.

European Union legislation on driving licences, agreed in 2000, set higher minimum requirements for driving tests conducted by member states. The higher standards are intended to ensure that the matters assessed in the theory and practical test are relevant to modern driving conditions. Those new EU standards have introduced extra and more demanding special manoeuvres that must be included in every practical motorcycling test undertaken in Great Britain from September 2008.

One of the new requirements, which the hon. Gentleman also mentioned, is that a higher-speed emergency braking manoeuvre should be added to the motorcycling test. It must be conducted at no less than 50 kph, equivalent to 31 mph. There are overwhelming road safety objections to conducting a higher-speed emergency braking exercise where there might be pedestrians or other traffic. Ministers therefore asked the Driving Standards Agency, which is responsible for delivering the driving and riding test in Great Britain, to explore whether such manoeuvres could be carried out in off-road testing areas free of other traffic. At the same time, the DSA designed an exercise that includes all of the various special manoeuvres requirements and that can be delivered in an effective and efficient manner from the off-road testing areas.

Those proposals, and others for the implementation of the new requirements, were the subject of full public consultation in December 2002. Consultees were offered the opportunity to comment on a number of service delivery options. They showed a preference for a package of off-road testing of the new higher-speed manoeuvres’ with all other special manoeuvres being tested on the same occasion immediately before the general on-road riding assessment. That avoids the safety risks of on-road testing while addressing the cost and access concerns raised by some consultees.

The Government decided to implement the new requirements in the way that most consultees preferred. To facilitate the delivery of the new manoeuvres exercise we identified a need to develop a national network of driving test centres based on an updated design. In order to exploit the value of the investment in the new centres we have decided that, wherever possible, they will be multipurpose. In addition to the motorcycling manoeuvres exercise and practical motorcycle test they will be used to deliver other types of practical test for learner car, lorry and bus drivers.

The intention is that most driving test candidates should be able to reach a test centre within 45 minutes, travelling no more than 20 miles.

Will the Minister clarify, from his personal experience, that to travel from Elgin to Inverness takes more than 45 minutes?

I have not had the privilege of travelling from or to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency direct. I understand that it would take more than 20 minutes.

Where practical, we hope to make the off-road test sites available for training purposes when they are not being used for motorcycling tests. Since the proposals were first drawn up, the project has evolved. We have reviewed the service delivery need and conclude that between 40 and 50 multipurpose driving test centres will be required to meet the service standard criteria. However, to maximise population coverage and minimise the number of candidates who have to travel for longer than 45 minutes or further than 20 miles’ we are seeking to develop up to 67 new centres. That gets to the heart of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. I am delighted that he has not suggested that Scotland might be underserved in that respect, as 12 of the new centres will be in Scotland and 55 in England. Scotland will have 18 per cent. of the total number of centres, which is considerably higher than population might demand.

At the commencement of the project, we did not own or lease any sites that could provide a sufficient area of hard standing upon which to undertake the new manoeuvres. A programme of land acquisition and construction was initiated in 2005. Since December 2005, we have acquired 23 sites nationally. In Scotland, as I have said, we propose to build 12 new centres with off-road testing facilities. To date, we have acquired two suitable locations that will provide coverage to Scotland’s two largest urban centres. One, at East Lothian, is nearing completion and one, in Scotland’s first city, Glasgow, is already open and is being used to deliver driving tests. Once both centres are fully operational, 40 per cent. of the population of Scotland will be within a 45-minute journey from a new centre, while 45 per cent. will be within 20 miles of a new centre.

Further sites have been identified and we are proceeding with the acquisition and development programme. In addition to allowing us to maximise the use of the new centres by conducting car, lorry and bus tests from them, the multipurpose centres will offer improved accommodation and facilities for our customers and staff. As well as being fully compliant with the disability discrimination legislation, the new centres will support the Government’s wider sustainability agenda.

We anticipate that for each new multipurpose driving test centre in Scotland, one driving test centre will relocate to the new facilities. Motorcycle testing is delivered from 35 driving test centres and in the future the tests will be delivered from 12 new multipurpose driving test centres. Delivery of car, lorry and bus driver testing will remain largely unchanged. Despite an overall reduction in the number of sites that deliver motorcycling tests in Scotland, the 12 new centres will ensure that, in line with the customer service criterion, 79 per cent. of the population will be within 45 minutes and 81 per cent. within 20 miles of a new centre.

We recognise the need to ensure that the more remote and sparsely populated areas have reasonable access to centres that conduct motorcycle tests. Every effort has been made to avoid disadvantaging the more rural and semi-rural populations, but we cannot justify providing sufficient multipurpose driving test centres to allow every test candidate in the country local access to those testing facilities. In the case of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, it is anticipated that the majority of motorcycling test candidates will travel to Inverness, which is a one-hour journey of about 39 miles. Car, lorry and bus candidates will continue to take their tests in Elgin.

On the question of the alleged safety aspects of the A96, I totally accept that when a local road has a reputation for danger, that has a knock-on effect on the confidence with which drivers will go down a road. I accept what the hon. Gentleman’s constituent told him at his surgery. He will understand that when any assessment is made of the danger of any road, it has to be based on empirical evidence. I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that the A96 is such a dangerous road that it would preclude the location of those test facilities in Inverness. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that that was a matter for the Scottish Executive, and I am sure that he has better contacts than I do among the Ministers who are responsible for spending money on road safety schemes.

Driving test centres do not come cheap. Experience suggests that they cost some £1.8 million in development in addition to the costs of acquiring the site. Those costs are capitalised, but none the less they have a significant effect on fees paid by driving test candidates. In 2006-07, fewer than 250 motorcycling tests were conducted in Elgin, compared with 330 in Inverness and about 680 in Aberdeen.

Towards the end of his speech, the hon. Gentleman seemed to be saying that the number of tests carried out in Inverness is inflated because his constituents would rather wait for a shorter length of time to take their test in Inverness. At the same time, he made another argument, which I think was contradictory. He said that people are reluctant to travel the A96 because of the perceived danger of travelling on that road. One argument may be true, but I cannot see how both can be. People are either being encouraged to take their tests in Inverness or being discouraged from using the A96.

What is more important than either of those points is that when the Minister and his colleagues assess the demand for motorcycle tests, surely that should be based on the real demand in particular parts of the country, as opposed to figures that are suppressed and reduced in total because of the cap on test numbers for different parts of the country.

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and I would suggest that that is what the Government are doing. As I have said, in 2006-07, fewer than 250 motorcycling tests were conducted in Elgin, compared with 330 delivered one hour away along the A96 in Inverness and about 680 in Aberdeen. I am afraid that that number does not justify setting up a multipurpose driving test centre in Elgin. That is particularly so given the proximity of alternatives and the high cost of developing the facilities. Although the end of motorcycling tests in Elgin is regrettable, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that at present we have no plans to stop delivering other types of driving test in the town.

I accept the point of the hon. Gentleman’s arguments. He is entitled as a constituency MP to continue the campaign. If he wishes to take part in the demonstration that is due to take place in his constituency next week, I look forward to his donning a motorcycle helmet and getting on a motorcycle for the first time in his career.

In the event of a Division in the main Chamber, I shall suspend the sitting for 15 minutes, and for 10 minutes for any subsequent Divisions.

First, I wish to register my pleasure at opening this debate under your chairmanship, Mrs. Anderson. May I ask you to convey to Mr. Speaker my gratitude that I should have been afforded this opportunity? Normally when I speak in this Chamber, I occupy the Chair on which you sit. This is only the third time that I have initiated a debate here, and I say that with humility. The first was on police reorganisation, the second was on the reconfiguration of hospitals on Teesside and today’s is on the closure of Remploy factories.

It is difficult to know where to start, because I have so much information that I could keep the debate going for three weeks. I do not want to keep it going—I want to come to some kind of resolution. I shall try to go through things in chronological order and, being a simple man, I shall do so in simple terms.

On 4 May I was visited in my constituency office by a John Waterhouse. I still have his card. He is the director of contract services of Remploy, and he came to put a case to me. He said in a letter to me that he was

“writing to inform you of the outcome of a period of intensive consultations with the trade unions over plans to modernise Remploy.”

He went on to tell me how long the process had taken and how concerned Remploy was to ensure that individuals with certain incapacities and disabilities would be found suitable employment elsewhere—“mainstream employment”, he called it. He said that Remploy would monitor that employment throughout and ensure that those people were not exploited in any way, and that they would have every benefit that they would normally get in a Remploy atmosphere.

That was all very assuring. I thought at the time, “This sounds a bit too good to be true,” and, as my old granny used to say, “If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.” That is how it has turned out. Since then I have had so much conflicting information and so much that is patently misinformation that I felt compelled to request a second debate on the matter. There has already been a debate on it, and my hon. Friend the Minister had the problem of responding to it. I shall refer to her responses in due course.

After Mr. Waterhouse’s charming onslaught, I received various contacts from trade unionists—Sean McGovern, John Thorman, Neville Anderson—and from the Stockton and district trades council. Most telling was the delegation that came to me from my local factory, which I know quite well. It must be 22 years ago, three years after I came into this place, that the staff there presented me with a quarter-bound, leather-bound book on the history of Stockton. I have to admit that I have never read it, but it is a beautiful piece of bookbinding, which I display on my bookshelf with pride.

Since then, the factory has changed its skills four times. On each occasion it has reskilled to an excellent standard and reports have been received saying that it has been excellent. In other words, it has done everything required of it to produce a revenue stream that justifies its existence. A delegation came to see me and, rather ironically, two of the delegation were a couple whose engagement party I had attended at the factory. The reason for my doing that was that the lady in the item had been one of my pupils when I was a schoolmaster many years ago. I know those people quite well, and they know me. For some reason, they trust me, which is why I am trying on their behalf today.

I got a letter from the leader of that delegation, a man called Rowland Precious—lovely name, isn’t it?—who is ex-military. He had written to Mr. Bob Warner, but in his letter to me he wrote:

“We were informed, yesterday, that Remploy Stockton, is one of the proposed sites for closure. This proposal is based on incorrect information. The work it is based on is Scanning documents under the Offiscope Group of Remploy. Remploy, Stockton changed from Offiscope to e-Cycle a year ago. As a result we changed trade from Scanning to Computer recycling and we have been highly praised, by a number of senior managers”.

In fact it was placed second in a group of 12 factories engaged in that work. It is not average, it is well above average.

Mr. Precious had felt so concerned about the threat of closure that he had written to Bob Warner—I suppose that I ought to explain to hon. Members, in case they do not know, that he is the chief executive of Remploy. I would not like to minimise his status—who is an important man. I do not think that he is disabled, although that might be debateable. Mr. Precious wrote to Mr. Warner:

“On 22 May…we were shown a video which informed us that Stockton factory was to close. A justification letter was read out that document preparation and scanning was no longer a viable business.”

Document preparation and scanning? They were doing computers! It was not even relevant to the factory. He continued:

“We then informed the person sent to deliver this message that the information in it was both out of date and incorrect.

Stockton factory ceased scanning documents a year ago, (as part of Offiscope). We have very successfully been recycling computers…for the past year”.

He went on to say that they

“would like to know why our closure has been based on out of date and incorrect information”.

Choosing to ignore that kind of logic, Mr. Bob Warner wrote:

“I am sorry that the message read out…did not reflect the work that the factory is currently doing.”

