May I say at the outset, Mrs. Humble, that it is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship? I thank the Minister, who is responsible for security in Northern Ireland, for being here with his staff. I know that he had another engagement this morning in Belfast, and I greatly appreciate the fact that he gave it up to be here.

The debate is about parading in Northern Ireland. I intend to show that the issue is one of a number of outstanding matters that must be resolved before Northern Ireland can truly be said to have reached the end of its long journey towards normality. I intend to show that issues such as parading have the potential to hold back the Province unless they are satisfactorily resolved. I also intend to highlight progress that has been made on the subject of parading, and to speak of matters that still require attention. I hope, too, to point out Government responsibilities in that regard.

I am pleased to have succeeded in securing this debate, especially when I consider the date. That we should meet on 1 July is truly appropriate, and almost poetic. Under the old calendar, it was 1 July 1690 when William, Prince of Orange, defeated King James at the River Boyne. That had massive and positive benefits for the House of Commons, with parliamentary democracy in Britain, the widening of religious liberty, the guaranteeing of the freedom of the press and the protecting and enshrining of civil and religious liberties for all.

Whenever I think of the positive benefits for the United Kingdom as a whole that resulted from the Williamite revolution, commonly called the Glorious Revolution, I am amazed that the Speaker’s Office does not join with the Prime Minister’s office in hosting a demonstration in Westminster on 12 July. It would be a real confidence-building measure for the people of Northern Ireland, and I would love to see it happen.

That date recalls other collective memories for Northern Ireland. It was on that day that the bravest and noblest of our youth, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, did battle amid the mud and slaughter of the Somme. One writer put it like this:

“Up sprang the Ulstermen and, without forming up in the waves adapted by other divisions, they rushed the German front line…By a combination of sensible tactics and Ulster dash, the prize that eluded so many that day, the capture of a long section of the German front line, had been accomplished.”

The true cost was terrible. By the end of the first day, Britain had suffered 60,000 casualties. When the battle finally ended, Britain had suffered 420,000 casualties, France 200,000, and Germany about 650,000.

As we gather in the Chamber, on this day of all days, it behoves us to remember that the young men in our armed forces, who serve this nation so bravely and gallantly, are not chocolate-box soldiers. Rather, they risk their all for our freedom. As we gather here today, many of them find themselves in arenas of bitter conflict in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. We would do well to hold them in our hearts and remember them in our prayers; we should hold them in high esteem.

To return to the subject of the debate, we should ask ourselves what it was that made former generations stand and fight, often to fall and die, in two world wars and in other conflicts across the globe. Surely it was to preserve the principles of civil and religious liberty that were brought so much to the fore in the aftermath of the Williamite revolution. Sadly, for people in my constituency in the town of Portadown, in other towns in the Province such as Dunloy, and in parts of Belfast, the true expression of those dearly-won liberties and rights is denied them. Sadder still, that denial is facilitated by the actions, and more often the inaction, of Government.

It should be fairly clear to all that, as we look to the future, parading in Northern Ireland is one of the issues that remain outstanding and unresolved. It is not the only such issue. There are others—the need for the IRA and other paramilitary organisations to be completely stood down; the need to move away from mandatory coalition; the need to prioritise matters for the victims and survivors of the troubles; and the need to ensure that Northern Ireland’s position as an integral part of the United Kingdom is respected in everyday life. Those are all hugely significant, and they demand close attention. Only when such issues are settled will we be able to say with confidence that we are at the end of what has been a very long road. I trust that we will reach that point.

For years, we have been dogged by republicans threatening to walk away, and time after time, the Government calculated that keeping Sinn Fein sweet was preferable to the integrity of democratic principles, the continuance of democratic institutions and the agreements that they had reached with Northern Ireland parties. Consequently, instead of standing up to threats and telling Sinn Fein to live with their negotiated position and live life on the same terms as every other political party, the Government chose a path that undermined every other political party to Sinn Fein’s advantage.

Sinn Fein is again attempting to blackmail the Government, who should break with old habits and call a halt to punishing everyone else because of Sinn Fein’s failings. There will be absolutely no toleration of the rewarding of such behaviour. We shall have to wait to see whether the Government pass that test or, as has happened so often in the past, whether they fail in their duty. Today’s debate is about one such outstanding issue: parading. There can be little doubt that the question of parading still requires resolution. In making that statement, it is apparent that in my opinion it is not yet resolved. Some progress has been made, and I intend to touch on it, but work still needs to be done.

A lot of work has been done in recent times, and the Government have made a positive contribution in some areas. I think of moves relating to the de-rating of Orange halls and the proposed amendments to the way in which compensation is paid in the aftermath of an attack on an Orange hall. Those were long-standing Democratic Unionist party objectives, and I am pleased that we have seen movement on both issues. I could not let the matter pass without saying that the suggested three-year sunset clause effectively undermines the object of the proposal. Surely the purpose was to remove any incentive from people who would carry out such attacks. The insertion of a sunset clause would simply suspend the attacks, not end them, nor bring about the required reduction in insurance premiums. I ask the Government to think again about that measure. I believe that the issue was allowed to drag on for far too long, but I shall not dwell on it: suffice to say that it has been mentioned and noted.

There was concern about the reaction of some people to the Government’s compensation announcement on Orange halls. I am thinking, for example, of the reaction of Sinn Fein’s Barry McElduff, who complained about it and called it a sectarian move on the grounds that it excluded Gaelic Athletic Association clubs. Nationalist and republican politicians cannot have it both ways. The GAA has long said that it is a sporting organisation, just like amateur football, cricket, pigeon fancying or snooker clubs. Nationalist and republican politicians have long sought to characterise the loyal orders—the institution—as religiously sectarian organisations that display a religious supremist world view. However, when it came to that announcement, people such as Barry McElduff chose to compare the GAA not with other sporting organisations, but with organisations that they have painted as extreme religious sectarian organisations. Nationalist and republican politicians cannot expect to have it every way. Either the GAA is a sporting organisation sitting alongside others, or it is not. The reaction of nationalist and republican politicians revealed what they believe to about the true nature of the GAA and their inner depths. There are clearly issues for nationalist and republican political representatives to resolve, and I trust that they will do so.

Some very good work has been done through the Northern Ireland Assembly on parading and the institution. Two Northern Ireland Departments in particular deserve praise, namely the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. Both have done good work to help promote the positive side of Northern Ireland’s parading culture and to offer practical assistance to the loyal orders. DCAL amended the way in which the community festival fund is administered to make it easier for such groups to access funding in the Province. The DETI Minister has linked up with the loyal orders to promote the tourism potential of parading. Those are good developments, and there have been others. The fact that both the Ministers concerned are from the Democratic Unionist party is not lost on me, nor, I suspect, is it lost on our political opponents.

The loyal orders themselves have initiated movement by, for example, controlling the use of alcohol consumption at parades, arranging better marshalling and promoting community participation in the cultural aspect of parading. It is only correct to mention the work of the joint loyal orders working group, which set about creating a new framework within which parades and other high-impact public events could occur. The initiative initially drew together the leaderships of the Orange Order, the Royal Black institution and the Independent Orange Order. They deserve the highest praise for their efforts. People such as Robert Saulters, grand master of the Orange institution in Ireland, and Mr. William Logan of the Royal Black institution, deserve credit for their work. Particular praise needs to be directed to two other people who drove forward the work of that joint task force: Mr. Drew Nelson, grand secretary of the Orange Order, and my party colleague and friend, the late and greatly missed George Dawson, former Member of the Legislative Assembly and grand master of the Independent Orange Order. Working in tandem, Drew Nelson and George Dawson gave shape and voice to what the loyal orders were calling for. In the process, they helped to bring a large degree of healing to the internal wounds with which the Orange family had lived for more than a hundred years. They both deserve the thanks of all Orangemen and women in all branches of the family.

The initiative taken by the joint loyal orders working group led to a review of parading, which was announced by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. That in turn resulted in the establishment of the strategic review of parading chaired by Lord Ashdown, which has recently reported. Among the Ashdown group’s key recommendations was the emphasis on dialogue and mediation. It is of huge significance that that initially received a positive response from the loyal orders. In a recent statement, the Orange Order said:

“We welcome the fact that the recommendations include the establishment of a new legislative framework to govern not just parades but all public assemblies…The Orange Institution—along with the Royal Black Institution and the Independent Loyal Orange Institution—will study the document carefully and respond accordingly. We remain committed to playing a full part in creating a Northern Ireland which is a peaceful, prosperous, stable and fair society, founded on mutual respect and trust”.

That, I believe, was a very positive response. Sinn Fein’s John O’Dowd said:

“Experience teaches us that the resolution to the issue of contentious parades lies in dialogue between host communities and the Loyal Orders. Such a process must be central to any system of resolving these issues.”

He continued:

“The report does contain recommendations including a legally enforceable code of conduct. We will of course want to see the terms of such legislation before passing judgement on its potential effectiveness to curb abuses and sectarian harassment.”

Mr. O’Dowd appears to have accepted that the issue of parading remains unresolved and that it must be resolved finally on a long-term basis if we are to move forward.

The only discordant notes came from two sources—one was no great surprise, but the other may surprise some in the House. The entirely unsurprising and utterly predictable rejection came from some residents groups, particularly those from the Ormeau road in Belfast and the Garvaghy road in Portadown. Those reactions came as no real surprise and were entirely expected responses.

Some within the confines of Westminster might be surprised to learn that the other main rejection of the report came from sections of the Social Democratic and Labour party. I said “sections”, because there was a very clear division in the SDLP over the report. On the one hand, Declan O’Loan, who is the North Antrim SDLP MLA, said:

“There are signs that the Orange Order and other parade organisers are more willing to engage publicly with new structures…it is essential that any new system places a real onus on parade organisers to consult with local communities. If local structures including councils can facilitate that, then so much the better…Those in the Nationalist community should remember that it is those involved in Loyalist parades who are now up against it.”

When we turn to another SDLP Assembly Member, we get the directly opposite position. Dolores Kelly, who is the MLA for Upper Bann, said:

“I do not like it at all…I don’t know what confidence the strategic review group thinks that the community could have in their proposals.”

She went on to describe the proposals as “absolute madness”.

We are entitled to ask just where the SDLP stands on all this. Is it with Declan O’Loan or with Dolores Kelly? Is it for or against dialogue? Is it for or against engagement? Is it for or against local accommodation? Does it believe that it is acceptable to refuse to engage? Does it believe that a refusal to engage should be rewarded? Given the comments of Dolores Kelly, who serves not only on the Assembly, but on the Northern Ireland Policing Board, those questions need to be answered.

That brings me to what really lies at the core of any move forward on the issue of parades. In recent times, we have witnessed significant movement on many aspects of public life in the Province. Northern Ireland is slowly beginning to move forward from the horrors of the past. Changes have taken place right across society, although some have been difficult for people to accept. There have been changes involving the loyal orders. The joint loyal orders working group on parading has engaged with people as diverse as Cardinal Brady, the SDLP and the Human Rights Commission. It has also indicated a willingness to sit down with and assist the Ashdown review.

The Portadown district, which is in my constituency, recently met Sinn Fein president, Gerry Adams, which was a difficult step for it to take. More than 300 members of the loyal orders were brutally murdered by republican terrorists during the troubles. Gerry Adams himself claimed the credit for Sinn Fein for the disrupting of parades and the denial of basic liberties to Orangemen and women. On one occasion, he said:

“Ask any activist in the North, did Drumcree happen by accident and they will tell you, no.”

He was also quoted as saying that such situations had to be “developed and exploited”.

Mark Davenport, BBC Northern Ireland’s political correspondent, subsequently said:

“The Sinn Fein president never issued an outright denial of these comments which appeared to come from the transcript of a secret recording.”

The meeting with Gerry Adams was difficult for the Portadown brethren. Afterwards, Gerry Adams said that it had

“always been the Sinn Fein position that the issue of parading can only be resolved through dialogue between the Loyal Orders and local communities.”

One can only hope that what he now says was always Sinn Fein’s position represents new thinking on his part and that of his party.

On parading, there remains one section of society that steadfastly refuses to move—some of the residents groups. In Portadown, for instance, we have the ongoing Drumcree-Garvaghy road dispute, which is synonymous with the issue of parading as a result of press coverage in recent years. The local Portadown district has stated openly and publicly that it wants to engage in dialogue. It has said that it will do so without putting any pre-conditions on the table.

The Parades Commission has said that it sees dialogue as the only way to resolve the matter. Every political party claims to believe that dialogue is the way forward, and the Government are of the publicly stated view that dialogue is the way forward. However, the Garvaghy Road residents coalition refuses to consider the matter. According to the coalition, there is nothing to discuss, and any attempt to hold discussions would be to follow party political agendas and attempt to suppress the population. It therefore sees no need for any discussion or dialogue.

Recently, the Garvaghy Road residents coalition said:

“This is not a problem of any individual, but of unionism and Orangeism wanting to return to the days of dominating the minority community in Portadown…The parades issue belongs to the past and should remain there. It must not be resurrected to suit any political party or anyone’s narrow sectarian agenda.”