What kind of study had been carried out in order to justify the decision, given that he was sorry about it because he did not know about it? He continued:

“The proposal last Tuesday was the start of the consultation process and we will look again at the capacity requirement of the IT recycling”—

he got it right this time—

“as part of that process.”

Well, the amount of consultation that has taken place on the Stockton factory from 30 May to date has been absolutely zero, but the manager left to go to another factory, ostensibly to conduct some business. In fact, it was for interview and he got a job elsewhere in the organisation and left the staff in Stockton to their own devices. I am afraid that that is typical of the attitude that has been displayed throughout the process. It is an attitude that, I have to say, I did not join the Labour party or become an MP to defend. You can anticipate, Mrs. Anderson, that my words are hardly going to be complimentary from now on.

I shall not read out all Mr. Warner’s correspondence, because it goes on—he is pretty good at turning out letters—but he wrote in April:

“We are convinced that our strategy is the right one. We also know that our view that Remploy should change is supported by the main disability charities.”

That is another somewhat misleading claim. The charities that say that they support change are in favour of disabled people gaining mainstream employment, but they do not support that move at the cost of closing Remploy factories. It is mendacious to try to suggest that they do. Perhaps Mr. Warner learned from some of our colleagues how to represent, or misrepresent, actuality.

A month later, in May, Mr. Warner slightly changed his tack and stated:

“Remploy will be conducting a formal consultation programme with the trade unions over the summer. When this is completed we will need to finalise a submission to Ministers for approval and funding. The company would expect to be in a position to implement towards the end of the year.”

That is a commitment, but what will he do with it?

In an attempt to put Mr. Warner back on the rails, Mr. Phil Davies, who is the secretary of the consortium of trade unions that is seeking to introduce some logic and compassion into the situation, sent a letter to Remploy. It is dated 1 June, before the last debate. Phil Davies stated:

“The information that the company has sent us falls far short of our legitimate expectations, it does not fulfil the consultation requirements and it is likely to expose the Remploy Board to further ridicule.”

He says that he is appalled to learn that while Remploy intends to access

“some £88 million from the DWP Modernisation Fund a mere £8 million is to be used for retraining, job placement, support and counselling.”

So what about the other £80 million? Mr. Davies goes on to state:

“Whereas 10 times that sum is earmarked to be spent on redundancy, early retirement packages…and maintaining Remploy terms and conditions”.

A financial miscalculation has been made. If I had conducted my management responsibilities in industry before coming into this House in the way suggested in the letter, I would have been sacked out of hand. I would have had to throw my keys—the keys to the car as well—on the desk and leg it off the site.

Phil Davies goes on to state:

“In recent weeks you have been orchestrating a concerted campaign in the pages of the Guardian and elsewhere in an attempt to soften up MPs and the public in preparation of closures.”

When I read that, I thought, “By God, he’s right, and I was part of it.” That was all the soft soap that I had from Mr. John Waterhouse on 4 May. I am somewhat ashamed that—because I wanted to think that things would be all right, that jobs would be available and that Remploy would be able to achieve what it was setting out to achieve—I thought the proposal was great and accepted it. Now I am finding out just how wrong I was.

The trade unions are not only criticising the situation. They put forward their own considered plan, on which they have spent some time. They asked Mr. Warner to co-operate with them by providing details, not a summary, of the full business case and the financial analysis, the losses and absentee rates for each of the 83 factories for each of the past two years, the idle and non-production time, the details of investment in the 83 factories, and an updated property portfolio. Phil Davies wrote:

“In your 22 May announcement, you stated that one of the selection criteria used was the prevailing local employment conditions.”

That was sensible, was it not?

“You specifically mentioned that the two factories that otherwise would have been selected for closure were to be kept open due to high local unemployment…Please provide the local employment data that you have used against each of the 83 factories.”

None of the information has been forthcoming.

First, I must apologise to my hon. Friend that I have to leave to meet a Minister at 3.30 pm, but I congratulate him on securing this debate on Remploy. Has he ever seen a balance sheet for the Stockton factory? Indeed, does he know whether any Members have received transparent accounts for any of their Remploy factories? I certainly have not for the Bolton factory.

The only way that I can answer that is to say that the employees, if we can use that term, at the Stockton factory have consistently posed questions to which they have never received clear answers. They have received obfuscation, evasion or silence.

I do not know whether there is any need to refer to the report by the group of MPs that has been reviewing the Remploy situation. MPs spent a lot of time making visits and applying their minds enthusiastically and clinically to some of the problems. They gave a list of things that needed to be done if Remploy is to sort out its remit. Remploy is justifying its decisions by saying that they are being imposed on it by the Government’s requirement that it remain within a funding envelope of £555 million over the next five years. There are other ways of achieving that, and the unions have applied their minds and all their skills—they are not inexperienced—to the matter.

However, it seems that Remploy is not prepared to engage in such exchanges, despite the fact that the Minister—God bless her and save her—said on 13 June that

“the process has not failed. The trade unions and management will meet next week to discuss the proposals. I return to my earlier comment—there has been an extensive lead-in to the discussion of the proposals. At the moment, they are just proposals. Nothing has been confirmed.”—[Official Report, 13 June 2007; Vol. 461, c. 318WH.]

I am most pleased about that, but engagement has not taken place because this is a dialogue of the deaf. Remploy is not listening. It is not participating in the conversation.

May I quote from a letter of 12 June, which was written the night before the Minister responded to the last debate? It is from Mr. Ray Fletcher of Bicester, Oxfordshire. I hope that he has not been flooded out. He states that he is writing as someone

“who worked as a member of the Board of Remploy for more than nine years…I have always believed that Remploy can play a significant part in achieving full inclusion of disabled people in UK society through the world of work and still feel that this is the case.”

He states that we

“cannot be proud of a plan which will force disabled people from their existing jobs and is already increasing fear and anxiety amongst Remploy employees…there is no doubt in my mind that Remploy can change without the enforced closure of factories and without a loss of jobs amongst disabled people…I am particularly concerned that solutions being proposed for Remploy are far more impactive on the very people Remploy is there to support than anyone else.”

Mr. Fletcher poses several questions:

“Can costs be reduced without loss of disabled people’s jobs? Yes.

Is it possible to stay within the government’s funding envelope and not close factories? Yes.

Can the factories be used as places for vocational rehabilitation and training and development of disabled people? Yes.

Is it possible to significantly increase progressions from factories? Yes.

Is it possible to align Remploy factories to the local community organisations of disabled people? Yes.

Is it possible to use the Remploy factories as a base for increasing access to Pathways to Work and other routes from benefit to work? Yes.

Is it possible to reconfigure Remploy’s status so that it becomes more of an organisation of and for disabled people? Yes”.

So why have we got this problem? He also says:

“I have to advise that I dealt directly with the Remploy trade unions for more than nine years and whilst we had many heated debates we managed to agree many significant changes through dialogue and discussion…It is my personal view that there is an alternative to the current plans for Remploy factories and it would be in everyone’s interest for an alternative plan to be examined and committed to before embarking on a plan that would be negative for existing employees”.

Words fail me. I say to the Minister—

You’re doing all right. I don’t think words are failing you.

I am partially deaf.

I am not from the north-east, but I am interested in this matter because I raised it at the Durham miners’ rally when many of my hon. Friends and constituents of mine and other MPs were present. I also have a Remploy factory in my constituency that is due for closure. My hon. Friend said that his factory has changed four times. Feasibility studies should be done on the floods to see whether anything can be done to provide the wherewithal to deal with them in future. Feasibility studies should be done on climate change. That is a new thing on the horizon. But the main thing that I was told at Durham was that for people who go to work at Remploy, it is like joining a family, and they are members of a union. They resent the fact that they will not be part of a family and could finish up at McDonald’s or a non-trade union firm. We have got to preserve the family, whether it is in Durham, Pinxton or wherever.

I thank my hon. Friend for emphasising that point because when Rowland Precious, who is a highly intelligent and articulate gentleman, led a delegation to see me, he made exactly the same point and punched it home to great effect, raising in my mind another iniquitous aspect of the situation. He said, “You know, we aren’t just disabled in one sense; some of us are disabled in many ways. There are all sorts of things; not just physical disabilities, but asthma, anxiety, hearing loss, sight impairment or other problems. It could be a combination of things, but we all help each other and we all know how to help each other.”

It occurred to me that the management have all their capacities. I do not think any of the management are disabled; at least, I have not met anyone from the management who is. If we have people with the intelligence of Rowland Precious, why should he not be in a management position and be allowed to make management decisions with compassion for his fellow workers? Instead, we have people who are running around and changing their job because they see a threat on the horizon. They are moving out, or legging it. In politics I think that we call it “doing the chicken run”. I am sure that we could run the Remploy organisation with people who have perfectly adequate grey cells and who would do it a good deal more effectively, efficiently and cheaply.

Before my hon. Friend leaves the issue of the family nature of the factories, I, too, am not from the north-east, but I also have a Remploy factory that is due for closure and the family nature of the factory is apparent to people the minute they go into it and every time they visit it. My hon. Friend will be aware that much of this problem is based on a portmanteau statement that has come from the Government, which states as a matter of certainty that

“There is now an acceptance that disabled people”—

all disabled people—

“would prefer to work in mainstream employment alongside non-disabled people rather than in sheltered workshops”.

I know my factory very well, and I find that a difficult statement to accept.

I have the following question for my hon. Friend. From the considerable research that he has done on the issue, is he aware of any Government figures on the costs that are bound to occur—not from employment benefit of one kind or another, but from health, social services, and psychiatric services—when this form of therapeutic employment comes to an end?

The short answer to my hon. and learned Friend’s question is no, I do not know.

The unions have called this answer a quick fix. I prefer a different phrase. I would call it finding the answer in the back of the book. Those involved have been given a proposal by the Government, but they have not sought to challenge, rationalise or justify it. They have some accountant who can probably add two and two together and make two and a bit and so they have said, “How do we do this? Well, we make a cut there, there, there and there and that is it”. They have not even thought about the consequences or the justification for doing it.

I have a feeling in my water, Mrs. Anderson, and I hope that it does not discomfort you in the way that it discomforts me. I have a nasty suspicion that the Minister might turn around and say that the independent assessor that has been appointed and funded—I think that it is Grant Thornton—might have withdrawn support for the trade union proposals for consideration. I hope that the Minister does not say that because I have proof positive that it is not true. I would not like to have to demonstrate that. My dilemma, Mrs. Anderson, which you will know about as a fellow member of the Chairmen’s Panel, is that, as members of the Panel, we have to be even more careful than the run-of-the-mill Member, if I can use that phrase.

Oh aye.

Oh aye. We cannot refer to lies or liars, but I have to say—and I refer only to part of the plethora of documentation that has come my way since I involved myself in the issue—that I have found more lies than could be counted on a calculator. It is really quite disgraceful and very annoying. I say to you, Mrs. Anderson, and through you to the Minister that the union’s figures have been checked and verified right up until this Monday. I have had that incontrovertibly confirmed.

I want to give other hon. Members a chance to contribute, so I will finish in a moment. Before doing so, I wish to remind hon. Members why Remploy was started. It was founded immediately post-war as a means of providing constructive employment for men and women who came back from conflict and who were unable to go into mainstream unemployment—I think that that is the euphemism that people use. It has performed that task very well ever since.

At a time when young men and women are coming back from conflicts with a whole range of disabilities, I want hon. Members to consider the insanity of reducing budget provision—or, the funding envelope, as it is called. God, don’t we come out with some euphemisms! Those young men and women previously came back from Bosnia and Kosovo and are now coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq. The disabilities are going up and the budget is coming down; what kind of sense is that? What is the logic and how can it be justified? If anyone can answer that question, they will do me a great favour. However, I do not think that they will do so under the terms that we are considering today.

I started out by reminding the House that this is only the third debate that I have initiated in this Chamber. The first was on police reorganisation. We cannot take decisions here, but the debate had the desired effect and the Government changed their mind. The second debate that I initiated was on hospital reconfiguration. Again, of course, we could not take a decision, but the Government changed their mind once more. I am saying to the Minister now that this is another occasion on which, in God’s name, and for everything that is good, reasonable and sensible, and for the sake of humanity, we must get the Government to change their mind—not immediately, but they should enter into a proper formal consultation.

It’s a different Government, Frank.

Well, change is the order of the day.

The questions posed by the trade unions and those on the Remploy board should be answered in detail before any decision is made. The consultation must be a proper consultation and Remploy must listen, for the first time, to the logic put on the table for it to consider. My fear is that it does not have the intelligence to appreciate its value.

I am very glad that the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Frank Cook) has raised this debate and brought to it his customary verve and eloquence. I hope that he maintains his success rate and that the proposals are changed.

We had a debate in Westminster Hall not long ago to which the Minister present responded. This debate, however, rightly focuses on the particular difficulties faced in the north-east as a result of the closure of Remploy factories. My concern is for my constituents, both present and future, for whom the Ashington factory is their Remploy factory. It is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy). I know that he will be seeking to catch your eye shortly, Mrs. Anderson, and that, like me, he will want to mention the special circumstances of Northumberland.

I can say for both of us that this is not a very good day for central Government attention to the special circumstances of Northumberland. They have just taken a decision that was the opposite of that sought by every Northumberland MP and district council, whatever their party. We have not got off to a very good start today, but I am sure that the Minister will be more understanding. That was a decision about local government, however, and now we are on to Remploy, on which we can perhaps make a bit more progress.

The circumstances of Northumberland are special. Even given today’s improved employment conditions compared with those of a decade or more ago, it remains very difficult to get jobs in Northumberland. The situation is made worse by the fact that great distances are involved for many people. Certainly, those in my constituency, who do not live in Ashington and must travel to the factory, often need significant help in doing so because of their disabilities. They have even greater difficulties seeking jobs elsewhere.

I understand the basic argument behind the Government’s policy, which is the attempt to deploy resources for securing employment for those with disabilities in a way that will aid the largest possible number of disabled people. Clearly many of those people are not employed at the moment and will not be employed in Remploy sheltered workshops. There must be a way of assisting them all. I can see a certain logic to that, but, if I was going to try to develop such a policy, I certainly would not start in Northumberland, but would look to an area with a wide range of job opportunities or, indeed, a strong demand for labour and, therefore, much greater potential for seeking appropriate employment that takes account of a person’s particular disabilities and is adapted to suit them. Northumberland is not in that situation. It is a difficult place to find employment.

When we last debated this matter in the House, I asked about that, and the Minister told me to talk to the chief executive of Remploy. I went one better and had a meeting with its chairman, who actually is a very reasonable and intelligent man. We had a very constructive and useful discussion, from which some rather interesting points emerged that I hope the Minister can perhaps clarify, confirm or give her view on. One of those points was that unless jobs are found for existing Remploy employees at the Ashington factory—other than for those who retire early voluntarily or who retire because they are approaching retirement age—and for potential Remploy employees of the future, he could not make a case to the Minister for the closure of that factory, in which case, the programme would have to be re-jigged.

If the Government are to achieve the same number of closures, they will have to look somewhere else. That might very well be the case in Northumberland. I hope that the Minister will make it clear to Remploy that she does not want proposals based on anything other than absolute certainty that not only can existing Remploy employees find or be found jobs, but that there will be considerable and clear routes into many more jobs in the future. I do not think that that is currently the position.

It also became clear in our discussion that Remploy will have targets for employing disabled people. The trouble is that Remploy will make considerable progress towards achieving its targets in parts of the country with a more favourable employment situation. It could then say to the Minister, “Look, we are getting some way towards our targets”—we hear that about a lot of targets these days. However, that will conceal the fact that it is not anywhere near its target for Northumberland. There might be a feeling, therefore, that the programme is going quite well when actually it is going very badly in an area where employment is difficult to find.

In some parts of the country, it is much easier to find employment generally—not just for disabled people—because of the expansion of particular kinds of businesses. That has not been the case in Northumberland. For example, I talked to a lot of people from ex-mining communities who have had more opportunities for re-employment—although not as well paid—than have those in ex-mining communities in Northumberland. Let us look at South Yorkshire, for example, where there has been a huge development in warehousing because of the proximity of motorways, which offers opportunities of a kind that we do not have. Account must be taken of different circumstances in different parts of the country.

Then we discussed what would happen if the closure went ahead, and there was talk of a continuing presence in Northumberland, but that will not do anything if all it means is a shop front in Ashington with a sign in the window that reads: “You can call in here if you have a disability”. Most of my constituents who work at the Remploy factory could not get to Ashington without help from that sheltered-workshop environment—in many cases, they do not have that degree of mobility. If Remploy was not providing sheltered employment, every penny of that resource, and more, would need to be used to ensure that a wide range of people in Northumberland and the adjoining area of Tyne and Wear were being helped into employment. Any continuing presence, therefore, must involve at least serious training, rehabilitation and mentoring commitments and facilities, if it is to balance the losses.

Those who work in the Remploy factory appreciate its value, but if they were to consider the future of other disabled people, or those who become disabled, whether through industrial accidents or military circumstances, such as those described by the hon. Member for Stockton, North, they will say, “They have not had the advantage that I had.” They have been speaking very much in those terms. They appreciate what they have had from working at Remploy, and they want others to have a similar benefit in the future. They are deeply depressed and distressed by the chain of events that seems to be unfolding.

If there is merit in and scope for the kind of transfer that Remploy has talked about, frankly, we should not pilot it in an area in which employment circumstances are as difficult as those in Northumberland. I hope that this programme will be rethought and that much more account will be taken of the circumstances in our area.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Frank Cook) on securing this debate, which without a doubt is an important one because it concerns employment opportunities that have existed since the second world war for those with disabilities. These people feel incredibly vulnerable and they regularly feel that they are at the back end when any opportunity is identified.

For me, however, the debate has a second flavour and it is important because we inevitably—the word is inevitably—look at people with disabilities and define them as such. We do not ask, “What are your abilities? What would you like to be trained to do? Which employment could you play a part in?” It is long gone that we should be talking about people as people with disabilities, because these people have clear abilities.

The report on Stockton Remploy made some clear statements. It noted, as my hon. Friend said, that the work force were flexible and would change from one productive activity to another. It also noted that they showed an incredible ability to develop very specific skills requiring great care and dexterity, which could be used in many different ways. This is not a group of people with no skills—they have serious skills.

On 15 June, I spoke to constituents who work in Stockton Remploy and I was struck by their abilities. Many of us in the House could learn from their speaking skills. They were focused, determined and challenging, and they had clear intellectual competence. Why do we believe that we have no opportunities to use their capabilities better?

Some of those who came to see me had definite vulnerabilities. Many had worked at Stockton Remploy for more than 20 years and many had never been anywhere else in employment terms. Many had worked alongside those who were at the meeting with them for more than 10 years. There was comfort, support and a sense of trust, and those things are important when people have disabilities. One person told me with great sincerity, “I’m not laughed at by my colleagues. When they don’t understand what I’m saying, they ask me to say it again.” That is the careful way in which a good relationship opens and develops. Remploy offers not only employment, but friendship networks, and it is important that we understand that, rather than understate or undermine it.

The other thing that came through during the meeting with these people, who were clearly capable and adaptable, was that management had let them down, misinformed them about some things and not informed them about others. Communication between the work force and the management took place rarely, if ever, and the implication, once again, was that management were not taking these people seriously. The attitude seemed to be that they had disabilities, so managers could treat them as they chose, which is not the way that any of us in this room would choose to be treated or would accept.

Those at the meeting went on to say that they had given loyal service and that the only time they had not been at work was when they were ill and had been signed off. They believed that the factory was making a profit, but they are sure that the premises have been put up for sale during the 90 days’ consultation. They also believed that the management had long ago stopped looking for contracts to encourage the work force to do different work or more of the same.

We should remember that the work force take apart IT systems. These days, every home has one or two such systems, as do schools and factories, and they are changed every two years. A vast amount of work is involved in taking IT systems apart, so the work force and I are wondering why there were not more contracts when everybody is saying that IT systems are an inevitable part of people’s lives, which everyone uses.

I could not understand why members of the work force believed that the factory was profitable if it was not, so I challenged the management, as hon. Members would expect me to. I got back a statement saying that the factory had lost £704,000 during 2006-07—that is the claim that the management are making. They also claim that there is no option but to close. My second question, therefore, is did the factory suddenly make a loss of £704,000? Was there no sign that things were not going well? Was the factory not getting sufficient work in? Was the working group not good enough? If so, were the management communicating that to the work force? The straight fact is that they did not. No one was warned or given the opportunity to put right something that was possibly wrong. Management have an awful lot to answer for.

Of course, I have pursued this issue not only with management, but with the Employment Service, because I am told that it is now on the case. In fact, it is not on the case. This is a 90-day consultation, so my 40 constituents who are employed at Remploy could find in November that the 90 days are up and there are no jobs. Is that the way we conduct our affairs? I do not think so. I do not think that that is the Labour way and I do not think that it is my hon. Friend the Minister’s way. Things have been botched, and Remploy has so much to answer for. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North has gone through the letters that he received, and I am now listening with serious concern to people who are employed at Remploy. The question that I am asking is, “Who has been saying what to whom?”

When I spoke to the Employment Service, it certainly wanted to reassure me. It said, “We will do a one-to-one with everybody in the factory when and if it closes. We will attempt to find out people’s talents and place people in employment.” I have no criticism of the Employment Service in that respect, but the fact of the matter is that it is not engaged, and we are into the 90 days. My people on the shop floor believe that the 90-day consultation is simply an academic exercise that will achieve nothing. It is not about what happens next or in the future, but about how the management can close the factory as quietly as they can get away with. Well, they must have heard today that that will not happen.

I lobby hard in the House for the blind and the partially sighted. I work hard with them and they are a great group of people with tremendous abilities. I work with the European regional development fund and the European single programme fund, and those I work with also have their own programme—the VISAGE programme. What approach is Remploy taking to get other, different people more involved in Remploy Stockton? I see no evidence of any approach.

I have had excellent discussions with the Minister, who knows that we are anxious about the proposals. I am well aware that we have spent more than £20 million with Remploy in an attempt to achieve profitable, good employment—indeed, just good employment—but not one additional person has entered Remploy’s doors over that period. None of my blind people is ever encouraged to be part of Remploy, and no one engages with them. We are spending money and we want to see better employment, but the fact is that we are not seeing any.