In its editorial column, the local newspaper, the Portadown Times, has been scathing of that stance. Recently, the Parades Commission complained that it had been unable to set up a dialogue process because of “non co-operation” on the part of the residents group. Just last week, the district master of the Portadown Orangemen, Mr. Darryl Hewitt, repeated their willingness to engage in face-to-face negotiations and dialogue with the Garvaghy Road residents coalition. He repeated publicly that the Orangemen were willing to do so without preconditions.

What was the coalition’s response? Brendan McKenna was repeatedly asked live on air on BBC Radio Ulster whether he would engage in that dialogue with the Orange brethren. On each occasion, he refused to give such a commitment. Despite the fact that the Portadown district had publicly repeated its commitment to dialogue without preconditions, Mr. McKenna said that he still saw preconditions in the district’s statement. The question that must be asked in all this is just how willing Brendan McKenna and the Garvaghy Road residents coalition are to find an accommodation on the issue of the Garvaghy road.

The Parades Commission handed down the very determination sought by Brendan McKenna. It rewarded his refusal to enter discussions, to engage in dialogue and to participate in negotiations. It encouraged him to continue to sit on his hands and do absolutely nothing to move the situation forward, to improve community relations or to reach any local accommodation with his neighbours. This individual should not hold up progress on finding an accommodation. Equally, he should not hold back the community in the vicinity of the Garvaghy road or further afield across Portadown and Craigavon. Nor should the Parades Commission continue to reward the Garvaghy Road residents coalition for its refusal to discuss these issues. Such a situation would not be good for community relations, jobs, investment or prosperity in the area.

The stance of the Garvaghy Road residents coalition is entirely negative and appears to be designed to prevent rather than assist any engagement or dialogue aimed at resolving the situation. It serves only to reinforce the view held by a growing number of people that there is no willingness on the part of Garvaghy road residents to arrive at any form of local accommodation or at any long-term resolution of the dispute. It also goes some way towards confirming the view that, despite movement on the part of the loyal orders collectively, as well as on the part of Portadown district and the Government, who established the Ashdown review, the one constituent part of this dispute that has refused to move is the Garvaghy Road residents coalition.

That, of course, raises questions for the Parades Commission and the Government. There is near-universal agreement that the way to resolve the local problem is for local people to do it. That is also the stated position of the Parades Commission. There is agreement on the part of the loyal orders to work towards a new beginning to parading in Northern Ireland, and on the part of Portadown district to do its part locally. There is absolutely no agreement on the part of the Garvaghy road residents coalition to play its part. Despite that, the Parades Commission continues to reward the group for its non-dialogue, non-engagement and non-discussion, by continuing to issue determinations about the parade that give the Garvaghy road group everything it demands, on the grounds that non-engagement and non-dialogue have made it impossible to establish a dialogue process.

At my last meeting with the Parades Commission I suggested that one way to move the Garvaghy road residents coalition in the direction of dialogue was to issue a post-dated determination to the effect that, if discussions did not begin by a certain date, it would issue a determination that would allow the parade to return to Carleton street in Portadown. That would have pressurised the Garvaghy road residents group finally to get around the table. What was the Parades Commission response? Nothing: zero. Instead it continues to say that it wants dialogue. That dialogue is the way ahead, but it has been prevented, because the Garvaghy road residents coalition will not agree to it. Yet the commission continues to give the coalition exactly what it wants, so what incentive is there for the coalition to talk?

I ask the Minister whether that is acceptable. Should people be rewarded for non-dialogue and non-engagement? Should the Parades Commission issue the determinations sought by the Garvaghy road residents coalition on the grounds that it refuses to play any part in reaching a local accommodation? I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to have all the answers today, but I ask him to give as full a response as he can.

Northern Ireland has been through many difficult times and many dark years. There is a desire among the vast majority of people in the Province to move forward. Only a very small number of people and groups wish to keep us all locked in the past. If the Garvaghy road residents coalition is one of those groups, the Parades Commission has a duty to ensure that that does not happen. If the commission refuses to do its duty, the Government, too, have a duty to intervene and crack Parades Commission heads together.

Brendan McKenna should signal his willingness to move out of the past and towards the light, along with other elements of society. If he fails to do so, the Parades Commission and the Minister should signal their intention to end the intransigence of Mr. McKenna and his organisation. The people of the Garvaghy road, Portadown, Craigavon and more importantly Northern Ireland deserve no less.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mrs. Humble. I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) on securing the debate. At the start of his remarks, he reminded us that it is the anniversary of the beginning of the battle of the Somme, and it is important to remember the sacrifice made by the whole community in Northern Ireland at the Somme and other battles in which Britain engaged in the last century.

It is welcome that we can debate the issue of parades in Northern Ireland at a time when the wider context in relation to parades is improving. The 2006 and 2007 marching seasons passed off more peacefully than at any other time in recent history. In fact, 2006 marked the first time in more than 30 years that the Army was not called in to support the police. That was largely due to the efforts of community leaders and march organisers to keep talking, ensuring that a local accommodation was reached in many cases. It is only right that we should pay tribute to their efforts and give them our support as we enter this year’s marching season.

Nevertheless, parades remain a source of dispute and a threat to peace, stability, prosperity and the creation of a shared future. The issue of parading and its associated problems is a concern not just for the two sides in any particular dispute, but for the entire community. Disputes relating to parading are both a symptom of much wider community relations problems in Northern Ireland, and a contributory factor to them. Problems over parades are in many respects a by-product of the division of Northern Ireland into a society based around two communities. Territory becomes labelled as belonging to one or other side. When tensions arise over parades, there is a danger of further entrenchment of identity and division.

There is a fundamental choice to be made in Northern Ireland: accepting deep divisions in Northern Ireland and trying to manage them, or working to create a shared and integrated society. In 2005, the Government adopted as policy the document “A Shared Future: Policy and Strategic Framework for Good Relations in Northern Ireland”. Subsequently, in 2006, they put in place the first triennial action plan. The Government recognised that the human, social and financial costs of trying to manage a divided society were unsustainable and that the only viable way forward was through the creation of a shared future.

It is critical that the future of parades in Northern Ireland should be considered in the context of the “Shared Future” agenda. In relation to that, there should be a stop to accepting that territory belongs to one or other side of the community. Existing mixed areas such as town centres should be protected from becoming dominated by a particular group and mixed housing should be strongly promoted.

It is unfortunate that parades continue to have a net negative impact on the Northern Ireland economy. In the recent past, violence surrounding disputed parades, public disorder and the blocking of roads, whether focused in particular areas or more widespread, have had direct economic consequences as businesses have closed. In addition, such activity interferes with the free movement of people and goods, and deters economic and other social activities. The Deloitte report of April 2007 on the financial cost of the divide in Northern Ireland set out the costs of lost inward investment and tourism stemming from the troubles and a segregated society. For example, the problems arising from the Whiterock parade in September 2005 had a direct negative impact on inward investment.

The Deloitte report considers the various negative impacts of the divide. The Northern Ireland economy remains underdeveloped—in particular its tourist sector. For a considerable portion of the month of July, much of Northern Ireland slows down or even closes down. In particular, a greater range of businesses close on 12 July than on any other day of the year, with the exception of Christmas day. Northern Ireland has a potentially strong tourist product to offer, but during July there is a net loss of population in the region and many hotels and guest houses have their quietest period. The situation has, however, improved over the past two years, and it is important to look to the future. However, the economic consequences of disputes about parades, and the resultant impact on the entire community, must be recognised.

Disputes over parades often come down to a clash of claimed rights: a right to parade and a right to prevent a parade that is not consistent with the ethos of an area. I do not believe that either of those claims is absolute. As well as the right to take part in a parade, it must be recognised that there is a right for people who are not taking part in a parade to have freedom of movement, and for businesses to conduct their affairs without interference.

Ten years ago, the Parades Commission was established with the following duties: to promote greater public understanding of issues concerning public processions, to promote and facilitate mediation as a means of resolving disputes concerning public processions and to keep itself generally informed of the conduct of public processions and protest meetings.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the establishment of the Parades Commission and its duties. Does he agree that, by and large, it has failed to carry out its duties?

No, I do not agree. I think that the situation has improved, particularly in the past two years. There have been tremendous strides forward, and the Parades Commission has played a part in that. It is by no means perfect, and changes must be made, but we must recognise that the situation has improved since its establishment.

The commission has powers to facilitate mediation between parties to disputes concerning proposed parades and to issue determinations in respect of particular proposed parades. I have concerns about the Parades Commission’s mandate; I do not believe that the dual mandate to arbitrate and mediate is sustainable in the long run. One major problem is that, in determining whether a certain parade may pass along a certain street in a certain area, the Parades Commission effectively determines which community that street and area belong to. The commission has also been restricted by having to prioritise judicial concerns over any sense of what is considered reasonable. Furthermore, it has restricted certain behaviour and symbols to certain areas rather than determining acceptable behaviour and display in general.

It would be helpful if any future arbitrator of parades had the ability to determine, for example, that a single parade in a certain location is reasonable but several such parades, even by the same people on the same route, are not; that certain types of behaviour such as the display of paramilitary symbols, drunkenness, high noise levels and so on are universally unacceptable; and that certain standards of behaviour can be expected by all people whose businesses or homes are affected by the parade, regardless of their community background or political affiliation or those of the parade organisers.

The strategic review of parading in Northern Ireland, chaired by Lord Ashdown, published an interim consultative report in April. The review team outlined a number of principles to be followed in relation to parading, such as the need for local dialogue and local agreement, standards for the conduct of public assemblies and independent adjudication. The review team’s strong emphasis on a rights-based approach to resolving disputes is welcome, as the process whereby a communal identity was given to territory was deeply flawed. It is also extremely helpful to have a clear set of procedures and structures. There is little to fear and much to gain from a radical review of the policy and structures for handling disputed parades. Of course, full public debate is needed on the review’s analysis and recommendations.

Although we have made tremendous strides in the past few years, it is time to move on to a situation in which mediation, and arbitration and adjudication, are carried out separately. Although we have moved forward during the Parades Commission’s time, it is far from perfect. Moving to a situation in which mediation and adjudication are handled separately is important.

I hope that the political parties in Northern Ireland will demonstrate courage and leadership in showing the way forward and trying to achieve the vision, described in the strategic review team’s report, of a society where parades and protests are no longer the focus or cause of community conflict, in which cultural celebration takes place peacefully and respectfully and which is characterised by tolerance, human rights, equality and confidence in a future shared by all.

I am delighted to be speaking from the Front Bench under your chairmanship, Mrs. Humble. I am standing in at the last moment for my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), who has unfortunately had to go to hospital.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) on securing this debate on an important subject for Northern Ireland. He spoke with conviction and a great knowledge of parading and its history. It is important for the future of Northern Ireland. He gave an honest and frank progress report on the issues and highlighted some of the problems that still lie before us and that must be addressed if we are to proceed peacefully in future.

The milestone of shared government is a significant step towards the success story that we all want and hope for in Northern Ireland, but as this debate has highlighted, there is still a long way to go. Sensitive issues such as parading in Northern Ireland must be resolved to achieve a future for the province that encompasses intercommunity co-operation and toleration.

As we have heard, Northern Ireland has a strong tradition of parading. Parades are an intrinsic part of its culture and identity and have been since the 16th century, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann pointed out. Unfortunately, in more recent times, political turmoil in Northern Ireland has led sectarian groups to use parades as a way to advance their cause. As a result, parades have become increasingly controversial. Although they form a part of Northern Ireland’s heritage, they have been blamed for facilitating sectarian tensions and the violence that often ensues. Sadly, as we are all aware, many instances of violence have broken out during parades. The police have been criticised for not monitoring them effectively, the Parades Commission has been labelled politically weak and the Orange Order does not recognise its authority.

How can parades and parading remain a viable part of Northern Ireland’s culture and identity in a way that is consistent with social and political cohesion? The strategic review provides Northern Ireland with an opportunity to tackle parading head-on in a way that embraces cross-community solutions. I pay tribute to the noble Lord Ashdown for undertaking the review and compliment him on the diverse group of people he involved in the process. The widest possible consultation was sought and all interested parties were encouraged to take part in the review process. That approach is to be encouraged and commended. Moves to resolve sensitive issues in that way will, I hope, temper the fear and hostility still present within the communities of Northern Ireland, which could become inflamed during the parading season.

It is worth reminding ourselves of the review’s key recommendations so far, which were outlined in the interim report published in April. They are set out in six important steps. Organisers of public assemblies should consider all aspects of their intended event and, where possible, identify any issues that may arise from it. Organisers must notify local councils of any intention to hold a gathering no less than 35 days before the event by submitting a notification form. The council will inform any interested parties, such as the Police Service of Northern Ireland and emergency services, and will make that notification publicly accessible. Any objections to the public assembly must be lodged with the local council within seven days of publication, and those objections will in turn be made public.