There are lots of questions, and I hope that the Minister will understand where we are coming from and give us answers. We are into new times and we have a new Government. We have an absolute commitment to treat people with dignity and to ensure that they enjoy equality. We want businesses to work and we want to ensure that management know that.

We are in new times, with a new determination. I ask the Minister whether there is a chance to pull back and see whether and how we can ensure that the management structure of Remploy will deliver, as its employees deliver. I think that we would then find that the House would be satisfied, and that the conclusions of that consultation and that approach would be acceptable to us all. Better still—better than all the hon. Members present being satisfied—the conclusions would be satisfactory to the people employed in Remploy today. That is our main concern.

I shall call as many hon. Members as I can fit into the time, but I urge them to be as brief as possible, because I want to give the Minister and the Front-Bench spokesmen time to speak as well.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Frank Cook), who, typically, has raised this issue on behalf of his constituents. I have known the man since I got into Parliament and I know how assiduous he has been in his duties, and about fighting for the people he represents. Well done to him again.

I have been a regular visitor over the years since my election at the Remploy factory in Jarrow, which has been identified for closure. It has always been a pleasure to visit. As has already been mentioned, there are no moans or whinges. Members of Parliament go to many factories and meet many people and employees. There is always a group in each place with a gripe or a grievance. Not in Remploy. It is a happy place, where the people get on with their job and do a good job for the community. It has been in existence for some 50 years now. The factory does similar work to two other plants in the country—at Derby and Longbenton—making textiles for car seats. There are 36 staff, who have great experience. They have a tremendous spread of skills, such is the diversification that they have had to undertake over the years to change jobs and become involved in other work.

When I have visited, I have met senior staff and management. When the review was announced I met, on the site, senior management who had come up from Manchester. I received the impression that they were not overly concerned. They said, “No one can promise you anything, but Jarrow can wash its face compared with many other plants in the country,” so there was not really a problem, and we relayed that to a mass meeting of the work force. I was honestly shocked when I found out that it was to be closed, because those were not the vibes or messages that I had been getting.

I thought about it. I thought that there must be a reason for what was happening. Was it because Jarrow did not have the disability statistics required for a Remploy plant? Certainly that was not true of the plant itself, because of the 36 people employed there 32 are registered disabled; and it was certainly not true of Jarrow and South Tyneside because more than 10,000 people there are registered with a disability. That box was not ticked. I wondered whether it was something about the economy. Was it that there was a booming jobs programme in Jarrow, so that those disabled people could easily be moved out into the wider economy and get jobs? That is nonsense. In South Tyneside we have nearly double the national average for unemployment. There are no places for those people to go. Another statistic is that four out of every 10 kids in South Tyneside have no parent in work.

Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that 50 per cent. of job placements made by Remploy have lasted less than six months because the individuals could not stay the pace in mainstream employment?

That is a relevant point, and the whole reason for starting up Remploy in the first place. I met Bob Warner, the chief executive, and he seemed to be a very sincere man. We discussed the review and my concerns, and I admit, having listened to my hon. Friend, that I was a bit soft-soaped as well: we would find jobs for the people at the factory and sort them out with other places.

I thought, “If Jarrow is way out of line with the rest of the country—if the subsidies going into Jarrow are ridiculous—maybe there is a point.” I said my ta-ra’s and farewells, and said, “Can you put it in writing?” which he did. When I got the letter it said

“we therefore plan to concentrate on the two larger factories and cease production at Jarrow.”

There was nothing in it about efficiencies, business plans or anything of the kind. There was no sense of that.

I got in touch with the trade unions, and among them no one is saying that one plant should stay open at the expense of another. The trade unions have been working with me because they want to expose the folly of the exercise that has gone on under the Remploy management.

On the trade unions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Frank Cook) mentioned the Back-Bench group’s independent investigation, and the charitable organisations that it is claimed support the proposals. Those organisations gave evidence at the inquiry—I was a member of the Back-Bench group—and, on persistent and robust questioning, they conceded that they had not consulted anyone in Remploy prior to pledging their support. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the trade unions who represent the Remploy work force, and not those organisations that claim to represent their views?

That is a very good point. We all look to the Remploy management to look after its employees, but once again it has been proved that in this country—in any society—it is the trade unions that look after working people, and not the management.

The trade unions said to me that if I wanted a case for Jarrow—and no one was saying that one plant should close or anything like that—the cost per year for each employee in Jarrow is £16,000. The two plants that are staying open at the expense of Jarrow have a higher cost per year. In the south, there are subsidies ranging up to £28,000 a year for employees in factories that are staying open under the closure programme. There are 28 factories that are not closing that have a higher cost per year than Jarrow. There are plants staying open that have even been proved by the unions to have a less skilled work force than the Jarrow one; such things happen in many plants when it has been necessary to move on, reskill and do different things. Also, in other plants, there have been significant managerial and staffing issues, which have been well publicised in the press.

No case has been made for the closure of the Jarrow plant on the basis of efficiency, disability figures or economics. We must ask what on earth is going on. Can we not, at this late stage, stop this whole silly programme, and get the Minister to put a halt to it? There is a new Government. We are now talking about open scrutiny and pre-legislative scrutiny. Why not put the matter to a Select Committee and let us look at it sensibly? It has to stop; and it has to stop here today.

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Frank Cook) on securing the debate and, more importantly, on comprehensively taking apart the Remploy board’s arguments for closure.

I want to concentrate my remarks in the few minutes that I have left on the Ashington factory in my constituency. The factory employs some 60 disabled people and sits in the centre of an area of relatively high unemployment. It is a former mining area, and, to be fair to the Government, they have invested substantial sums of money in the past 10 years, which are starting to make a difference. Unfortunately, however, the local economy is still quite fragile.

Most of the current jobs in Remploy are in manufacturing. The Ashington site manufactures wheelchairs, but the work force are flexible enough to be able to change that almost overnight, if required. We have lost an awful lot of manufacturing jobs recently: the Dewhurst factory, which is right next door to the Remploy factory, closed recently with the loss of 450 jobs; Lite-On, a company that manufactures power transformers, closed recently with the loss of 90 jobs; two chemical companies closed recently with the loss of 250 jobs; and a local foundry closed some six months ago with the loss of 157 manufacturing jobs. I could go on and on.

The rationale behind the closure of the Ashington factory was, apparently, that there were sufficient jobs in the local economy to accommodate all the people displaced from Remploy by the closure. An appraisal was supposed to have taken place before the closure announcement was made. I put it to the Minister that no such appraisal could possibly have taken place in the Ashington area. I checked the situation with the jobcentre at 2.15 pm. There are currently vacancies for three permanent manufacturing jobs and one temporary one in the whole of the Ashington jobcentre area, which covers the majority of south-east Northumberland. I would be interested to know what work the Remploy board carried out to assess whether jobs are available elsewhere. I genuinely support the Government in trying to assist disabled people into mainstream employment, but that should not be at the expense of the disabled people currently employed in the Remploy factory.

Following the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn), I should mention that there are above average levels of people on incapacity benefit in my area. Indeed, the number of people on incapacity benefit and disability benefit is 60 per cent. higher in my constituency than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Also, as was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), many of whose constituents work in the Remploy factory in Ashington, the factory covers a huge geographical area—indeed, it is the only Remploy factory in the whole of Northumberland. The rest of south-east Northumberland has exactly the same problems as my constituency.

The Remploy factory in Ashington is a centre of excellence for training. Ashington has developed an excellent learning centre in partnership with the learning and skills council. It has developed a training and conference suite with state-of-the-art information technology equipment. It is working closely with disabled employees, and 20 of them are in training for performance machine operations at national vocational qualification level 2. Eight employees are doing NVQ level 2 in literacy and numeracy through learndirect in order that they may move into IT training.

Remploy has entered into a contract with Business Link to provide 16 employees with a European computer driving licence course. That will be delivered by the GMB union on-site. Five employees have just returned from training with the Sunderland enterprise training association in highly skilled MIG and TIG—metal inert gas and tungsten inert gas—welding and completed their full safety appraisal in brazing and welding. There is a wide range of other specialist courses for employees: safety in relation to abrasive wheels, jig and fixture manufacture, robotic welding, NVQ level 3 in IT and much more. That training is even offered to the families of those employed in the Ashington factory.

We should not be closing the factory; we should be expanding it. It is a first-class facility. I am mindful of the time, but I ask the Minister to stop the closure programme and press for continued production at the Ashington factory. We should expand the training section on-site at Ashington and not allow it to close. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has said, people from the rest of Northumberland will not travel to a shop in Ashington. It is essential that we keep the site where it is and maintain the facility for the people who are employed there and for the other people who could use it. It would be a first-class centre for other disabled people in Northumberland to use as a training facility to move into employment.

Remploy’s York factory employs 52 people. I have visited it many times. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Frank Cook) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) said, Remploy is a family. People get more than just employment; they get companionship, friendship and social support.

I was very disappointed to learn in May that my local factory was scheduled for closure. Earlier, I had been told that the company might reduce the volume of manufacturing in York but replace it with other measures to find work for disabled people, and I support the new measures that Remploy proposes to take to get larger numbers of disabled people into mainstream employment. However, I do think that the Remploy management have misunderstood and underestimated the difficulties that existing employees will face in making the move. Many of them have worked in the factory for a long time. Some could possibly make do in mainstream employment, but they would lose the support and companionship that they have had for many years from their work colleagues in Remploy factories. If any of them do move into other employment, it is extremely important that they are not separated into ones and twos, but that contracts are negotiated with local employers to take five or six people, so that they go out together.

It is absolutely essential in a place such as York that manufacturing of some kind continues, because some people will be unable to move into mainstream employment and, although the company has offered a very generous package to maintain for life the salary that they currently receive, if people do not have a job to go for, they do not have a meaningful life ahead of them.

Last August, when it was clear that some change was in the wind in Remploy, I asked for Remploy to meet City of York council and to examine the possibility of finding alternative premises for a manufacturing base for disabled people in York. I still urge them to do that. City of York council has its own factory for disabled people in York. Why does not Remploy go into partnership with it, buy a 50 per cent. stake and provide opportunities to work in a similar environment for Remploy workers who cannot move into mainstream employment?

I am very grateful to you, Mrs. Anderson, for giving me a few minutes in which to speak before the winding-up speeches at the end of the debate. I have no time to say more, but I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider what will happen to those for whom mainstream employment is not a realistic option.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for keeping his contribution brief. I have now been able to call all those who put in a request to speak. I am sorry, but we must move on to the speeches by those on the Front Benches.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Frank Cook) on securing the debate. He and other hon. Members spoke with great passion and feeling on what is a very important issue. All of us must be conscious that we are talking about the lives and employment of a considerable number of people—more than 2,500 disabled people, whose life chances and prospects are nowhere near as great as those of other members of society. We must be conscious that in any community, and particularly in some of the communities that we have heard about this afternoon, any jobs are very hard to find and to replace. I understand that finding mainstream employment for disabled people, independent living and equality are ideals worth fighting for and working towards. However, that should not and cannot be used as an excuse to close factories where many people—I am told that half the people are over 50—have worked for many years.