Where possible, any objections or concerns will be dealt with by direct contact between the organisers and objectors. When agreement is reached, the assembly may take place. If any concerns are not resolved through direct contact between organisers and objectors, the local council will organise and assume responsibility for further discussions. If no agreement has been reached by that stage, the local council must inform the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and an independent mediator will be appointed on a case-by-case basis.

When mediation is refused or fails, the OFMDFM will initiate the adjudication process. If no agreement is reached at least 14 days prior to the proposed assembly date, the matter will be referred to the OFMDFM for final adjudication. The adjudication panel’s decision is legally binding, and for all assemblies referred to it a post-event review must take place no later than 35 days after the event.

The gist of the proposals is to place parading within a coherent and mutually agreed framework to provide some structure to the events. In that way, parades could be monitored and regulated more effectively in the same way as they would be in any other European democracy. We must recognise, therefore, that the recommendations would spell the end of the Parades Commission. If the review’s proposals are implemented, how does the Minister envisage using the commission’s decade-long experience to best effect? The Orange Order refuses to recognise the commission’s authority, but initial reports hint that the order has indicated its support for some of the review’s proposals. My hon. Friend was quite clear about which proposals are viable. However, how optimistic is the Minister that that initial enthusiasm will last? Does he envisage the new system, if implemented, overcoming the problems faced by the commission.

The interim report acknowledges that there are no quick-fix solutions, but looks to inter-community dialogue as the keystone to peaceful parades. Clearly, the success of implementing any of the recommendations will depend on the initial co-operation of nationalist and Unionist groups. Has the Minister had any negative or positive feedback from relevant groups on either side of the political spectrum? I understand that the Social Democratic and Labour party has expressed concerns about some of the recommendations. Although the intention to address the parading issue through a new approach is commended, does he agree that any new structure will come up against the same challenges faced by existing ones?

There is also a danger that the transfer of any responsibilities from the Parades Commission to the new OFMDFM might well result in the latter becoming a quango. A system in which the First Minister and Deputy First Minister play central roles in parade matters might politicise parading, instead of depoliticising it, which surely is our primary aim. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that.

The report also advocates a strong role for local councils. Does the Minister accept that council officers’ political allegiances might—I repeat might—have a detrimental effect on the mediation process? Does he recognise the need to put in place safeguards against that? Councils could well be seen as too partisan, and there are legitimate concerns that their role could undermine the mediation stage.

Parades in Northern Ireland have come to symbolise the political and social tensions that exist as undercurrents in the Province predominantly as a result of the violence so closely related to the parades at Drumcree and Ormeau road, and the review team acknowledge that they have yet to come to a conclusion on how to proceed where those parades are concerned. I accept that they will focus on the parades at the next stage of their consultation process. However, will the Minister join me in stressing how crucial it is for the tensions surrounding those two parades, and others, to be addressed urgently? Does he find it worrying that although the review team has made some useful general proposals, they cannot agree on perhaps the most contentious parades, which more than others require clear guidance?

The interim report states:

“Until there is agreement about parading and protests which all can adhere to, these disputes will retain a powerful capacity to impede or even reverse recent progress in Northern Ireland by re-igniting divisions, generating conflict and recreating a legacy of bitterness across the whole community”.

Sadly, the same tensions and deep-set hostilities that undermine peace during parades are bound to create challenges for those aiming to establish an overarching framework for parading in the future.

To bring investment and prosperity to Northern Ireland, it is crucial that we get our approach right. All those involved in the consultation process, from both sides of the political divide, must work together as effectively as possible to ensure that we get to a stage where the parades can pass peacefully. The timing of the review is crucial, and we must get it right now to secure a peaceful future for Northern Ireland. Engagement between nationalist residents’ groups and the Orange Order is key, and one person should not be allowed to hold back the process, as my hon. Friend pointed out.

The review is a work in progress, but we are heading in the right direction. If the final report is published in autumn, does the Minister think that the timetable for implementation in spring 2009 is realistic? Given the considerable hostility from some factions to the interim report’s findings, how does he expect to reconcile those views with those of the more enthusiastic supporters? How does he expect to implement the final report’s recommendations? Does he anticipate having to legislate, and if not how will he enforce them, especially given the apparent resource implications for local authorities? What estimates has he made of the financial implications of the interim recommendations?

I am open to ideas on different and more incisive approaches to this highly contentious issue, and look forward to the review’s final recommendations. Like others, I also look forward to a peaceful parade season.

Like other hon. Members, I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) on securing this opportunity to raise such a crucial issue, because it is very important that we continue to discuss Northern Ireland matters in this place. He started by explaining that today is a good day to have this discussion, and took us as far back as 1690. He also mentioned the parade at Drumcree, and reminded us of the anniversary today and of those who fell at the battle of the Somme, and I can confirm that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has joined others in France to commemorate that time. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman was generous enough to acknowledge that, were I not here today, I would have been at city hall in Belfast marking the day with colleagues there. I was grateful to him for acknowledging that. As others have said, it is appropriate that today we remember those who fell at the battle of the Somme. It is also appropriate to pay tribute to those serving our country and the cause of freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan today.

The hon. Gentleman drew his remarks to a close by referring to Drumcree, which of course remains the most contentious parade in Northern Ireland. Whatever our role in the story of Northern Ireland, we all remember the scenes of violence and disruption that occurred there in the middle of the 1990s. They remain vivid, and none of us wishes to return to such scenes. From conversations that I have had with him and many others, I know that Drumcree can still raise those levels of emotion in Northern Ireland. That needs to be considered very carefully. However, I am absolutely clear, as is he, that if we are to find a sustainable solution to the problems with parading, we must include a solution to Drumcree. We cannot pretend that we have found a sustainable solution, if that matter remains unresolved. It is pertinent therefore that he raised it in this debate.

It might sound hackneyed, but that does not make it any less true that cross-community dialogue remains a prerequisite to a solution to Drumcree. Engagement is necessary, and a solution simply cannot be imposed from the outside and above.

The hon. Gentleman indicated that the way forward is through dialogue, but does he agree that, in order for that to happen, both sides must be willing to engage?

I readily acknowledge that, if we are to have dialogue, two parties are required to have the conversation. That conversation must take place sooner or later if we are to have a solution. I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. I know of the difficulties involved and I know of his role in trying to promote dialogue and to get people to a point at which decisions can be made across the community. I know some of the difficulties that others have faced as they have tried to broker those talks and conversations over many years, and I pay tribute to all those who have tried to get a resolution.

I am encouraged, however, rather than discouraged, not least because of the efforts that have been made by Darryl Hewitt, the district master of Portadown District LOL No. 1, and his colleagues. I have met them on a couple of occasions, and I readily acknowledge that they have made efforts to engage and to move forward. They have made efforts that were real risks in relation not only to the other community but to those in their own organisation who might be critical of the steps that they have taken—but they have still taken them. They have engaged with the Parades Commission, which was contentious and difficult, but they did it. They have met Gerry Adams, the president of Sinn Fein, which was a controversial but important step forward, and they have even met me. They are prepared to engage with anyone who they believe can help to move things forward and produce a solution. I have no doubt that they have gone a considerable way to reach out, to try to engage and to find a solution.

Comments have been made about the Parades Commission and its role. I know, from certain conversations, that people sometimes feel frustration either that the commission has made a decision that they do not like or that it has not made a decision that they would like it to make, but that is the territory that it has to operate in. Since the chairman of the commission began his remit in January 2006, he has worked with his colleagues and has tried to get out of the office and around Northern Ireland, and there has been a period of sustained, relatively peaceful parading. I pay tribute to those in the commission who have played a role in that. There has been an increase in the number of notified parades in recent years, but the number of contentious parades that have had restrictions placed on them, which are a minority, has reduced. Credit for that goes partly to the commission, but I think that commission members would acknowledge that it should go mainly to people at the local level who, as the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) said, have engaged in difficult conversations and come to accommodations and agreements so that there are voluntary agreements in place. They should take a great deal of credit. That is the kind of development that we want and need in Drumcree.

The fact that one party has made such considerable efforts does not necessarily make it straightforward or easy to impose a solution, with all the risk that that involves. That is why it is important that the message goes out from the hon. Member for Upper Bann—indeed, from all hon. Members who have contributed this morning, including me—that dialogue is an absolute prerequisite to finding a solution. I am convinced that, in the current climate, a solution is possible. We are faced with a unique opportunity in the period ahead in which we can strive for an answer regarding Drumcree and other outstanding and difficult parades. Why? Because the strategic review has said that when it publishes its final report it wants to bring forward proposals on how those legacy parades—it mentions Drumcree and the Ormeau Road in particular—can be dealt with. Obviously, the review cannot magic up a solution, as that must be worked for by all the parties involved, but the final report is an opportunity to seek a solution.

We have achieved the first stage of devolution and we are moving towards its completion, in the near future I hope, with policing and justice powers being handed over. That provides us with a climate and context in which outstanding issues need to be resolved, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann said, not least in relation to parading.

The parading this year shows that there has been sustained and significant progress. When I arrived as a new Minister in Northern Ireland, just over two years ago, in my first briefing, I was shown film footage of the shocking scenes of violence in Whiterock in 2005. It was clear that part of my responsibility was to work with others at all levels to ensure that we never return to such scenes. Through a process of dialogue and, sometimes, determinations from the Parades Commission, we have got to a much better place with parading.

The fruits of dialogue have been that the Tour of the North parade on 20 June passed off peacefully because people made accommodations and reached an agreement that worked in practice. When parties could not agree regarding Whiterock, last Saturday, the commission made a determination that people respected and adhered to. I commend in particular the marshals at that parade last weekend. They are to be commended for the role that they play, the responsibility that they take and the training that they undergo, which is an important aspect of modern-day parading.

The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute mentioned the history of 12 July and how this is, in a sense, a time of economic slow-down, but if it were a successful festival, the opposite would be true. The Orange Order is working with Government Departments to turn 12 July into more of a festival for families, visitors and tourists, so that it becomes a positive feature of modern Northern Ireland. I commend all those who are involved in those efforts.

I also commend the Police Service of Northern Ireland, particularly Assistant Chief Constable, Duncan McCausland, for the work that he and others have done to be much stricter this year on the use of alcohol. The police have worked closely with parade organisers to make it clear that alcohol should not be part of parading. They have also made it clear that they will enforce byelaws and use other powers to take alcohol from people who insist on carrying it on parades. On the Tour of the North parade, 500 cans and bottles of alcohol were confiscated and disposed of. I pay tribute to all those who were involved in that new crackdown on alcohol, as getting rid of alcohol will be a significant step forward in trying to avoid tension and difficulties.

The hon. Members for Upper Bann, for South-West Norfolk (Christopher Fraser) and for Argyll and Bute have all emphasised the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland in recent years. There has been progress on parading, of which I have given some detail. Again, I give credit to those at the local level who engage and try to find an accommodation and a voluntary way through. For the past two years, we have had no troops on the streets of Belfast on 12 July, and I am extremely confident that the same will be true of next week’s parades in Northern Ireland, because we have moved forward, although there are still issues to resolve.

We are developing the peaceful settlement as well as opportunities for prosperity and for greater democracy, all of which have been substantial achievements of the past year or two, particularly since May of last year, when we had the devolution of the majority of government. That has been warmly welcomed by the people of Northern Ireland and has been taken up enthusiastically by the politicians of Northern Ireland, which should be an encouragement to us all.

The Minister mentions prosperity—this is more a comment than a question. Sometimes, when we talk about the parading season, a picture of doom and gloom is painted, but I read yesterday in one of the respected tabloids that the city of Belfast has come third, regarding its economy, of all the cities in the UK. That is a positive note for the future of the Province.

It is a positive note, and I congratulate those in Belfast who have promoted the economy there. Any visitor to Belfast will see the vibrancy of the economy and the growth and physical changes happening there. All of that is equipping Belfast and Northern Ireland to compete in the modern world economy. An affirmation of that was made by those who came from north America to the investment conference in May. They made it clear that they saw Northern Ireland as a place in which to invest. They were thinking of investing not out of some kind of strange charitable sense, but out of a business sense that Northern Ireland presented a real opportunity. They saw that it was a competitive and good place in which to invest their money. The conference was extremely important and was well organised by the devolved Administration because it put Northern Ireland on the world stage in economic terms.

The big challenge that Northern Ireland faces is to change the balance between the public sector and private sector in the economy. Roughly one third of the economy in the Republic is public and two thirds private. In Northern Ireland, we have broadly the opposite. That has to change so that the economy becomes sustainable for the long term and extremely prosperous. If the prosperous economy can be matched with the beautiful surroundings—the countryside and coastline of Northern Ireland—it will be a mix that will see Northern Ireland’s prosperity and peace last well into the future.

The hon. Member for Upper Bann raised some other matters that need to be addressed if we are to sustain progress in Northern Ireland. Clearly, parading is a key issue. He also made it very clear that we have to see an end to all signs of paramilitary activity, and I agree with him. There is no place for a paramilitary presence in Northern Ireland. Those dissidents who seek to take us back to the dark days are isolated, on their own, and have no support. It is very important that all the parties in Northern Ireland continue to pull together to oppose those who would take us back to those days.