I was very disappointed when I heard the hon. Member for Stockton, North speak about the lack of proper consultation and the fact that a proper business case has not been presented to show what will happen to Remploy over the next few years. I hope that the Minister can answer that. I want Remploy to change and develop, not only for current employees but for future employees. I would like it to develop and provide training opportunities for many more disabled people. However, it cannot do that if an area such as the north-east, where there is greater than average unemployment, faces such large-scale closures.

We have to be conscious of what the way forward is. I will not speak for long, because I think that it is more important that we listen to the Minister, but I believe that there can be a way forward that is constructive and that moves Remploy into spending the resources that the Government say are available. If, as the hon. Member for Stockton, North says, the unions have a plan, that should be the plan that we follow.

I hope that the Minister will take account of hon. Members’ comments and come up with a plan that will move Remploy forward and ensure that its disabled employees, many of whom have been there for many years and have little chance of gaining other meaningful employment, particularly in the manufacturing sector, can have a future.

It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mrs. Anderson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Frank Cook) on securing the debate. He mentioned three previous Westminster Hall debates that he secured; I well remember the first, on police reorganisation, in which I spoke, and I congratulate him on the success that it had in changing Government policy. I fear that he will be less happy with my remarks today. All hon. Members have spoken with considerable passion and have shown their local knowledge about their constituents who are employed by Remploy. I shall try to keep my remarks relatively brief to allow the Minister to deal with the many specific points that Members have raised.

I am familiar with these issues, as I have a Remploy factory in my constituency, albeit a small one, and I have been engaging with the Remploy management. My experience has been different from those of other hon. Members, as I have found the management to be very open and transparent. My local factory was slated for closure, but a local solution has been found to place its employees with another organisation that will take over the factory and secure their jobs. Local managers have worked incredibly hard on that, but I am aware that in other parts of the country, particularly those with larger facilities, that sort of solution might not be possible.

We support the principle of reform. The Government have had the challenge of spending a limited amount of money on trying to secure the move of more disabled employees into mainstream employment. However, while we support the principle, we have some questions for the Minister, and I hope that she will address them in her remarks as well as dealing with specifics.

Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and I met the chief executive of Remploy to discuss some of these issues before today’s debate. It would be helpful if the Minister set out the age profile of the Remploy employees who are affected and the types of disabilities that they have, and compared them to those whom Remploy has successfully placed in mainstream employment. Members have voiced their concerns about whether the employees who would be affected by the proposed closures could be found jobs in mainstream employment. Remploy has guaranteed their terms and conditions, including their final salary pension schemes, and that is welcome, but it is important that in addition to those financial security guarantees they have meaningful, valued work to do rather than just receiving payments. I know that that is also important to the Minister. It would be helpful if she outlined for those employees who might be affected by closure what will happen if they cannot be placed in mainstream employment. What possible solutions do she and Remploy envisage for their future employment if it is not to be in a commercial, mainstream organisation?

One or two Members asked about opportunities for using public procurement in terms of new business opportunities. The trade unions have also raised that issue and written to all Members. Will the Minister touch on that point? In the public sector, much is spent on people rather than on purchasing services, so I am not sure, at first glance, how significant a business opportunity that is. However, I want to make sure that both Remploy and the Minister have considered it, just to check that every avenue is being investigated.

Many hon. Members mentioned the consultation process that is under way, which is due to finish in August. Final proposals will then go from Remploy to the Minister in early September. What are the Minister’s plans for making a final decision? Will it be done before the House returns in October, or does she plan to wait until we are back to announce it to the House?

The hon. Member for Stockton, North mentioned our veterans, particularly those who have served in current conflicts, and I agree with some of his comments in that regard. In my previous role as the shadow Minister for Veterans, I had the opportunity to visit such young men at Selly Oak and Headley Court. I met and talked to some very young men who have been tremendously damaged in serving our country, and the spirit and courage in their characters was truly inspirational. I just wanted to make those points, given that the hon. Gentleman had raised the issue. With that, I draw my comments to a close to allow the Minister to deal with the wide-ranging issues that have been raised.

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Frank Cook) on securing his third debate in Westminster Hall on an issue that is important to us all. I do not declare an interest, as such, but I, too, have a Remploy factory in my constituency. Like many hon. Members present, I am a frequent visitor to my local factory and I know the level of skill and commitment among the work force and management there.

It is worth remembering why Remploy was established after the second world war. As my hon. Friend reminded us, it was set up to provide rehabilitation for injured servicemen and women. The aim was to provide development and training through work to enable disabled workers to return to mainstream employment. It was not necessarily meant to be a place of permanent employment for those servicemen and women, who, with the commitment that they brought from the second world war, wanted to get back into mainstream employment. Today, Remploy has 83 sites and employs about 5,000 disabled people across a range of sectors, including textiles, the manufacture of office furniture, bookbinding and IT work. However, the progression from Remploy factories into mainstream employment is very low: only 19 people made that progression last year. If we are to reflect on Remploy’s ethic, we must consider what is happening.

In the past 60 years, the nature of the Remploy factory has changed very little in the face of globalisation, the growth of the service sector and other impacts on the economy. We must consider the changes that the combination of new technology and our having the most far-reaching disability rights legislation in Europe have made to the lives of disabled people. At the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), I have visited some of the voluntary organisations that she supports, such as Action for Blind People, and seen how technology has changed the way that many blind people work in the mainstream. They can now work in a way that was not envisaged many years ago. I see that my hon. Friend is nodding in agreement.

For the past two years, not just since May, we have been engaged in a discussion about how to modernise Remploy, taking into account that we want to get more disabled people into employment and that more disabled people want to be in employment. We are also considering how to manage that expectation and how to use the undoubted skills of Remploy to support that ambition. We talk about Remploy as if it is only about the factory network, but it is not. Some 5,000 people are employed in Remploy factories, but nearly another 5,000 people are supported by Remploy out in mainstream employment—they are placed there year in, year out.

I should like to clarify the situation. A misinterpretation has perhaps been given that somehow the people in mainstream employment are there only for a few weeks or a few months at a time. In fact, Remploy has a good record of sustaining people in mainstream employment. Given that we have touched on the figures, I should say that we are talking about in excess of three years in mainstream employment, and that is not a bad record. We are not talking about the 40 years of the Remploy factory, but the employment prospects and employment profile of disabled people are changing, in much the same way as the employment of non-disabled people is.

I must gently say to colleagues that disabled people have the same ambitions and aspirations as non-disabled people: they want to be able to choose what they want to do. If I were a disabled person in Stirling and I had an opportunity to go to Remploy, as my only option I would have to want to be a machinist. That is a noble profession, as I appreciate when I see people, mainly women, in my Remploy factory doing sophisticated pieces of sewing to make chemical suits and protection suits for police and our service personnel, but what if I did not want to be a machinist and I wanted to do something else? The only option in the Remploy complex in my area—I am sure that we could examine every single other area—in some ways limits the opportunities for disabled people, and that is why we need to modernise.

The ambitions and aspirations of disabled people have changed dramatically because of some of the fantastic things that this Government have done. We have opened up opportunities, opened up a rights agenda and opened up employment, and we have supported disabled people in employment.

rose—

I shall take an intervention, given that my hon. Friend initiated the debate, but I want to reply properly to the points made in it.

I just want the Minister to know that I do not think that anybody present would have any argument or dispute with what is being said. We would all agree fully with the claims that are being made. What we need to get out of today is whether she is prepared to ensure that the right kind of consultation is conducted before the end of consultation period—it must be clear, transparent and open, everything must be laid on the table and a business case must be expressed.

I thank my hon. Friend for giving me that hook to move on in my contribution. The consultation on Remploy, the discussion with colleagues in the House and the way in which we have conducted the business of the modernisation of Remploy have all been done in open and transparent way.

Colleagues present were at previous meetings, in which I was the Minister, when we presented the situation that we were facing with Remploy. This is not about a budget cut, because we are maintaining Remploy’s budget. Some £115 million a year, times five over the period—a guarantee of £555 million, or some half a billion pounds—will go to support Remploy. We put all of that and the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on the table for our colleagues. We put the report on the website so that there was no doubt that when that independent assessment was conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers and Dr. Stephen Duckworth, who is an independent disability employment adviser, everyone was well aware of the challenges.

My hon. Friend mentioned that he felt that the trade unions have not perhaps had the opportunity to engage in the issue. I hope that he will accept the comments that I am about to make. Since last July, when I made a statement to the House, there have been 10 meetings of the joint working party to discuss the modernisation plans. Nothing was on the table and open discussion with our trade union colleagues—with the consortium—took place on 10 separate occasions.

Separately, the company has funded the unions’ own meetings, which have run to a minimum of nine. Remploy has also paid Grant Thornton to support the trade unions—about £100,000 was involved in that. The company has provided substantial extra data every time that they have been requested by the trade union consortium, except data that are personal and commercially confidential. Since 22 May, formal consultation meetings have taken place. There have been weekly meetings between Remploy and the trade unions—I believe that one is taking place as we sit here today.

I believe that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) mentioned that he had met the chairman of Remploy, although it might have been my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) who said that. The chairman of Remploy has had meetings with all the general secretaries of the Remploy trade unions, and the trade unions gave two presentations to the board—again, things are being done in an open and transparent way. The chairman met the leaders of the trade union consortium, Phil Davies and Jennie Formby, prior to the announcement on 22 May.

The fact that there is not a balance sheet for factories has been highlighted, but Remploy has given all the relevant financial information and, as I have said, meetings are held on a weekly basis. It has given the profit and loss accounts for factories and the balance sheet for businesses. I hope that colleagues will recognise that within one Remploy factory there may be different businesses; they are not all doing the same thing.

I have a few minutes left to talk about a complex subject, one that has generated a great deal of anguish among Remploy workers. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for City of York mentioned the package that has been put together to support Remploy employees if the proposals are accepted—these are currently only proposals presented by the board. One of the reasons why it is difficult to get local solutions is that we need to get a discussion going about the proposals. We must start to engage, so that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) can have highlighted some of the issues in his area, and so that the powerful case on the training facilities that Remploy can offer, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy), can be made as part of the modernisation programme.

I have said on other occasions in this House that I hope that hon. Members will engage with the consultation, but I also make a plea to them. I see more trade union officials or former trade union officials in this Chamber than one could shake a stick at, especially compared with most other debates in this House. Those colleagues know that when one enters a negotiation, one goes in to discuss things. If we are to have a meaningful consultation and negotiation, I ask us all to encourage that discussion. We have to modernise Remploy, but we are not cutting the budget. Indeed, the Secretary of State has said that he will give more money to modernise Remploy. We need to modernise it so that we can get far more disabled people into work. I hope that we should all be able to take some pride in that.

Mr. Jim Devine (Livingston) (Lab): It is a great honour and a privilege to be an elected MP, but with that privilege come responsibilities and rights. One of those responsibilities is that we should be measured in our contributions when we are talking about constituency issues or companies that are causing concern. I shall talk about Greenbelt Group Ltd, which is a discreditable building company whose performance and behaviour has been a disgrace.

As you are aware, Mrs. Anderson, as part of the planning process, developers must provide open spaces on new estates and show that plans are in place for the long-term care of those estates. In the past, open spaces were managed by local authorities, but in recent years the onus for maintaining such areas has fallen on developers. They have tended to offload that responsibility in one of two ways. They have transferred ownership of the land and responsibility for maintaining it either to the local authority, a democratically elected body, or to the home owners. Home owners have been obliged to appoint a factor; if the factor failed, they could be fired and another company could be appointed. Both arrangements gave home owners control, but a worrying new trend is emerging, and urgent action is needed to avert a crisis that could affect tens of thousands of home owners throughout the UK.

I found out this week that some of my constituents in Loanhead are having similar problems. Will my hon. Friend discuss with me after this debate how best I can help my constituents?

I shall be delighted to help my hon. Friend to deal with the company and its performance and behaviour.

Some major developers, such as Bryant Homes, Gladedale, Persimmon, and Wimpey, are transferring ownership of open spaces and the sole right to manage them to a single private provider: Greenbelt Group Ltd. Developers are awarding Greenbelt the exclusive right for all time to charge home owners for managing open spaces on new estates. Home owners are bound by conditions in the title deeds to pay the company an annual fee for maintaining open spaces on estates. In some cases, that payment is nearly £400 a year. In return, Greenbelt is obliged to look after open spaces to the standards outlined in the title deeds. However, emerging evidence shows that the company is failing to meet its obligations on many estates.

Greenbelt claims to manage various estates throughout the UK—I shall return to the number—but at least 11 are in my constituency, and constituents on every one of those estates are reporting problems. They tell me that Greenbelt continually fails to carry out maintenance work to the standard outlined in the title deeds. Greenbelt is extremely difficult to engage with, and complaints have been dismissed or ignored. The company’s management practices are poor.

Earlier this week, my office was contacted by a company purporting to represent Greenbelt following my inquiries to determine whether Greenbelt had any contracts in my constituency. Although I did not take the call personally, I got the impression from my staff member that the company representing Greenbelt accepted that its communication standards had fallen woefully short in the past, but said that it was taking steps to address the problem. Is that the experience of my hon. Friend and his constituents?

That is a helpful contribution. When we are in court, I hope that I can use my hon. Friend as a witness.

The possibility of ending up in court is intriguing. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members may be aware that until this week I had two issues with Greenbelt in my constituency, and through my hon. Friend’s actions I understand that I now have three. In association with what he has just said, does he agree that there is no clear and solid working relationship between Greenbelt and residents? Residents are often confused, irrespective of what the title deeds say. Who looks at title deeds every week or every year? Residents are confused about who is responsible for green spaces, and in some instances, the local authority is also confused.

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, and I want to develop that argument. Part of Greenbelt’s success has been in getting away without being highlighted. People have not been sure who is in control of and provides the factoring for open spaces.

In my constituency, play parks are badly maintained, with dangerous objects such as broken glass, litter, large fallen trees, unfenced drainage ponds and so on in areas used by children. Many people in my constituency are withholding payment for non-delivery, and they have received threatening letters. I shall return to that, because it could be part of a court case. The company is systematically attempting to extract payment for services not rendered, and there are serious questions to answer about its practices and how much money it has obtained in that way.

Far and away the biggest complaint from home owners is that they cannot escape from that failing provider. The act of buying a home is locking people inescapably into a monopoly contract with a company, which contradicts the principles of competition and contractual and consumer law in this country.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I also have difficulties with the company in Bridge of Weir in my constituency where my constituents have suffered that sort of harassment. The fundamental problem is the company’s lack of accountability, and the way in which prices are negotiated. People are happy to pay for the service if they can see what it is and what the charge is. As I understand it, the charges are non-negotiable.

My hon. Friend makes a relevant point. People are prepared to pay for the service, but they are paying up to £400 and not receiving a service. It is striking that one of his constituents on one of Greenbelt’s estates received a letter on 12 July stating that they will not have to pay because of the disrepair of the estate, but that on 13 July another resident on the same estate was told that they must pay up. The company does not seem to know what it is doing.

Does my hon. Friend agree that companies such as Greenbelt should be obliged by legislation to provide an annual report to individual estates stating what it has done this year and what it is planning to do next year, so that residents have an idea of where the money is being spent, if indeed it is being spent?

That is an interesting point. I shall refer to the publicity on Greenbelt’s website and its annual report later, when I shall return to my hon. Friend’s point.

rose—

This like the black plague. I happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.

I, too, have problems with Greenbelt in my constituency, which has many new housing estates. I have been trying to deal with Greenbelt on a case-by-case basis and to get it to live up to its promises. Throughout, I have heard many commitments about communication which have never been followed through.

Today, I had a report from one of the estates saying that two children have been injured during the past week by a faulty piece of equipment that had been poorly maintained by Greenbelt. Does the hon. Gentleman think that councils should be encouraged to take back responsibility for the management of such estates, as well as new estates?

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who will be very helpful when we get to court, because Greenbelt is denying that any problems exist.

I want to speak about Greenbelt’s chief executive. At two public meetings in my constituency recently, two directors of the company turned up—Alex Middleton and Richard Taylor. Alex Middleton was an interesting character. He did not like the fact that I described his company publicly as “Farepak for home owners”, and he said that it was unacceptable for me to speak in the media or to raise the issue in this place. I had to explain to him that that was part of my job as a Member of Parliament.

I have had the privilege of working with my hon. Friend for a number of years and have always felt that he acted in an honourable manner, but I have received correspondence from Greenbelt which questions his balance. It says clearly that the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend contains a number of gross inaccuracies—for example, he said that Greenbelt serves 50,000 homes when it serves just over 18,000; he said that it holds 750 developments when it has only 241; he said that the cost for each property is about £180 when it is only £100. Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that Greenbelt says that he is giving inaccurate information not only to his constituents but to the Members of this House who supported his early-day motion?

Coincidentally, I just happen to have Greenbelt’s annual report. On the back are the statistics:

“Currently managing open space on behalf of 20,000 homeowners…A further 30,000 are contracted”.

At the school that I went to, 20,000 and 30,000 made 50,000. Greenbelt goes on to say that it is

“responsible for approximately 750 development sites throughout the UK”.

What is going on is a bullying strategy, which I will describe if hon. Members let me continue.

Alex Middleton made various comments telling me what I could and could not do. That is serious. At a public meeting, he said that the company had had problems with its subcontractors. In fact, this week’s Scotland on Sunday reported that one of the company’s directors said that there had been problems

“on some estates and that some subcontractors hired to carry out work had ‘not been up to scratch’.”

One might think that that is perfectly fair and reasonable—until one looks at the directorships held by Greenbelt directors. Alex Middleton holds 15, in Greenbelt Group Ltd, Greenbelt Energy Ltd and other companies. Greenbelt’s main subcontractor is MG Contracting Ltd. Guess who the director of MG Contracting Ltd is? [Hon. Members: “Alex Middleton.”] Quite correct.

The other director of Greenbelt is Anthony Burton. He holds 21 directorships, including various Greenbelt directorships. What do we find among them? MG Contracting Ltd. He is a director—a Greenbelt company is subcontracting to a company in which its directors hold shares. Mr. Richard Taylor holds 19 directorships—again, Greenbelt this and Greenbelt that. Guess what is among them? MG Contracting. The company clearly is Farepak for home owners.

I should like to address the serious bullying. One of my constituents, Paula Hoogerbrugge, set up a support group to help people affected by Greenbelt. She has now been in touch with more than 30 estates throughout the United Kingdom, from Inverness—the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) wished to be here but, sadly, could not owing to other commitments—right down to Leeds. It is exactly the same story articulated by other hon. Members—money charged and service not given, threatening letters sent and the like.

What did Greenbelt do in response? First, it had its solicitors write to me:

“We are writing to you at this stage to draw these matters to your attention. You will no doubt give careful consideration to any comments which are made in relation to our clients and ensure that they are properly founded in fact.”

That was on 11 July. They also wrote to Paula. I e-mailed them back and told them to withdraw their bullying letter to my constituent or I would raise the matter in the House of Commons. I mentioned the company during business questions on 12 July. Greenbelt then wrote to the Mr. Speaker in a clear attempt to silence me.

As they say in my part of the country, I am big and ugly enough to take on that sort of threat. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Unanimous applause. But it is totally unacceptable to write a similar letter to my constituent. The letter is addressed to Paula and others—I am clearly one of the others—and complains about her press release. I place on record that not only did I see the press release in advance, but I amended it. I will address each of the allegations that Greenbelt made about Paula.

The letter reads:

“We are instructed by Greenbelt Group Ltd. We have been given sight of a press release which bears to be prepared and presented by you entitled ‘West Lothian politicians win praise for efforts to tackle land maintenance company’. The press release contains a number of statements and notes for editors. Our clients are concerned by a number of claims... Taken individually or together, they are clearly intended to damage the reputation and goodwill”

of the company.

“It is our understanding that you have distributed this press release. The gravity of this matter should not be underestimated. It is also clear that anyone who repeats any information which is not true or defamatory will also repeat the defamation complained of and will also be liable in damages.

The following examples have been extracted from your press release, although they do not represent all of the criticisms or complaints which our clients have in relation to your press release.

You allege that our clients are ‘causing problems for thousands of landowners’.”

We know that there are problems. There are problems in Inverness, Fife and right down to Leeds. The letter continues:

“You are asked to substantiate”

the problems

“and to identify the ‘thousands of home owners’ to whom you make reference.

It is stated in terms that Fergus Ewing”,

a Scottish Executive Minister,

“is to investigate the company. That is not correct. Mr. Ewing is not carrying out an investigation into Greenbelt. This statement clearly seeks to imply some form of parliamentary or other investigation, which is not true.”

Well, I have news for them. Here we are in Parliament, and today I wrote to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs to say that it should investigate the matter.

Greenbelt’s solicitors continue:

“You state that our client takes ownership”

of land. The letter says that that is not correct, but it is absolute nonsense. That is exactly what Greenbelt does.

“Your press release makes reference to what you describe as an appalling level of service. This is not correct. Our clients have a significant level of communication”.

We just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. McGovern) that Greenbelt admitted to him that it had only improved it, and Greenbelt’s own director said in this week’s Scotland on Sunday that

“in the past its communications with its customers had not been ‘of the best’”,

and that improvements were now being made.

The solicitor’s letter continues:

“Your press release states that our clients are responsible for the management of 600 sites, which is factually incorrect. They manage 241 sites.”

If Greenbelt manages 241 sites, why is it economical with the truth in its own report?

“You state that these 600 sites involve 36,000 residents… They involve 20,000 residents. These are wildly misleading statements and either are made without making the most basic checks on the factual situation or are made recklessly in an attempt to support or otherwise sensationalise an ill-founded set of allegations.

The press release further states that our clients ignore the bulk of their contractual obligations.”

We have heard from hon. Members that that is exactly the problem with the company, yet it says that that is not the case. The letter goes on:

“The press release goes on to state that our clients perform the bare minimum”.

I have heard constituents say at public meetings that they have been trying to contact the company for six years and have been ignored. A constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) sent Greenbelt recorded delivery letters and eventually cut a bunch of weeds and went down to the head office. It is unbelievable. The letter continues:

“Furthermore, the press release goes on to state that the practices adopt by our clients are so poor”

that they pose risks to children and fire hazards. I welcomed the intervention of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie), because it showed that that is true.

The letter goes on:

“Finally, you make the allegation that our clients routinely send letters to non-paying customers telling them that their name will be added to a credit blacklist.”