We can take great confidence from the successive reports of the Independent Monitoring Commission that make it clear that the Provisional IRA has neither the capacity nor the will to wage war or conflict in Northern Ireland. That is the fundamental block on which so much has been achieved in recent years.

The hon. Member for Upper Bann made the point that the politics of Northern Ireland should not be directed by bilateral talks and negotiations between the Government here and parties in Northern Ireland, and I agree strongly with that. As we seek to make further progress, it is the parties themselves that have to come together and make those agreements, find an accommodation and a way forward. I was encouraged, as I am sure that he was, by the remarks that his party leader, the First Minister, made yesterday at the World Bar conference in Northern Ireland. In a speech, the First Minister spoke publicly about the renewed engagement that he and the Deputy First Minister have begun in order to seek a solution to the unresolved issues. We can all take great heart and comfort from his comments.

The hon. Member for Upper Bann referred to the proposals that we announced last week with regard to the compensation that can be granted when community halls are subject to criminal damage. He will know—now is not the time to detain the Chamber with detail of the complex but effective compensation scheme in Northern Ireland—that, if there is an act of criminal damage on any property in Northern Ireland, and if it is thought that such action was carried out on behalf of, or for the benefit of, a proscribed organisation, the Chief Constable can issue a certificate that gives automatic statutory compensation to the organisation that is responsible for the property. If there is evidence of three or more individuals being involved in that act of criminal damage, again statutory compensation can be paid.

We have decided further to extend that provision to include any community hall that attracts rate relief because of the work that it does in the community or because of its charitable work. If the hall becomes subject to criminal damage, we will extend to it the statutory compensation scheme. Recently, there have been sustained attacks on community halls, particularly Orange halls. We want to make it clear that we stand with those in local communities who want to provide a service or a facility for a service. If there is a continuation of such attacks, there will be the possibility of getting statutory compensation if one of the three categories that I have outlined is fulfilled.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the issue of the sunset clause. We suggested such a clause because we hoped that, with the progress we have made in Northern Ireland, the attacks of the past year or so would recede, diminish and disappear, and that such a provision would no longer be necessary. However, if that power is needed it can be renewed in three years’ time. By then, I hope that it will be not a Minister in this House who takes that considered decision, but a Minister in Northern Ireland.

A number of hon. Members spoke about the strategic review of parading, which is an extremely important piece of work. It is a work in progress in Northern Ireland. Before I pass comment on some of the issues raised, I again want to pay tribute to the work of the Parades Commission, in particular the current chairman and commissioners who, since January 2006, have been assiduous in their work. As I said, we have seen an increase in the number of notified parades and a decrease in the number of contentious parades with restrictions. That is a hopeful sign. The commission will never be in an easy place with regard to contentious parades. It has to make final decisions and decisions in relation to determinations. It will please some people, but not others.

I want to make it clear in the context of the strategic review of parading that the commission will continue to do its job until another system is put in place. It is very important that that point is made. There is no drop-off point for the commission; it will continue to do its job until a new system is put in place.

The work of the strategic review has focused on a number of key principles, which have been mentioned. First, the fundamental principle is that conversation, dialogue and local agreement becomes the normal way of doing things. I must emphasise that local dialogue is important. Secondly—again, because of the progress in Northern Ireland, it is encouraging that we see this as an important characteristic of change—it is critical to reconnect decisions about difficult issues to the local democratic politics. In other words, we should not take such issues outside of politics, but see the democratic process facilitating and supporting decisions. Thirdly, and crucially, we must put in place a set of robust standards for the conduct of public assemblies in Northern Ireland. Those standards will be in a legislative framework and will be backed up by the law.

The fourth principle—the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute made this point very strongly—is that the roles of mediation and adjudication should be separated. They are not separated in the current system, but it is the strong view of the strategic review of parading that they should be. Fifthly, all the principles are organised within a human rights framework because it is critical that we know how to resolve competing rights, such as the right to parade and the right to protest.

The fundamental principles on which the strategic review of parading has built its report are commanding widespread interest and support. We are now in a period of consultation. The strategic review of parading gave its report in April. It is now engaging, listening, taking submissions and responses from a whole range of organisations across Northern Ireland. It will do that until the end of August and then, later in the year, it will produce its final report. It is seeking common ground and consensus so that we can come up with a system that will work not just on paper but in practice.

The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk asked about the risks of associating the new system too closely with the political process. It is important to emphasise that, under the proposals, the democratic process is responsible for overseeing the administration of this decision-making process. In other words, it is the administration rather than the actual decisions that are facilitated by the democratic political process. That is very important. Local councils would oversee the administration of the form-filling and some of the early stages of the informal discussions that would need to happen, and adjudication would be carried out by a panel appointed by the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Again, however, this is not the First Minister and Deputy First Minister making the decision; their office sets up the panels that actually make the decision.

The Government have not yet taken a view about the proposition made by the strategic review of parading—although we have paid tribute to Lord Ashdown and his colleagues for the sterling work that they have done—because we want to see what the final report will say, clearly, before we form any conclusions.

The Minister will know that there was a sense of disappointment at the interim draft report from the strategic review body in relation to the Ormeau road parade and Drumcree; it seems that they have been left out of the process. However, I understand that the Ashdown review team will make recommendations on those two parades in the final report. Will the Minister confirm that?

Certainly, that is what the strategic review of parading has said itself: it hopes to have proposals for solutions to what it describes as “legacy parades”, and it names the Ormeau road and Drumcree. Clearly, as I have emphasised, it is important that the issue is not seen as something that is left to the strategic review body to resolve. Instead we all, from the bottom up as well as from the top down, have to work at finding solutions.

As I said, although the Government have not taken a firm or final view in relation to the review’s recommendations, we can certainly see the merit in the principles on which it bases its recommendations. Indeed, we acknowledge the considerable support for the strategic review body. We also acknowledge that there have been others who have been critical of it, and they have raised concerns. Their feedback to the strategic review will also be important as Lord Ashdown and his colleagues form their final conclusions.

The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk asked whether I was confident that all the process could be in place by April next year, and he asked a number of other questions. Frankly, the answers depend on the time scale of the strategic review of parading as much as anything else. If the review body reports in November, we will have to see what it recommends. If it recommends that the Parades Commission is replaced by another system, such as the one that it has outlined in its interim consultative report, and we accept that recommendation, then legislation will be necessary. However, we would, of course, have to take our turn, as it were, in the parliamentary process here.

It is important that we ensure that people’s expectations are realistic. In relation to Northern Ireland, we have perhaps grown too familiar with emergency legislation that goes through the next day or the next week. We would have to expect legislation on parading to take its place alongside a whole raft of other legislation that the Government introduce. However, there are still no firm decisions on legislation because we first need to see what the strategic review of parading comes up with. If its recommendation requires legislation, we stand ready to legislate if that will facilitate a sustainable, long-term solution for parading in Northern Ireland.

We look forward to the final report from the strategic review of parading. As I said, if it requires legislation, we stand ready to legislate. However, what is most important is that everybody works together now with the strategic review body to ensure that we have a system that works in practice as well as on paper and has widespread support. I say that because, in the end, the whole point of establishing the strategic review of parading was to ensure that we did not lurch from one parade to the next, or from one year to the next, and instead have a sustainable, long-term solution that sits happily with everyone so that, whether people wish to parade or protest, there is a place for all to do so, without fear of violence and conflict. That is a prize well worth achieving. Indeed, as we achieve that prize, as I am confident we will, that solution will take its place alongside some of the other issues that still need to be resolved and will be a building block for a Northern Ireland that is peaceful and prosperous, in the long term as well as the short term.

I am pleased to open this debate on the consultation process for the Greater Manchester bid for funding from the transport innovation fund under your chairmanship, Mrs. Humble.

The bid and the linked proposals for a congestion charge are key concerns for my constituency of Worsley. From the outset, I have said that I want my constituents to have their say on the proposals, and I shall describe why I think that that is important. The aim of the TIF bid and the congestion charge proposals is to cut the levels of congestion in and out of Manchester at peak times. In 2005, the Department for Transport said that it was seeking proposals that combined some form of demand management such as road pricing with better public transport, including the better use of buses, trams and light rail schemes, provided they offered good value for money.

From the outset, my concern about Greater Manchester’s bid was that my constituents would not benefit from better public transport yet would end up paying congestion charges on journeys into Manchester and on local journeys to Salford and surrounding areas such as Trafford and Bolton. Many of my constituents commute to work in central Salford or Manchester, and the poor state of the public transport run by privatised service providers means that many have no option but to travel by car. The congestion charging proposals will mean that they will have to pay from £500 to £1,200 annually just to get to work.

Many other Worsley constituents face charges when they cross charging zones on more local journeys. Examples include parents taking their children to school or teachers travelling to work at schools such as Bridgewater school, which is inside the zone. Salford council has a plan to merge St. George’s high school in Walkden, which is outside the charging zone, with another school at a location inside the charging zone. Congestion charges would make the merger proposal very unpopular with staff and parents alike.

Patients attending appointments at Salford Royal or Christie hospitals, and family carers attending with, or visiting, them would also be charged. I have already received expressions of concern from constituents about that. Staff at the hospitals will be affected, as will businesses delivering to the hospitals. Students and staff at Salford, Pendleton and Eccles colleges and Salford university will also be affected.

Shopping facilities in Walkden, Little Hulton and Worsley do not cater sufficiently for local people. Most local people travel to other nearby locations such as Eccles, Swinton and the Trafford centre. All three locations are across the congestion charge boundary, so charges would be incurred by constituents who want to shop in those areas at certain times. People working at, or visiting, the town hall in Salford such as councillors, those attending meetings or even people just paying bills will be affected, as will local business people who cross the zones during peak times with deliveries. Worsley ward and neighbouring areas such as Swinton, Barton, Eccles and Winton all fall within the proposed outer charging zone. Paying to travel to those local areas will have a significant impact on my constituents.

The improvements to Greater Manchester public transport that will be funded by the TIF bid seem to be geared towards city centre improvements, with much of the investment intended for the expansion of Metrolink. Only a small number of my constituents use that facility. The main method of travel into Manchester for Worsley constituents is by car or, to a much lesser extent, by heavy rail. There is only limited use of rail networks through Atherton and Walkden for commuting into Manchester, because the services are overcrowded and subject to other problems, too. Express trains from Atherton do not stop at Walkden, because of the limited length of the platform. The two-carriage trains that do stop there tend to be full, and 30, 40 or more people are regularly left there in the morning peak hour, because they cannot get on the overcrowded trains.

Access to Walkden station is poor. There are two flights of stairs and no lift. The facilities are outdated and the station infrastructure is in urgent need of renewal. There are no car-parking facilities at the station apart from parking in nearby residential streets. An issue that we might draw out in this debate is the impact of informal park and ride arrangements on many parts of the Greater Manchester conurbation if the proposals go ahead. The proposed improvements in the TIF bid which would benefit Worsley are limited, and include things such as investment in improved real-time passenger information, CCTV and signage at Walkden station; extra carriages on rail lines via Atherton and Eccles, from which, incidentally, we will not benefit unless the problems at Walkden are fixed; and a share of Salford’s 10 new school buses, which would mean possibly two or three of the yellow school buses.

Further improvements have been discussed, and much of the press coverage tends to focus on things such as the guided busway running from Leigh through Worsley and Salford to Manchester. However, the service is not funded in the TIF bid, and when I speak to constituents about transport matters, the Leigh guided busway is not a popular solution. At the Leigh end of Worsley constituency, the construction of the bus route would bring noise and constant disturbance to people living near the former railway line, which has become a peaceful backwater. In Walkden and Worsley, the guided busway would take up one lane of the two-lane East Lancashire road, and there are fears that it would serve to intensify congestion at peak times.

The bus services serving Worsley constituency are poor. Over the past two years, the privatised bus services provided by First in Manchester have been cut across Worsley constituency and Salford more generally. I have campaigned for improved services for my constituents but First has not listened to its customers or to me. Services that were vital to commuters and important to other bus users were cut. There are too many examples to detail, but I shall provide a few. The No. 35 service used by commuters to Manchester from Leigh via Atherton, Tyldesley, Mosley Common, Boothstown and Worsley—all key commuting destinations into Manchester—was withdrawn in 2006. The No. 553 service from Bolton to Boothstown and the No. 552 service from Bolton to Leigh were withdrawn, leaving no direct links from Tyldesley or Boothstown to Bolton.

Routes have also been changed. The bus service that linked Boothstown and Manchester, which was important to commuters, was cut back to one bus an hour. A vital bus service to the Trafford centre from Bolton via Little Hulton, Walkden and Worsley no longer stops at Little Hulton. I have received complaints from constituents, as I am sure many Members in the Chamber have, about the level of service on the buses. They range from complaints about frequency and lack of capacity during peak periods to examples of poor standards of service such as drivers refusing parents with a buggy access to the bus. Services need to improve dramatically before my constituents would use them instead of a car, but I cannot see any dramatic improvements on the horizon. In fact, when her local bus service was withdrawn, one of my constituents said:

“I find it difficult to understand how we are being urged to forego cars in preference of a public transport system which at times is poor or is non-existent.”