I have dozens of those letters here. The lawyers—I am sure that they are very good lawyers—go on to say:

“All of the above, either individually or taken together, constitute a serious and concerted attack on our clients...The gravity of this matter should not be underestimated by you. It is recommended you consult solicitors without further delay, and that you meantime desist from further utterances, whether written or spoken, where the intended effect is to further damage the reputation of those we represent.”

That is outrageous. I was involved in the press release.

Let me tell hon. Members where the company crossed the line. Paula is a single mum who works for BT. The company’s representatives contacted her employers behind her back in a clear attempt to have her either silenced or sacked. That is despicable bullying behaviour, which is why I am pleased to be here to condemn that group and its behaviour and to ensure that we consider appropriate legislation to rectify the situation.

It is totally unacceptable that a company can have a monopoly. Home owners cannot sack the company. Tomorrow, I shall write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and to its English equivalent. I shall include in my letter the contributions from hon. Members in this debate and the file that we have on the company. I shall ask local authorities whether they really want to deal with a company that behaves in such a despicable manner.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine), not only on securing this debate, but on the passionate way in which he has expressed his concerns on behalf of his constituents, not only today, but in business questions, in a question to the Prime Minister and elsewhere. His constituents can be assured that, in him, they have a true fighter for their cause.

The maintenance of open spaces and housing developments is an important issue, not only for the individual residents concerned, but for the environment. The deterioration of such open space has a detrimental effect both on the environment and on the value of individual homes.

According to my hon. Friend and to the company’s report, which is where I got my information, the Greenbelt Group is involved in some 750 developments involving around 50,000 homes in the United Kingdom. Its activities, whether positive or negative, therefore impact on a large number of people in a number of ways, not least of which is the cost to individual home owners who have to pay for the upkeep of the open spaces. As my hon. Friend pointed out, those costs might well run into hundreds or thousands of pounds. He said that some of his constituents are being asked for up to £400 to pay for such maintenance. Companies that take on such work have an important role to play in the preservation of the quality of life and the value of the assets of the home owners on the estates. Where that relationship breaks down, a serious problem occurs.

My hon. Friend described how his constituents see the Greenbelt Group charging home owners for services that it either does not provide or provides very poorly. He went on, amusingly and wittily, to show that there are several limited companies within the group, which I understand are all registered in Scotland. I do not know whether he has had time to look at the website of the Greenbelt Group, which describes the company as

“the only UK-wide company that owns and manages greenbelt land formed as part of new housing developments”,

which

“is now caring for more than 750 locations across the country. Its team of landscape professionals are experienced in managing environmental, horticultural, forestry, wildlife, drainage, play and leisure facilities. Greenbelt provides tailored plans for each location, giving customers the reassurance that their shared landscapes are managed and maintained in a way that will sustain the local environment, its attractiveness and the marketability of their area. Planning guidelines, new legislation and increasing concern to protect sensitive areas require local authorities to ensure that residential and commercial landscapes are properly planned, managed and maintained in a financially sustainable way. Greenbelt works actively with residential and commercial developers, to create landscapes that look good and suit local conditions. Greenbelt aims to grow its business and expand its range of services across the UK by working closely with customers, planners, developers and local communities.”

I appreciate that that is probably not the language that my hon. Friend or his constituents would use, but it is the language that the Greenbelt Group uses on its website. As another avenue down which he could take his campaign, he may want to consider whether that is in breach of the rules of the Advertising Standards Authority.

In response to the comments that my hon. Friend made about the lawyer’s letter to his constituent Paula, I say that those are serious allegations. His constituent is clearly a robust person, because she has been campaigning on the issue, but I can perfectly understand why she might be very concerned indeed about receiving such a letter. I suggest to him that he and his constituent take legal advice from a law centre or other such organisation to ensure that she is properly represented when responding to that level of intimidation, as he called it.

This issue clearly has particular impact in Scotland. I have been told that the Scottish Executive are looking into it, and that Fergus Ewing, Scotland’s Minister for Community Safety, is taking up the matter. I hope that that is true. If it is not, I hope that my hon. Friend will ensure that Mr. Ewing takes forward the issue, because it has to be dealt with within the Scottish Executive. I also gently suggest to my hon. Friend that, when he is taking up the matter with the Scottish Executive, he might suggest to them that they look to England and Wales, where a better policy has been developed.

A few months ago, I dealt with claims management during the passage of what was to become the Compensation Act 2006. In that area, Scotland’s system was better than that in England and Wales. On this issue, in a similar situation, exactly the reverse applies. In England and Wales, we now have commonhold, which is called the third way. It ensures that the community of owners on the estate owns the common parts and arranges for their maintenance. The division of ownership between home owners and the management company is therefore avoided. That system has not yet been widely adopted in England and Wales, but it represents a long-term solution to the problems of the maintenance of common facilities and open space on freehold estates. That is one of the reasons why the Government want to encourage its use.

Commonhold involves the creation of a limited company known as a commonhold association, so it might not suit some of the smaller estates. Nevertheless, I hope that my hon. Friend will consider whether it could be adopted in Scotland and that, if the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs decides to investigate the case, it might consider including that scheme in the recommendations that it makes.

I recommend that, if the Scottish Affairs Committee looks into the matter, it also has discussions with Scottish Building Federation contractors, who give out the contracts when houses are to be built. Massive house building is taking place throughout Scotland, including in Midlothian. One of the issues that that has raised is the need for discussions with the federation, so that it can consider other opportunities for giving out contracts.

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I hope that the Scottish Affairs Committee takes up that suggestion.

I should briefly like to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston that publicity, through TV and the media, is always a good way of bringing people to account. As well as going to the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Affairs Committee, I suggest that he might use the media and some of the consumer programmes on TV—

Order. We must move on to the next debate.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an important issue. I was inspired to seek this debate following the disappointing response that I received from the Prime Minister during Question Time a few weeks ago. In a moment, I shall explain why I believe that it was disappointing and why I believe that the Government have a moral duty to introduce a step change in the support provided to such victims of state action.

I understand that the responsibility for miscarriage of justice victims in Scotland lies primarily with the Scottish Executive, and I shall also take the issue up directly with them. However, I am raising the issue in this Chamber because I believe that the situation in the rest of the UK is equally unacceptable and that there should probably be joint action between the devolved Administrations of the UK and the UK Government.

Victims of miscarriages of justice are victims; just because they are victims of the state does not make them any less so. Yet the state and the public often consider them, at least in private, still guilty: “No smoke without fire,” is often said. Why do we have such faith in the justice system when it finds people guilty, but not when it finds them innocent? Those are the fundamentals that result in the innocent being dumped in the street after years of state incarceration—no apology, little support and years upon years before they receive compensation.

My interest in after-care support was sparked by my constituent Steven Johnston, who was released from prison last year after 10 years behind bars. His murder conviction was quashed. Since then, despite some assistance from the council, he has received no specialist support, even though it is clear that he needs it. Such lack of support is not confined to Scotland. Gareth Pierce, the solicitor who represented the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six defendants, said:

“They come out with no money and no counselling. They have no references, it is difficult to open a bank account, you can’t get a mortgage. They have no GP. You don’t belong.”

Judith Ward, wrongly convicted of the M62 coach bombing, was refused a £5,000 bank loan while she waited for an interim compensation payment. Michael Hickey, one of the freed Bridgewater Three, told a court that he had stolen a ring from a Birmingham jeweller to highlight his case. He said:

“I did it to say I’ve been given no money, nowhere to live, what am I supposed to do?”

Baroness Kennedy, who sits on the Government Benches in another place, described the situation as a “national disgrace”. Adrian Grounds, senior lecturer in forensic psychiatry at Cambridge university’s institute of criminology, is an authority on this issue. He has found that the wrongly convicted and their families commonly face psychological difficulties and problems of adjustment that are severe, bewildering and unexpected. For years, the wrongly convicted fight for freedom, but when it comes they are ill prepared. The outside world does not stop going round the sun while they are in prison. Parents, relatives and friends die—children grow up, people move on. To us, that sense of loss is often subtle, but to them it is shattering.

Victims often find it difficult to cope with day-to-day tasks such as sharing a home, shopping and even crossing the road. They feel stigmatised by neighbours and police. Even though they have been released, they are often regarded with suspicion. They feel bitterness at the fact that those who originally condemned them are now their neighbours. Their families feel it too; they become accustomed to the battle to release their loved ones, but after years without them they find it difficult to adjust to having them back in what has become their own home. The emotional experience of release is too much for many families—in fact, it is overwhelming. The families and victims feel that they are strangers to one another.

Adrian Grounds’s study of the victims of miscarriages of justice found that psychiatric and psychological problems were common among them. Many of the wrongly convicted were described by friends and families as changed in personality. They became more withdrawn, mistrustful and estranged, and difficult to live with. Some had post-traumatic stress disorder, with symptoms such as nightmares and anxiety attacks relating to their prison experiences. Long-standing depression was common among them, and some used alcohol or drugs to try to reduce their feelings of distress.

Often the enormity of their personal losses was impossible to face and bear. In addition, some were consumed by anger and bitterness because it was impossible to accept the legitimacy of what had happened. There had usually been no apology, and those at fault in the prosecution had not been brought to justice. Dr. Grounds has examined Gerry Conlon of the Guildford Four and four members of the Birmingham Six. He found that they were suffering from persistent and disabling post-traumatic stress syndromes. They had irreversibly changed, and their difficulties in coping were similar to those described in clinical studies of war veterans. I am grateful for the work of Dr. Grounds and others; they have provided a great service to such victims—and also to the country, as it seeks an appropriate form of justice and support.

What form of support should be provided? I have four suggestions. First, before victims are released, they need information about the typical emotional and practical problems that can arise and about sources of advice and support.

Secondly, we need to set up a retreat, which victims could immediately access on release to give them time to acclimatise, obtain practical and professional help, and make arrangements for housing, health care and benefits. Owing to the relatively small numbers involved in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, perhaps there is an opportunity for the devolved Administrations and the UK Government to come together to fund such a place. In Scotland, the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation, or MOJO, has been campaigning to establish such a retreat to provide a residential base, when needed, for released, wrongfully convicted prisoners.

Thirdly, in the medium to long term the victims need ongoing support. Most professionals working in mental health services have little or no experience of work with wrongly convicted people and may therefore have difficulty in recognising and properly appreciating their complex problems. Furthermore, those who have been wrongly convicted may have had bad experiences of psychiatric and psychological professionals in prison, and are likely to be generally mistrustful of the state authorities that have let them down. They may be particularly sensitive to any indication by a clinician that their experience is not understood. Those seeking help from doctors and local mental health services quickly become disillusioned because they feel that they have been patronised, or treated dismissively or inappropriately.

We need a UK-wide network of psychiatric specialists who are able to focus on the needs of that small but significant group of people. Such specialists must be fully funded and connected with local health and mental health professionals so that their service can be easily accessed. I suppose that it would be a bit like a managed clinical network, but it would need adequate funding to ensure that no barriers were put in the way of providing the service to victims, and that it did not rely only on the good will of those health professionals.

Fourthly, we need support for the families of the victims, as they often end up supporting many of the victims and having to cope with the new circumstance. In many ways, they will be the carers. They will need support to develop coping and caring mechanisms.