Over the past two years, such issues have caused many of my constituents to switch to the car.

Given the situation with public transport, it is my firm view that the consultation proposed by the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities and the passenger transport executive is not up to the task. What has been proposed is a consultation brochure with a response form for each household; an exhibition bus with three roving exhibitions per local authority; some public meetings, and a website. Those of us who have tried to organise campaigns would not organise one around a single thing being delivered to each household, or depend on public meetings and websites. None of us would think that that was much of a campaign. The planned costs of the consultation are about £3 million, of which just under half is to be spent on advertising and opinion polling. After the first advertisements were aired this weekend, other MPs and I received angry e-mails about perceived bias in the advertising campaign and requests for the adverts to put both sides of the argument.

Some compelling points need to be aired during the debate. First, the charging zone in Greater Manchester is considerably larger than for any other existing scheme. It will cover 76 square miles, or 15 per cent., of Greater Manchester, compared with 8 square miles covered by the original London charging cordon and 11 square miles in Stockholm. The charging cordon for Greater Rome covers an area of just 2 square miles, or 3 per cent. of the city. The economic base of the Greater Manchester zone is fundamentally different from other charging locations. Charging schemes have been introduced in high-density employment areas such as city centres, which have an established public transport infrastructure. I have made it clear that no such infrastructure exists, certainly not in my constituency, whereas in London, 80 per cent. of workers in the zone already travelled to work by public transport before the charge was introduced. As I have mentioned, Worsley and other parts of the proposed Greater Manchester charging zone do not have effective public transport alternatives.

The other key difference is that, in London, public transport is controlled by Transport for London and the Mayor of London, who was able to invest the congestion charge funds in a fleet of new buses, for example, which improved public transport. In Greater Manchester, much of the TIF funding will be spent on the expansion of Metrolink, which will benefit only certain areas, and I have to say that my constituency is not one of them.

Another key issue that needs to be aired is the question of whether Manchester is so congested that the changes are justified and whether the proposed changes and charges will make enough of a difference. One of the main traffic bottlenecks in my constituency is at junctions 12 and 13 on the M60 motorway, and it is almost entirely due to poor junction design. For a number of years, the Highways Agency proposed a scheme to improve those junctions, because there was such a traffic bottleneck. Traffic filters on and off the M62 and M602 motorways across a very tight area. However, this problem—our worst problem—would not be tackled or improved by the TIF proposals. Other parts of Greater Manchester also have traffic bottlenecks that need to be tackled by the Highways Agency.

I travel around my constituency, both during peak hours and outside those hours. Compared with the situation in London before the congestion charge was introduced, we have a traffic peak at the start of the day and in the afternoon/early evening. I used to work in London a couple of days a month before congestion charging was introduced, and there is no comparison between the scale of the gridlock in London and the situation in Greater Manchester. It would be difficult for many of my constituents to pay congestion charges just to get to work in Manchester or central Salford. It would lead to staff making demands on employers to take on some or all of the cost of congestion charging, which might be a big factor in respect of Manchester and Salford becoming employment destinations. Businesses are fearful about that and the consequent impact it would have on them.

Towns such as Eccles and Swinton struggle to survive against competition from retail and business centres elsewhere. It would be tempting for businesses to relocate from those places and for staff to change jobs to locations outside the charging zone. Similarly, schools, colleges and Salford university might find it harder to attract staff and students if those people could switch to similar establishments outside the charging zones. Many of my constituents work and shop at the Trafford centre, but there would be an incentive for them to travel instead to other out-of-town shopping centres. Many unintended consequences would have an adverse impact on life for all the businesses and organisations within the charging zone.

I am pleased to have opened this debate today. When the Transport Act 2000, which provided for the introduction of road charging outside London, was introduced the then Deputy Prime Minister said that if congestion charging schemes were to be introduced and approved, certain changes must be met, including the condition that public transport should be improved before charging schemes began to offer motorists a proper choice. A further condition was that local people must be consulted. As I have made clear, I do not believe that public transport can be improved enough in my constituency to offer motorists a proper choice. My constituents should be properly consulted, and I will work to make sure that they get as much information as possible and have a chance to have their say.

rose—

Order. Several hon. Members wish to contribute to this debate. I intend to call Front Bench speakers at 12 pm, so if hon. Members can limit their contributions I hope that everybody can get in.

It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate under your chairmanship, Mrs. Humble. I congratulate the hon. Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) on securing it. She spoke eloquently and knowledgably, and I agree with pretty much everything she said.

I should like briefly to make clear my own view about congestion charging schemes before discussing the consultation on which the debate is focused. I accept that there is a good case to be made for a national congestion charging scheme. Such a scheme will be in place probably within 15 or 20 years, at least on our motorways and trunk roads. However, it is difficult to overestimate—I choose my words carefully—the seething resentment in some parts of the Greater Manchester conurbation about being used as a laboratory experiment in respect of this scheme.

My contention is that this particular scheme, not road charging generally, is fundamentally flawed. I say that because its success depends pretty much on the number of cars travelling in and out of the city centre continuing at the same level. If the scheme is successful in deterring motorists from travelling in and out of the city at peak times, which is what it is supposed to do, it will mean that less revenue is raised to go towards the promised public transport investments. It cannot work, because if the scheme is successful in discouraging motorists from using their cars to get in and out of town, less revenue will be raised and there will be less money for the promised public transport improvements. The scheme depends on motorists continuing to drive in and out of the city centre at the same rate.

A cornerstone of the case for the congestion charging scheme appears to be the suggestion that is being developed for a referendum. I want to focus particularly on why that is not necessarily the right way forward and why I am certainly not persuaded that it is the best way of going about things. Incidentally, I have no doubt that if a referendum is to happen, the scheme will go down and I will oppose the idea of holding a referendum because it is not the right way forward. I say that clearly, because the premise on which the question is based in a referendum will be different depending on where people live.

If people live in the inner ring around Manchester, wherever that line is finally drawn, why would they not vote for the proposed scheme—the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) might want to add something on this later—because they will get pretty much all the benefits at none of the cost? Those in the inner ring will not pay at all to travel into and out of the city centre. Because of the way the rings will work, most of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech), who will live between the first and second rings, will be asked to pay once to travel into the city centre, and they may think that that is a price worth paying for the promised improvements. However, my constituents in Cheadle, whom I have the privilege of representing, and the vast majority of people in Stockport borough will be paying twice. So the premise is not the same. I can understand why people in the city centre might vote for the scheme, but people outside the second ring will be asked to pay twice. What makes it even more invidious is that the people in Stockport borough will not get the promised public transport improvements—not in the foreseeable future, anyway.

My other key point is that all of this is premised on the Government’s saying, “If you accept this scheme, more money will be made available for public transport.” We would all welcome more investment in public transport; we all know that it needs it. However, hon. Members’ first duty is to represent the interests of the people who elect us to Parliament. Ask anybody in Stockport and they will say that the talk about promised extensions of the Metrolink system to Stockport town centre has been going on for years. I was previously leader of Stockport council and I am a former member of the passenger transport authority in Greater Manchester. The Metrolink scheme has always been developed on the basis that, eventually, we would all benefit from it. I have to say to the Minister that some of us are still waiting. We are no closer to the extension of the Metrolink system to Stockport and this consultation will not bring it any closer.

There is also an issue in my constituency, which affects the whole south side of Greater Manchester, about completing the A555 relief road. I know that the Minister is well aware of the compelling case that we have made, on a number of occasions, for that project to be given the go-ahead. However, without confirmation that we are going to get a Metrolink extension to Stockport and that the A555 road scheme will go ahead, the people in Stockport are being asked by the Government to take too much on trust. The Government have fully used their reservoir of good will for these ideas in my area.

Three of the 10 Greater Manchester authorities are already on the record as opposing the scheme. I am not sure of the current status of the proposed referendum in Bolton, but it is likely that a fourth will come out against the scheme. My key question to the Minister is how on earth will such a scheme be imposed on Greater Manchester residents on the basis that certainly three and perhaps four of its 10 authorities will not want to co-operate?

I hope that the Minister will address those genuine concerns in her response. I understand why, in some cases, the scheme may make sense for some hon. Members and that they will want to support it, but I am afraid that many of us can see no tangible benefit for our constituents. The constituents whom I have the privilege of representing will be asked to pay twice to get in and out of the city centre with no corresponding increase or improvement in public transport. If we end up with a conurbation-wide referendum, it will be without my support.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs. Humble. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) on securing the debate. I am pleased to make a brief contribution towards it.

This is an extremely timely debate, given the surprise announcement last week that the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities will press for a county-wide referendum on this important issue, and the politicking that took place last Friday when the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formed a joined administration on the passenger transport authority, a matter to which I shall return.

Like my hon. Friend’s Worsley constituency, my Denton and Reddish constituency is sliced in two by the M60, the proposed outer charging zone. Consequently, many of my constituents have real concerns about the congestion charging proposals.

First, let me put on record my firm belief that Greater Manchester’s public transport needs improving. My constituents in both Stockport and Tameside are not well served by public transport. We currently have no Metrolink service, and although bus services along the main roads are fairly frequent, that has been at the expense of a number of services away from those main routes being cut dramatically or even axed, thus penalising pensioners and disabled residents in particular. They have certainly not been well served by the private bus companies operating in my part of Greater Manchester.

I lay claim to the most pathetic train service in the entire United Kingdom, which has just one train, once a week, in one direction between Stockport and Stalybridge via Reddish South and Denton stations on Saturday morning. Therefore, I appreciate that the nearly £3 billion package of funding that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put on the table must be seriously considered. I doubt whether we shall ever again be offered such a sum to put right the many wrongs that collectively form the Greater Manchester transport network. That £3 billion is needed, and it is needed desperately.

The real controversy lies with the Greater Manchester congestion charge element of the proposal, and particularly in communities such as those that I represent which straddle the M60 charging zone. Whether people agree in principle with the notion of congestion charging, if the aim really is to tackle unnecessary traffic heading into and choking up the city centre, they can just about accept the logic of a system that identifies the traffic that causes the problem and consequently imposes a charge, but what Greater Manchester proposes is a two-ring system with a £2 charge for passing the M60 outer ring and £1 charge for passing the inner ring with a further £2 charge to return over the M60. Charges would apply only at peak times and in the direction of the congestion. That takes no account of local travel and of allowing communities to operate in a joined-up way, as they have always done.

I have absolutely no answer to the young mum who came to my advice bureau recently. She lives in Audenshaw, one of the towns sliced in two by the M60, works in Ashton-under-Lyne, and travels away from the peak traffic flow in the morning and evening, so ordinarily would not be charged, but she has to drop her daughter off at a local private day nursery, which is in her community of Audenshaw and less than quarter of a mile from where she lives. Because it is on the opposite side of the M60, she would be charged £2 a day under the proposals. When she told me that that will not tackle congestion because she is not causing it, and that it will merely add £10 a week to her child care bill, I had no answer, and the Greater Manchester scheme has no acceptable answer either.

The Dane Bank part of Denton is divided from the rest of the town by the M60, an industrial estate and the fringes of the Tame Valley country park. Every year, there is an issue for local parents because the two primary schools, Dane Bank and Denton West End, fill up, and a small number of children from that estate are not allocated places at them. Between one and five children are affected, so the numbers are not large, and they are then allocated whichever other primary school in Denton has surplus places. However, those schools are on the other side of the M60, through the industrial estate and past the open space. There is no public transport linking the two sides effectively, so the only option is for those children to be driven to school. Greater Manchester passenger transport executive’s yellow bus scheme will not help such a small number of children who are dispersed to different schools, so the parents will be charged to return home after dropping their children off at their local school. This is just plain wrong.

Finally, the M60 cuts through the most southern part of Denton and Reddish, and through the centre of Stockport town centre, so the charge zone will dissect the north and south of the borough through the economic heart of the town. It will not allow Stockport to function properly as a community. If the GMPTE and AGMA cannot devise a scheme to honour and respect local communities, they will never get a yes vote in the referendum.

Those are the issues that I am taking up on behalf of my constituents, and I have meetings planned with officials from the PTE to discuss those concerns. Let us face it, last week it seemed that the inner charging zone was not set in concrete, with public consultation proposed on the final boundaries, but no similar announcement was made about the outer zone. It seems that for us the scheme is set in stone, at least for the time being, but AGMA and the PTE will have to budge and respect local communities if they want the scheme to proceed.

Finally, I welcome the decision to have a referendum. It was always going to be difficult for AGMA when Bolton announced that it was having a local poll, with the three opposing councils, Stockport, Trafford and Bury, and perhaps Oldham, also suggesting one. We cannot have half of Greater Manchester—five of the 10 boroughs—having a say in a poll, but not the other half. Everyone in Greater Manchester should have their say on such an important issue, and AGMA is correct—although I believe that it has deferred a formal decision—to suggest a county-wide referendum. Let us have a good and proper debate about the county’s transport needs and of our individual parts of it alongside the pros and cons of the congestion charge proposal.

That leads me to the GMPTA. It is absolutely crazy that its new Conservative chair, deputy leader of Trafford council and well-known anti-transport innovation fund campaigner, has agreed to share power with the Lib Dem group on the PTA, as long as he remains neutral on TIF. That requirement was set down by the Lib Dems, who are all over the place on this issue. Stockport is firmly against, Rochdale is evangelically for, and Oldham—I am not sure whether this is true to form—is not sure.

I like and respect Councillor Colledge, the new chair. I have met him on a number of occasions, including last week when he was in Westminster with a GMPTA delegation to lobby MPs about light rail. I wish him well in his new post, but how can the chair of the PTA remain neutral on a scheme to which its own PTE is co-signatory, which PTE officers are helping to draw up and which will be subject to a referendum on which the PTA, with him as chair, will presumably ask for a yes vote, and Trafford council, with him as deputy leader, will call for a no vote?

Whatever happens in the referendum, I shall encourage my constituents to have their say and to make their voices heard. Until then, I will keep raising the issues of fairness and social cohesion with AGMA and the passenger transport executive, because the communities I represent—particularly those affected by the charge zone, such as Audenshaw, Denton and north and central Stockport—deserve answers and a resolution to their very real concerns.

The congestion charge is a misnomer. It is a new tax specifically for Manchester that is related neither to the ability to pay nor to congestion. The charge will be paid by people who have no public transport alternative and it could last for 30 years—it has, in fact, been boasted that it will last for that long. Put like that, the charge is a pretty unattractive proposition. Why then are some of the authorities in Greater Manchester in favour of it, as was, until recently, the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority? The justification is that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to put more than £3 billion of public money into improving the trams, trains and buses in Greater Manchester, while at the same time beating congestion.

It is assumed that there is no alternative to that analysis of what is going on. I have done my best to try to put together what is really happening by looking at the transport innovation fund bid, which is still a private document—the chief executive of Manchester city council has given it to me on a confidential basis—and by reading the reports that have gone to the passenger transport authority, the AGMA and the councils. It seems that something quite different is on offer than £3 billion of wonderful integrated transport.

For a start, the Government’s grant is £1.21 billion—it is not clear how many years that is over, but it is possibly five or 10 years—which is a relatively trivial amount of the transport allocation to the regions. The rest of the cost is to be met locally. When we compare that figure with what has been spent on London—for example, on Crossrail, on Thameslink and on writing off the disgrace of the Metronet contract, which was more than that in just one slug of £2 billion—it seems that such a scheme should be wholly funded by central Government. When one looks at the detail, one realises that there will not be trams everywhere—there will be trams to Ashton, to Manchester airport and to Didsbury—and that the scheme involves Altrincham bus station and yellow buses.

Trams to Oldham and Rochdale have been mentioned, but they are listed as a category D funding priority. Such funding is not guaranteed but, from the documents that are being put out, it is difficult to tell that the funding arrangements for Oldham and Rochdale have not been agreed. I might be wrong on this because I have had to work it out myself, but it seems that £1 in every £6 of the Government grant of £1.21 billion will be spent on kit for the congestion charge. That means that between one sixth and one fifth of the money will be spent just on kit and will not be spent to the benefit of public transport. That money could pay for trams to Oldham, Rochdale and possibly elsewhere.

After reading all the documents, it is unclear exactly what the result of the congestion charge will be and how much money will be brought forward by it. If one reads the documents carefully, the implication is that having a congestion charge on the two rings will not bring in enough income and that a charge will have to be put around Stockport, Bolton and the other district centres to make it work, or there will have to be higher charges. The scheme is unbelievably complicated. The administrative costs are unspecified, but the details show that single accounts for different motorists will have to be run, so it could be as complicated as the poll tax.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the possibility of a third ring around the city, which would obviously be of particular concern to my constituents. Is it not strange that in the initial consultation on the scheme a third ring was shown in the documentation, but mention of it now seems to have disappeared? Does he share my concern that that might be an attempt to try to slip the charge through with less opposition than there might otherwise have been?

I share the concerns of my constituents and hon. Members that the process is not transparent. That is really the point I want to get to, but before I do so, I want to say that although we have been told that the bus network will be much improved, when one looks at the documents, one finds that we will not have quality partnerships or quality contracts; we will have a voluntary agreement with the bus companies. Despite the investment on bus priority measures, those bus companies that have done a great disservice to Greater Manchester during the past 20 years will be able to run whatever schedules and charge whatever fares they want. My experience of bus companies in Greater Manchester has shown that as they get bus priority measures, they increase their profits on those routes and cut the feeder routes into radial routes. We need to know whether people will be closer or further away from bus routes if the scheme goes through because that is not in the consultation document. Having read the documents, my instinct is that people will be further away from buses unless they happen to live on a radial route.

The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) said that he could understand people in the inner city voting for the proposal, but some people will have to drive across the boundary both ways to drop children off at school. My experience of bus companies is that they fill the buses up as far out as possible, charge relatively high fares and then stop picking up. Therefore, in all probability and according to the fare model that is used, people will get limited fares, much higher fares per mile will be charged to inner-city residents and there will be limited stop buses. The documents do not deny that that will happen and therefore the implication is that it will happen.

The documents also claim that congestion will be reduced. The implication of having bus priority measures is that there will be fewer people travelling down a corridor than before and that there will be more congestion—although that has not happened in every case in Greater Manchester as sometimes it has been done well and sometimes badly. That is not a great prospect.

An information campaign is supposed to start on 7 July. Will we get any of the answers to the issues about which I am concerned? Something I recently heard on Rock Radio is that congestion has increased by a fifth. Well, we need to ask where, what road, whether it is over the whole of Greater Manchester, and what period of time we are talking about. Otherwise, that is a piece of information without any content. However, if we look at the Greater Manchester traffic unit’s figures, congestion has been decreasing and speeds have been increasing in 11 of the 14 district centres in Greater Manchester. During the past six or seven months, congestion has decreased precipitately. As the price of petrol passed £1 a litre, the roads have cleared. Trafficmaster, which records traffic movements every day, would say that congestion is clearing everywhere. A fundamental problem with the scheme is that it assumes that one will know what will happen to congestion over 30 years. However, we do not know what will happen to the price of oil next week, let alone over 30 years. That is a fundamental flaw and we could be left with £200 million of kit and no congestion to pay for it.

I have considered the council’s claim that it is following the Cabinet Office’s rules on consultation. Those rules imply that there should be a regulatory impact assessment, but there is not one; they imply that there should be openness, but one cannot get to the figures; and they imply that there should be a level of objectivity, but a scrutiny panel has been set up that consists of the promoters of the scheme—the chief executives of the local authorities are on the panel. How can anyone have any faith in the independent scrutiny panel, which will consider the questions and leaflets that will be distributed? The Cabinet Office document also states that questions should be specific. The consultation documents are open-ended, which means that anyone can interpret them in any way they wish. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister is as concerned as I am about that type of consultation, because it means that it is possible to interpret the responses in any way.

I have never been a great supporter of referendums unless they are referred to in our manifestos, but if there is to be a referendum on this matter, I want to know who will determine the question. That must be done independently, by the Electoral Reform Society or another independent body. Will both sides of the campaign be funded equally as they were for the referendum in the north-east and for the referendum on Europe in 1975, or will it just be the current literature, which is campaigning, promotional literature, not information literature, that is used in a referendum? A referendum will have no credibility unless the question is set independently and both sides of the argument are put, with public money on both sides. It must not be a case of just one side hogging the information and putting forward all the information, so that the rest of us have to search around in detail for what we can find.

With either a referendum or the consultation, there is what we should refer to in Greater Manchester or the north-west as the Chorley question, just as there is the West Lothian question. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) said, “What about Chorley?” People from Chorley and other towns round Greater Manchester will drive into Manchester and will have to pay the tax. Will they be consulted? Will they have a say in any referendum? I do not know the answer to that question, but it should not be the case that people who have to pay the tax are not consulted whereas people who do not have to pay the tax are consulted. There are many flaws in this process. I hope that the Minister is listening to all the contributions that are made today and will vigorously ensure that any consultation and any referendum that take place are conducted fairly.

Today’s debate is welcome and timely. Equally welcome is the prospect of what would be an unprecedented level of investment in Greater Manchester’s public transport. Particularly in the case of my part of the conurbation, completion of the Metrolink to Ashton-under-Lyne is essential to the future economic well-being of Ashton. There is the prospect of a better heavy rail service through Ashton-under-Lyne, where there have been years of commuter misery because of overcrowding and the complete inability of potential passengers to get on to trains when they arrive. There is also the prospect of local bus improvements, which are much needed, but only if they can be linked with re-regulation.

I am a supporter of the TIF proposal, but we need to get the details right. Today’s debate is about consultation on the plans, so in the few minutes available to me, I shall, like my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), concentrate on some of the complexities and contradictions of the congestion charge as it will affect my constituents. Many of my points will be similar to the points that he rehearsed. It is essential that the consultation process deals with those issues if it is to be credible.

Ashton-under-Lyne is dissected by the M60. Four of the wards in my constituency are on the inner side of the motorway, ringing Failsworth and Droylsden, and five wards are outside the ring, in Ashton-under-Lyne and Hollinwood. Many of my constituents have told me of their worries about the impact of the congestion charge as they move about their immediate localities. Those worries have been made worse because during the recent local election, there was some pretty unscrupulous scaremongering by Tory and Lib Dem candidates, who peddled a campaign of misinformation and showed why, although they might want power, they are just not fit to exercise it in Greater Manchester. Some of the shenanigans relating to the running of the passenger transport authority in the past week have shown that very clearly.

Despite that, many of my constituents’ concerns are well founded, and I shall give a few examples. Ashton-under-Lyne is due east of the regional centre and is entirely outside the M60 ring road—Ashton-under-Lyne town centre, that is. If people want to travel east from Ashton-under-Lyne towards Yorkshire, or south towards the midlands, the main route out of the town centre directs them westward in the first place, over the M60 and therefore into the congestion charging zone, and, after about a quarter of a mile, east again, on to the M60 and into the area where the congestion charge would not apply. The question, therefore, is this: will a peak-hour congestion charge be payable by people whose journey is essentially out of the congestion charging zone but peripherally into it?

In Hollinwood, which by any measure is one of the most economically disadvantaged wards in the country, Kaskenmoor secondary school was severed from the community that it serves when the M60 was built. It sits virtually on the motorway embankment, just inside the M60 ring. The school catchment area draws pupils and many of the staff from outside the zone, and they will cross the zone boundary for just a few yards in order to go to the school. They are asking whether they will face a congestion charge.

Also in Hollinwood, we are to have a new Metrolink station, coupled with a park-and-ride facility, whereby travellers from outside the M60 ring can park and transfer to the tram to complete their journey into Manchester city centre. However, because the station sits just inside the M60 ring, will such travellers face a congestion charge? If they did, that would be bizarre, because those people would be trying to avoid causing congestion in the city centre by using public transport.

Just this week, a constituent from Failsworth, Mr. Boswell, wrote to me. He says:

“On one of the few occasions that we use the car for local journeys (taking my daughter from our home in Failsworth to the Oldham Lyceum for music tutorship on Tuesdays at 17:00), we would be charged…under the current proposals. Also as an example, my wife works…at the Royal Oldham Hospital. When working a night shift, she would be returning home to Failsworth at about 08:00 and would therefore be subject to a £2 charge…It is clearly unacceptable to charge somebody simply because they already live within the outer ring and are trying to get AWAY from Manchester or are trying to return home!”

Failsworth is part of Oldham. It is just about the only part of Oldham that is inside the M60 ring and it faces being terribly disadvantaged if those Oldham citizens want to travel to their own sub-regional centre at peak times. For them, it would be a charge too far.

I shall conclude by saying that, if the consultation is to be meaningful, it will need to have answers to those questions. The leaflets, consultation documents, website and exhibitions will need to address such concerns, which will apply not only in my constituency but, as we have heard, right around the M60. My continued strong support for the TIF proposition—it is strong support—will depend on the answers to questions such as those.

I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) on obtaining the debate. I do not share her central premise on the TIF bid in any shape or form—I am a genuine supporter—but nevertheless the debate is important because there has to be the utmost clarity in the TIF bid process if people are to be convinced that it is in the collective interests of people across Greater Manchester, and the consultation process, in any case, has at least to allow for the type of points that we have heard. My hon. Friends the Members for Ashton-under-Lyne (David Heyes) and for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) raised points of great detail. Nevertheless, the fact that they are points of detail does not invalidate them. Those are exactly the type of detailed points that people will want to have answered community by community. That will affect my own constituents in the centre of the conurbation.