At this point, I want to praise the work of MOJO and MOJO Scotland, which I have already mentioned. They are passionate and caring. MOJO Scotland receives about £50,000 a year from the Scottish Executive to establish a helpline. I acknowledge that the Home Office also funds a small service run by the royal courts of justice citizens advice bureau in London to provide initial help and advice about housing and benefits after release. That is very welcome, but it is simply insufficient. The UK Government and the devolved Administrations should be joining forces to fund a retreat. The effort by MOJO Scotland to set up such a retreat is supported by a range of well-respected lawyers who have directly helped miscarriage of justice victims. Baroness Kennedy said:

“I know from my own clients who have walked free that the ordeal is not often over when they win an appeal. They find it so hard to rebuild their lives…It is such an important project.”

Gareth Pierce wrote:

“Mojo is tackling, single-handedly, what should have been and should be a government responsibility.”

The hon. Gentleman started by saying that his remarks were not applicable equally across the whole UK, because it was the Scottish experience that he was talking about. Can he tell me whether things are happening in England to support victims that are better than in Scotland, and vice versa?

I have no evidence to suggest that things are any different north and south of the border. I actually think that the situation in Scotland is replicated elsewhere. Scotland has its own helpline, as does London, but I do not believe that there are any significant differences in the support provided for victims of miscarriages of justice, and that is what I want the Minister to address.

Michael Mansfield, QC, said that the fundraising scheme for the retreat was essential and Dr. Adrian Grounds, whom I referred to earlier, has also written to MOJO to give his support.

Throughout the UK, guilty inmates undergo a programme that includes phased release, counselling and assistance with employment, housing and benefits. Other than that provided by MOJO Scotland and the royal courts of justice citizens advice bureau, there is no other support for miscarriage of justice victims. The guilty often get better treatment than the innocent. So what has been the Government’s response?

In 1998, the Home Secretary at the time, now the Secretary of State for Justice, rejected a call from the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the former Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, for special measures to assist in the care of released miscarriage of justice victims. In his reply, the then Home Secretary said that medical or psychiatric care of any released prisoner was a matter for the NHS. He added:

“Probation services, on a voluntary basis and subject to the availability of resources…are able to help with resettlement problems experienced by released prisoners.

Thus I am not convinced that it would be necessary and right to set up a separate system to assess the needs for, and provide support and treatment to, those released following the quashing of their conviction after a long term of imprisonment.”

Last week, the Prime Minister wrote to me after my question in the main Chamber. He explained about the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and that that

“places a duty on local authorities to make available ‘advice, guidance and assistance’ to people who request such a service within 12 months of their release from custody, including those released following an appeal against conviction and/or sentence.”

He went on to outline the Scottish Executive’s financial support for MOJO Scotland, for which it is grateful. However, all that is simply inadequate. We need more than “advice, guidance and assistance” and 12 months is far too long to wait.

I have explained Dr. Grounds’ view that these individuals suffer a complexity of difficulties that in practice are not well met by mental health services. It is his view, and that of many others, that specialist support is required for that special group of prisoners. To expect them neatly to fit into the norms of society when they have been wrongly cooped up in prison for years is naive. Contrary to what the then Home Secretary said nine years ago, it is increasingly clear now, if it was not then, that we need a separate system of care and support.

There are parallels with the armed forces for establishing separate systems. For instance, at Selly Oak hospital in Birmingham there is a military-managed ward. In the Priory and Combat Stress, we have mental health support for servicemen and ex-servicemen suffering mental health difficulties. I believe that there is evidence to support the case for having a specialist system of support for miscarriage of justice victims. I believe the Government have a moral responsibility financially to support such a development.

Paddy Hill, one of the Birmingham Six, summed up the situation in his customary brutal manner:

“The authorities have a bottomless pit of money to fit you up and lock you up, but when you’re found to be innocent the cash suddenly dries up.”

No one can doubt Paddy’s commitment to the cause. He is a leading member of MOJO Scotland and provides direct help to victims when they are released from prison. In fact, he has collected numerous people from the prison gates and put them up in his own home. We owe him a huge debt of gratitude, even more so because that should be responsibility of the state. The state has a moral obligation to establish the services that I have detailed this afternoon. Even though he cares passionately, it should not be up to Paddy Hill. No matter how much he knows about how to treat victims on release, he is not trained—he is not a psychiatrist. This is the responsibility of government. The state should clear up its own mess.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie) on securing today’s debate on an important subject. He is aware—he made reference to this fact—that I cannot deal with matters of criminal justice north of the border up in Scotland. That is not my remit and is, as everyone in the Chamber knows, a devolved matter. I do not begin to explain or accept any responsibility for the rightful responsibility of the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament. However, he said correctly that there are some similarities between services that are available north and south of the border for the small number of people who, like some of the individuals whom he has mentioned, have been victims of miscarriages of justice.

Some of the people, individuals and cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred have been at the extreme end. They have spent many years wrongfully in prison. I accept that those who are found not to have committed the offences for which they were convicted and imprisoned, sometimes many years down the line, are, first and foremost, victims. It is as much a denial of justice when someone is locked up for something that they did not do as when someone is not locked up for something that they did do. Both are a matter of regret in respect of the operation of the criminal justice system, and I acknowledge that.

I agree that we must do all we can to ensure that victims of miscarriages of justice are supported. The hon. Gentleman used quotations from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice that go back nine years, and more recently there has been movement in what I hope that he would accept is the right direction. I detected a certain amount of acceptance that some developing services are available. The hon. Gentleman mentioned MOJO and arrangements north of the border. I heard what he said, but, of course, I am not responsible for what goes on in Scotland. There is a slightly different configuration of services in England and Wales that are covered by my Department. The hon. Gentleman made reference to, and quoted extensively from, the work of Adrian Grounds, who is recognised as an expert in this field.

We have a miscarriages of justice support service that operates in England and Wales, and Adrian Grounds is on the steering group to give his expert advice and support to us to ensure that we can fund a service that provides appropriate services for people who have suffered miscarriages of justice. Although I accept that there are miscarriages of justice, thankfully, in the vast majority of cases, the courts get it right. We are talking about a small number of cases, and some of those to which the hon. Gentleman referred are at the extreme end of the scale. They have spent many years in prison and, one might assume, are even more affected by their experience, as are their families, than those who have not spent so long there. A miscarriage of justice is a miscarriage of justice, but one might expect that things get worse the longer it goes on.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are arrangements through the courts and the Criminal Cases Review Commission to put right the wrong that is done, but he has concentrated much more on the impact on individuals and their families and friends of being released after having been locked up for all that time for something that they did not do.

I should like to say a little about the miscarriages of justice support service before moving on to address the points that the hon. Gentleman made. There was concern about the lack of support for appellants to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and in January 2003 we established a pilot advisory service in the royal courts of justice, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It covers England and Wales and is at arm’s length from the Government, for obvious reasons. One would not wish it to be too close, given that it is the state that puts the people affected in the position that they find themselves in. It is, of course, funded with money from my Department, but it was set up at arm’s length to assure those who might benefit from its services that the advice and support that they would get would have no implications for their cases, and would not be intended to prevent them from getting compensation or pursuing their cases in any way that they wished.

In January 2005, in light of the experience of that scheme, it was extended for three years. A contract to provide the service was awarded to the royal courts of justice’s citizens advice bureau. There is provision in the current arrangements to extend it for a further two years by mutual agreement. In total the service covering England and Wales costs in the region of £133,000 a year. It helps appellants across England and Wales whose cases are referred by the CCRC or who are pursuing their own out-of-time appeals. It is aimed at the people whom the hon. Gentleman identified—the victims of big miscarriages of justice.

As he acknowledged, the number of people involved is small. In general terms, the service aims to ensure that victims of miscarriages of justice receive appropriate advice, guidance and support to move forward with their lives. Advice and support is offered at every stage of the process—from the pre-appeal hearing to the appeal itself and then afterwards, including as someone comes out of prison if their appeal succeeds.

There can be assistance with finding accommodation; establishing income; making claims for benefits; applying for national insurance credit; registering with a GP; accessing appropriate health care and counselling; opening a bank account and budgeting; family and relationship issues; employment and training needs; and finding a solicitor to deal with compensation claims. The hon. Gentleman mentioned specific cases from some years ago to explain the gap that existed, and the service offered by the miscarriages of justice support service down at the royal courts is intended to plug that gap.

The service can also supply more specialist support, and so far this year seven clients have received assessments by a consultant forensic psychiatrist. The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out the difficult mental health issues that can arise from miscarriages of justice, and he compared the problems experienced to trauma experienced by members of the armed services. The service has so far supported more than 100 people, and in the past 12 months 25 new cases have been taken on in the England and Wales service. In the three months between January and March, there were 51 active cases and 10 were closed, the work that was mutually decided on having been completed.

In recognition of some of the hon. Gentleman’s points, I say that there is more support now than there used to be. He made a number of broad points, one of which was that before people come out of prison, having been locked up wrongly for a long time, it would be sensible for them to have information and guidance about the typical problems that they are likely to encounter and sources of support. We try to ensure in England and Wales, through the service that I have described, that such support is available both before an appeal is heard and after someone comes out of prison. Things are better now than they were back in 1998, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice was Home Secretary and answered the question that the hon. Gentleman quoted.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the residential retreat, as he called it. There is currently no residential base in the UK specifically for the purpose. I also hear what he says about MOJO and other organisations that focus on the matter and their campaigns to obtain such a base. At present I know of no plans for any such arrangements, but I am certainly willing to listen to any arguments from him, MOJO or anyone else.

In England and Wales, the miscarriages of justice support service will reopen cases if problems re-emerge. If somebody stops getting assistance from it and then runs into problems, their case can be reopened and further support made available. The hon. Gentleman made the point that ongoing support was important, and one can see how that may well be the case. He also called for a UK-wide network of psychiatric experts, and the support service’s steering group for England and Wales is considering what can be done to ensure proper availability of the level of psychiatric and forensic psychiatric help that victims of miscarriages of justice need. We are certainly considering the matter, but I can say no more about it at present because no decisions have been made. I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about funding.

On support for families, it is clearly important, when somebody has been separated from their family for so long, that that is an aspect of any support offered. Again in the context of England and Wales, the support service tries to provide support to rebuild family relationships when necessary. It often obtains forensic psychiatric support and an investigation of an individual’s circumstances, gets recommendations about the support and perhaps family therapy that is needed and tries to ensure that it is available.

There is also indirect support to families via the support service, which does not just relate to the people who have been the direct victims of miscarriages of justice. If necessary, there is the possibility of referral to other support services in the communities where affected families live.

I heard what the hon. Gentleman said in praise of the work of MOJO, and I am happy to endorse it. I have not met MOJO, but I am sure that it does extremely valuable work in Scotland. I also heard what he said about the support that some well-known victims of miscarriages of justice have been providing and the work that they do. I am happy to say how important that is and congratulate those people, who have themselves suffered so much from miscarriages of justice.

I shall end by saying that I will be happy to consider the matter further with the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to write to me. I fully understand and support his argument for support services being available to the small number of people who suffer so much from miscarriages of justice as a result of the state intervening and the criminal justice system, for whatever reason, not working. I do not think that he and I are far apart in our analyses of the issue, so I hope that he will feel that the debate has been worth while. I am happy to consider any further points that he wishes to write to me on.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Five o’clock.