The one thing that I find disappointing about the nay, nay and nay again position of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) is that Cheadle is very much the part of Greater Manchester that benefits from the city centre. The relatively affluent people who live in Cheadle have always benefited from their ability to travel into the centre. They have benefited, in particular, from the economic base and they have benefited from the social base. In historical terms, they have never been the ones who have borne the problems caused by the conurbation. Some of the problems are intense, and I shall come to those. His constituents will have an interest in the resolution of some of those problems, because congestion has costs. That is an important issue. I could go on at great length about the importance of dealing with the production of greenhouse gases and about the need to do something practical about the use of the motor car in our society and the need for congestion charging simply on that basis. That matters to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Cheadle as it does to mine in inner-city Manchester.

I accept that it may not be a central point in his contribution, but as the hon. Gentleman mentioned my constituency I feel that I ought to respond. I put it to him that the residents of Stockport borough, and my constituents in particular, have already contributed handsomely to the cost of developing the Metrolink system. We are reluctant to pay any more until we can see the benefits. I entirely take his point about Manchester being the regional capital, and I am a proud Mancunian, but he should give us a bit more credit.

I give the hon. Gentleman’s constituents much more credit. I have a far more noble view of them; they, too, recognise the need to do something practical about congestion. They also recognise, as I do, like my constituents and all who live in the conurbation, that there are big costs to bear. Those costs even include health, because we know that the impact of vehicle-borne pollution, particularly on the lungs of young people, is serious and increasing.

Frankly, it is not responsible to say that we will see an indefinite number of vehicles coming into the centre of Manchester and that the children in a constituency such as mine will bear the cost of that air pollution—although I realise that it travels across the conurbation—and then say that it is not an issue for the people. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents would want that either. The important factor is that Cheadle has always depended economically on Greater Manchester, and particularly on the economy of Manchester.

The real damage of congestion is straightforward. Independent surveys have come up with numbers—for instance, that the conurbation will lose 30,000 jobs over the next 10 years. We can dispute the exact numbers, but it would be a very foolish person who said that congestion would not have a serious impact on the labour market. That is borne out by the experience of others cities, such as Dublin and Bristol, where economic growth has slowed because they failed to deal with congestion in a timely fashion. There are profound and important reasons why Manchester will have to deal with congestion, and those who are opposed to the scheme have failed to address them.

rose—

The hon. Gentleman will have 10 minutes to speak. I have far less time, so I hope that he will forgive me if I simply say that he will have to come up with far better answers on the question of jobs than his party has done so far—either in Greater Manchester, where Conservative councils are against it, or nationally.

The consultation is tremendously important. The inner ring goes across my constituency, and there will of course be a local impact. The details will matter to my constituents. For instance, it would be absurd if people found themselves unable to take their children to school on the way to work. Those are normal daily patterns, and it is not satisfactory to say that people should walk. That is not a reasonable proposition. Local people, community by community, will need reassurance on such matters, and the consultation must deal with them.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) follows the matter with real interest, and he has raised some important technical points. We need to ensure that the information base is fair. For example, we must be sure that big organisations such as Peel Holdings that are opposed to the congestion charge also play a responsible and acceptable role and do not simply engage in propaganda. We need a proper debate.

The reality is that there are real opportunities for public transport improvements across the conurbation. Stockport rail station will benefit if it becomes part of a local interchange. That will have a considerable effect on people throughout the borough of Stockport, including those in Cheadle; and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley knows that the dedicated bus corridor that goes through Salford and on to Manchester will benefit her constituents. Those things have to be measured in the balance, because people will have different views of the opportunities that the scheme affords them.

I realise that others wish to speak, so I shall conclude by saying that we need a debate that genuinely considers the opportunities. The conurbation could have first-class—indeed, world-class—public transport. We should not deny that. We should not say that it can be achieved in other ways. Indeed, no hon. Member has explained how else we could achieve a public transport uplift if the bid did not go ahead. That is important.

[Mr. David Wilshire in the Chair]

We must not deceive the public into thinking that there is a plan B. There is not. It is important that the information put forward in the consultation recognises that there are important questions, such as the economic cost of congestion, but it is also important that those who take the consultation process forward listen carefully to the important points of detail that, in the end, will be the basis on which local people vote.

I hope that the hon. Member for Wimbledon will persuade Tory councillors in Greater Manchester to accept that the legitimate way to take this forward is to have a county-wide referendum. That would give every individual the opportunity to have a say and to make their vote count. That would result in a proper transport system, with a proper structure across the conurbation. It would not simply be selfish voices being raised from particular parts at the expense of the wider community.

May I say to my colleagues that for a quarter of a century I have represented the most westerly and south-westerly part of the Greater Manchester conurbation? Over the past quarter of a century, through the general taxation and local authority taxation systems and the annual precepts to the Greater Manchester Transport Authority, my constituents have subsidised and paid for large measures of investment infrastructure in the city of Manchester. They have had not a single penny in return.

One of the big things for us—this is why I support the bid—is that for the first time we see a plan for multi-million-pound investment in new infrastructure and schemes to update the dilapidated infrastructure in the most westerly parts of the Greater Manchester conurbation. The only way that my constituents can get to work in Manchester is by car. There is no network of bus services. There is no train network worth the name. My constituents invest their skills, knowledge and commitment in Manchester to produce the wealth and the goods and services, and they use Manchester’s wonderful facilities for the arts, crafts and sports—all that makes it such a wonderful city we all support, admire and commit ourselves to—but although they have had to pay, they receive nothing in return.

The importance of the transport innovation fund and the critical arguments about the environment all pale into insignificance if people say, “If I’m going to pay for this, what do I get back in return?” It is important that the consultation process makes a great effort to listen to what ordinary people have to say about what the bid means in practical terms to their daily lives and about the resources needed to improve them. For my constituents, I hope that it will mean new and refurbished stations and a new bus network. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) said, we could all present a list of things that we would like for our constituencies. Even with an hour-and-a-half debate on that one subject, I could not cover everything. However, one thing is certain. If the bid does not get through, if it is undermined and nothing happens—we could add all those things that we have not discussed plus everything in the bid—we would still be left with congestion. We will still be left with constituents who, like mine, pay through the precept to subsidise the city’s transport infrastructure and receive nothing back.

With the additional cost of transport, one thing is certain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) said, the cost of transport will continue to rise, and fuel will become scarcer and more expensive. Unless the bid succeeds, the only alternative for my constituents will be to use the car. The bid must succeed and allow major infrastructure investments. My hon. Friend was right to say that it will not solve all the problems. He listed all the things in his constituency that it would not cover. I, too, could make a list. For instance, it would not give me a northern bypass around Ashton-in-Makerfield; and it would not remove the disturbances on the M6, which goes through my constituency. Every day, thousands of heavy vehicles go through my constituency on the old Victorian road system, but TIF will not resolve that problem. However, I still have the bottle to argue the case for TIF.

Some of my constituents may say that there is not much in it for them, but one thing is absolutely certain. We cannot go on as we are, paying every day in pollution and through our rates and getting nothing back. TIF could start to reverse that process. I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that factor. As for the consultation, organisations such as Network Rail have a responsibility. The Secretary of State made a statement on 9 June, and we supported her, but two or three days later, Network Rail criticised the TIF bid and arrangements in my constituency in the local press, which is not acceptable. Network Rail has its own agenda, and it is not the same as the agenda on which my constituents sent me to Parliament. If we are going to have a proper debate on the matter and win the argument, organisations such as Network Rail should put their hand up and accept that they have a responsibility to help to improve the infrastructure, and not put barriers up to prevent that. I received commitments from the Secretary of State on the day, which she has followed through in writing, as has the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), as well as the passenger transport authority and executive. I expect, with my right hon. and hon. Friends’ support, meetings in the next few weeks to ensure that promises given to my constituents on the TIF bid are realised sooner rather than later.

rose—

We are at the point at which spokesmen would normally begin their speeches. Mr. Brady gave a reasonable reason for being late and said that he would make a short contribution. I cannot stop you, Mr. Brady, once you start, but I am minded to ask you to restrict yourself to a minute or so.

I appreciate that very much, Mr. Wilshire. I congratulate the hon. Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) on securing the debate, and I am pleased to make a brief contribution to the debate.

I think that the scheme is deeply flawed, for three key reasons. First, a congestion charging scheme should be easy to afford, but this scheme is not. It will cost many people £5 a day but, as has already been admitted, it could cost others as much as £10. There will be no discount for residents, unlike the London scheme, which people need to understand in the consultation process. Residents are going to be hit very hard.

Secondly, such schemes can work only when public transport in the area is good enough. At the moment in Greater Manchester, public transport is such a long way from being good enough to replace the use of the car that many people, including the constituents of my friend, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), will continue to pay, without getting the return that he hopes they will get.

Thirdly, such a scheme must be simple to understand. However flawed and one-sided the consultation, it will highlight the fact that the scheme is not easily understandable and is incredibly, absurdly complex. Two circles are already proposed, and a third, outer ring might be introduced in due course. People do not understand the scheme, it will be complicated to operate, and it will cause endless confusion and complication in people’s daily lives if it is introduced.

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) on securing this debate, which is on an incredibly important issue for the whole of Greater Manchester. Getting the consultation right and ensuring that people have a say on the proposals is absolutely vital.

Opinions are divided on the merits or otherwise of a road charging scheme for Manchester, and not along the political divide, contrary to the comments made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). The leader of Manchester city council is strongly in favour of introducing congestion charging, yet the former leader of the council, the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) is totally opposed. LibDem-run Stockport, which will once again miss out on Metrolink and which stands to gain little from the proposals, is opposed to the scheme, yet LibDem-run Rochdale, which would benefit significantly if the Metrolink expansion to the town centre goes ahead, is in favour of the plans.

The hon. Member for Worsley and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) made impassioned pleas about the fact that their constituents will not benefit from the great improvements in public transport promised by the proposals. My hon. Friend also highlighted a problem that might arise if the scheme is successful. If people change their behaviour, the charging scheme might not raise enough money, which would make bridging the funding gap a problem. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish gave an excellent example of a constituent who would be hit by the proposals because of where the boundaries will be set, and the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley questioned whether the scheme would improve bus services and result in less congestion. He also made a valid point about the need for independence in any referendum on the matter.

The issue of congestion charging and road-user pricing is contentious, especially when people are feeling the pinch of higher fuel costs, mortgages, food prices and energy bills. There is a danger that the debate will become about just another tax on the motorist. Nationally, the Liberal Democrats have avoided the problem by proposing a cost-neutral national road user pricing scheme for motorways and trunk roads, as well as committing to a multi-billion pound investment in our rail network.

Any local scheme must generate revenue to pay back the cost of improving public transport, which has been hopelessly underfunded by successive Governments in the past 30-odd years. That is why the Liberal Democrats in Manchester proposed a Greater Manchester-wide referendum on the plans, so that everyone in the conurbation could have their say. I was therefore delighted to hear the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers), the Conservative transport spokesperson, apparently supporting the principle of a referendum when she questioned the Secretary of State for Transport during the announcement that Manchester’s TIF bid had been granted programme entry and that the Government were making £1.5 billion available to the city. Perhaps the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) will confirm whether the Conservatives support a Greater Manchester-wide referendum.

The hon. Gentleman should not be surprised about that. He and I sat through endless sittings of the Local Transport Bill Committee, in one of which I moved an amendment in favour of a referendum. I am staggered that he finds it so surprising.

I did not say that I found it surprising. I simply hoped that he would confirm that that was the official position of the Conservative party.

Perhaps more significant than the Conservatives’ support for a referendum is the Damascus road-style conversion of the leader of Manchester city council, Sir Richard Leese, to supporting a referendum. A referendum would not necessarily be defeated. Giving the example of Edinburgh, many argue that a referendum will automatically guarantee that a bid will be unsuccessful. However, a referendum on congestion charging was won in Stockholm, although I accept that there are some questions about its validity. When I carried out an unscientific poll in my constituency, slightly more respondents were in favour than were opposed to a proposal for a congestion charge featuring transport improvements. However, I am willing to accept that there will be differences from one constituency to the next, which is why I support a referendum.

The consultation process is not only about a referendum. Before a referendum can be carried out, there must be a period of consultation on the proposals. The consultation must be meaningful, clear and unbiased, and residents must be given the full facts. Unfortunately, the evidence that I have seen does not give me any confidence that that will happen. A document entitled “What would you say to a transformed transport network?” has been sent out in Greater Manchester. I saw it only because it was delivered with the local free newspaper to my parents’ house in Leigh. I imagine that I did not receive one through my door because we do not receive a free local newspaper any more. Does that mean that thousands of other residents of Greater Manchester and I will not receive a copy of that document? Free papers are often not delivered to the most isolated or socially disadvantaged areas, and it is simply not good enough for people to be engaged in the consultation process only through those papers. That said, many who have received the document will be none the wiser as to how the scheme will affect them because the details are so sketchy.

I have personally come in for criticism from my Labour opponents for not taking a definitive view on the proposals but, like many people in my constituency, I would like to know the full details of the scheme rather than blindly supporting or opposing it. My constituents in Chorlton, for instance, want to know where the boundaries will be and what impact the scheme will have before making a decision. One option is for the inner ring to bisect Wilbraham road. Some residents may see being inside the inner ring as an advantage, because they would not face a charge for driving into the city centre, but they might take the opposite view, because residents on the other side of Wilbraham road might choose to park their cars inside the inner ring and cause parking chaos on what are already heavily congested streets.

Similarly, an alternative proposed boundary would run down Withington road, almost directly outside my house. If that were the boundary, I would be able to park my car at the front of my house and not pay a charge for driving into the city centre. However, if my neighbours and I parked our cars in the garages at the back of our houses, and therefore drove out on to Withington road, we would have to pay. The consultation must fully address such details, rather than vaguely mentioning an inner ring. Simply describing the inner ring as

“Broadly following Alan Turing Way in the east to Trafford Road in the West”

is hardly helpful to the residents of south Manchester.

It has been suggested that the M60 would always be the outer ring, but discussions are now taking place about the possibility of the city council boundary being the outer ring. Once again, people must be made aware of that vital piece of information. There has been a lot of disquiet in Wythenshawe about the prospect of having to pay the full charge because the area is south of the M60, and a decision on where the southern boundary would go would be a significant factor in people’s decision about whether to support the scheme.

Other issues that must be addressed in the consultation include the cost to the motorist and the provision of proper details about what transport improvements people can expect to see implemented and when. Originally, people were promised that all the public transport improvements would be in place before charging could begin. The consultation document suggests that

“almost all of the improvements will be in place by the summer of 2013”,

but figures that have been bandied about suggest that only 80 per cent. of the improvements would be in place before the charging scheme is introduced.

As for costs, the consultation document suggests that the daily charge, which is £5 at 2007 prices, will be no more than £6 in 2013, even though the figure of £8 has been bandied about. Whichever is the correct figure, people must know the details so that they can make an educated decision. In total, a staggering £3 million is to be spent on the consultation process. That should be easily enough to ensure that people are properly consulted and feel part of the process. However, a significant proportion of the £3 million is to be spent on spin, rather than on genuine consultation. The £810,000 that is to be spent on TV adverts that tell people very little is not money well spent. A consultation document that costs £627,000 and which is thin on detail is hardly worth the paper that it is written on, never mind the cost of distribution. I hope that there will be a meaningful consultation and that it will give people a real say, but I rather suspect that it will not.

Good afternoon, Mr. Wilshire. This has been an interesting and lively debate.

When we debated local transport on the Floor of the House last year, several hon. Members, including many of those who have contributed today, said that the key to the successful delivery of local transport was the interrelationship between national and local government. In my comments, I highlighted an important principle, which lies behind what we are discussing. I said:

“The Government have talked a lot about devolving power to local authorities, but the…fact remains that when it comes to transport, local authorities’ freedom of manoeuvre is woefully inadequate, as authorities are entitled to bid for central Government money for local schemes that meet local priorities only if those local priorities are in accordance with the Department for Transport’s diktat.”

The Government tried to wriggle out of that by saying that they had introduced new guidelines on local and national transport. They said:

“The over-prescription and overriding of local priorities is highlighted by the fact that the revised guidance contains 16 pages on shared priorities—namely, the Government’s priorities—and only two on other local priorities.”—[Official Report, 12 March 2007; Vol. 458, c. 112-14.]

That is the essence of where we are today, and it explains why Greater Manchester has said that its local transport requires improvement and investment, as we have heard from several hon. Members from the Greater Manchester county area, who know these things far better than I ever could. At the same time, however, Greater Manchester is allowed to bid for funds under TIF only if it submits to the Government’s bullying on the congestion charge. That is the background to the debate. The Government are effectively telling Greater Manchester, “Of course you can have money from TIF, but only if you put in a congestion charging scheme.”

Clearly, there must be roads in Greater Manchester that are gridlocked and car-parked like the M25, a number of the roads in Greater London and—even five years on—a number of the roads in the congestion charging scheme. However, the hon. Members for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) and for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) said that congestion in Manchester is not as bad as it is in Greater London; indeed, the hon. Gentleman said that it is receding. There is therefore an issue about whether we are talking about a congestion charge. If we are, is it actually needed?

Furthermore, as several hon. Members have said, those on low or middle incomes, who face rising living costs of between 4 and 10 per cent. this year, will have to find an extra £1,200 a year from the family budget to pay for the congestion charge. That will clearly be difficult, but for those who will not even benefit from the scheme, the whole thing starts to unravel.

Several of the schemes announced under the TIF bid are not new. For instance, on 22 March 2000, the then Deputy Prime Minister visited Manchester to announce the “no strings attached” go-ahead for the “big bang” expansion of Metrolink, and that is now also part of the scheme. If several of the things that are to be included in the scheme are not new, the whole thing starts to look very difficult.

The Government endlessly tell us that there is £3 billion of investment, but the reality is that although between a half and a third—it is probably closer to a half—of the £2.8 billion of total investment will come from the Government, the rest will come from charges, loans or increases in local taxes. Those of us who have seen the congestion charging scheme in London will know that some people live in areas that do not benefit. As the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) said, those who live in areas that are not in the centre of a scheme do not benefit from any of the proceeds, even though they have to pay for it. My constituents in south-west London would certainly recognise that sentiment.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I have only—

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned my name and misquoted what I said.

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to re-quote what he said, I will let him intervene.

I said that the TIF bid will, for the first time in 20 years, give my constituents something for something, not something for nothing. Up until this bid, we were subsidising infrastructure in Manchester city, but we were getting nothing back in return. TIF addresses that for the first time.

The right hon. Gentleman also said that his constituents had been paying through the precepts for a long time and that they had been getting nothing. That is exactly what my constituents got under the previous Mayor in London. Under this scheme, the extra money that is needed to make up the total amount will have to come from an increase in local taxes or the transport precept. We will have to rely on more cars coming in to pay an ever-increasing charge or we will have to increase the boundaries.

The Minister therefore has a number of questions to answer. For instance, exactly how much of the £2.8 billion will come from the Government and how much will come from local lanes and local charges? What guarantee does she intend to put in place to ensure that there will not be an excessive rise in charges each year to meet that contribution? My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) made a good point about an extension to a third outer ring. Can the Minister tell us definitively one way or the other whether that has been ruled out? Does she accept that the scheme will hit those on low incomes very hard? Will she propose measures such as the residents’ scheme in London to alleviate that impact? Will she have consultations with the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority?

My biggest concern, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members, relates to the democracy of the scheme. Three of the 10 councils whose residents will be asked to pay the charge have already said that they oppose it, while another has called for a referendum, but the Government seem determined to bully Manchester into congestion charging. The Secretary of State, who represents a Greater Manchester constituency, is effectively telling the city, “If you want the extra money to improve local transport you can have it, but you have to have this scheme.” Last year the Select Committee on Transport equated that approach with blackmail. It is very poor that the Government should seek to ride roughshod over what may prove to be the wishes of the people of Greater Manchester, and not seek local consent or validation.

Referendums may be seen as an imperfect method of obtaining local consent or validation. A local referendum took place in May when the chairman of the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority lost his seat on the council to an anti-charging candidate. It is clear, therefore, that the Government must consider the whole question of how they want to go about validation. It seems that congestion charging should have the consent of the local population.

There was recently a statement on TIF funding. The Secretary of State kept silent about any views on referendums for her constituents or the people of Greater Manchester, and that spoke volumes. Now we have heard that there will be 14 weeks for a consultation process. There has been a brochure, which some hon. Members have suggested they will not get. We have talked about a single exhibition bus and some public demonstrations. Does the Minister think that that is an adequate method of consultation for a scheme of this size? Does she not accept that, despite all the imperfections of referendums, many of which have been described—I shall certainly not go over them again in the short time remaining—they are a way of validating support, and the Government should tell Greater Manchester that a referendum would be an acceptable method of showing, for all to see, whether there is support for the congestion charging scheme? If there were to be a referendum and a no vote, would the Government accept that they should stop their bullying and consider that there must be a plan B?

The debate underlines the inescapable truth for the Government that local plans should follow local needs and local transport requirements and not just be a misnomer for a Government directive. They should stop bullying residents in Manchester and let them decide whether they want congestion charging. All congestion charging schemes require local validation or consent. I hope that the Minister will learn from this experience and will consider amending the Local Transport Bill accordingly, when she has the chance, perhaps on Report.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) on securing the debate. It is obviously an issue of great importance to her constituents. The debate has reflected strong views on the main issue and on a referendum.

It is worth revisiting initially some of the background to the Manchester TIF bid. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) and, in a very passionate speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) said, Greater Manchester is one of the fastest growing economies in the country. Its economic success is vital to the success of the north-west as a whole, and to the UK economy. Right hon. and hon. Members sometimes considered the immediate effects of the proposal on their constituencies. However, it is important to point out, as some did, the effect of the Manchester economy on that of the north-west as a whole.

Some 45,000 new jobs have been created in the past five years in Greater Manchester and there is the potential for a further 210,000 to be created by 2021. However—this is the key point—in Greater Manchester, as in many of our key cities, future growth and prosperity are threatened by congestion on the roads. Indeed, Greater Manchester has identified, as many hon. Members have pointed out, that as many as one in seven future jobs in the city region could be at risk as a result of growing congestion. It is also important to take into account the knock-on effects on the environment, air pollution and health, which make it vital to tackle congestion.

A TIF proposal was submitted in response to the big challenges in Greater Manchester. I challenge the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) on his remarks about a bullying, bribing approach. The Government invest something like £2 billion a year in local and regional transport, which is a huge increase on what the previous Administration spent. TIF money is additional to that. It is a question of thinking about innovation, and responding to the fact that people say that, if there is to be congestion charging, investment in public transport as well would be a good idea. That is what the process is all about—saying that around £3 billion of investment could go into the Greater Manchester area through the transport innovation fund bid. I therefore reject the idea of bullying and bribery.

I stress that widespread consultation on the bid is of course important. My hon. Friends the Members for Ashton-under-Lyne (David Heyes) and for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), and the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) all argued for the importance of thorough consultation. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish said that he was meeting the passenger transport authority and officials from the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, and he is right to do that.

As for a referendum, we have not said that it is obligatory to hold one, but we certainly see robust consultation as critical to the success of TIF packages. Greater Manchester has made it clear that it is embarking on a period of extensive consultation. I welcome that step, as many hon. Members who have taken part in the debate have done. It is vital that local people can engage in the process, examine the proposal closely, and see the potential benefits of charging as part of a wider package of transport improvements, or consider some of the issues that have been raised in the debate today. It is important that the local authorities themselves can find the solution on how to carry out the consultation. It is not for Whitehall, Westminster and Ministers to dictate.

The consultation should be wide and involve local people, businesses, motorists, public transport users, transport operators and groups with special interests, such as people with disabilities. That is the kind of wide-ranging consultation we want. As I have said, we do not require authorities to hold a referendum, but we do not rule it out either. A referendum would not be a substitute for effective wider consultation as well. We have been very clear about that in our discussions.

It is quite difficult to deal with all the detailed points that have been raised, but the debate has shown that there will be lively discussion in the coming weeks. I have no doubt that right hon. and hon. Members will continue to contribute to that debate, and will encourage their constituents to do the same.

I welcome this opportunity to raise the important matter of the safety of the RAF Nimrod fleet, a subject relating largely to the tragedy that befell Nimrod XV230 in Afghanistan on 2 September 2006 in which 14 brave service personnel lost their lives. This debate is also about the lessons that have emerged since then from the board of inquiry and the coroner’s inquest; from information that has come to light through freedom of information requests; from the Ministry of Defence’s reaction to those developments; and in time, we hope, from the independent review conducted by Charles Haddon-Cave, QC, into the broader issues surrounding the loss of XV230.

The Minister will appreciate that, as the Nimrod MR2 fleet is stationed at RAF Kinloss in my constituency, the issues are of direct concern. Safety questions affect all air and ground crew as well as civilian workers, who take great and justifiable pride in their work and want to secure the highest safety standards. Safety questions affect the families of those who died aboard Nimrod XV230 and those who continue to fly the Nimrod fleet. Safety questions remain for many experts and former RAF personnel who have watched the developments and have significant concerns. Safety questions also remain for me as a constituency MP. In the absence of appropriate, detailed information from the Ministry of Defence, I have had to rely on FOI requests, letters to and from the MOD, and statements by Ministers in the media. Safety questions remain because the ageing Nimrod fleet has experienced continual fuel leaks; because there is a repeated inability to get planes airborne; and, most recently, because the coroner’s inquest expressly recommended that the fleet should be grounded until risk levels are as low as reasonably practicable.

On 4 December 2007, the official board of inquiry published its findings on the loss of XV230. The board believed that the No. 7 tank dry bay was the most likely location for the seat of the fire and the most probable cause was escaped fuel contacting a supplementary conditioning pack air pipe at 400º C

“after entering a gap between two types of insulation”.

Four separate factors were listed as contributing to the accident: the age of the aircraft, the maintenance policy, the failure of hazard analysis and the lack of a fire detection and suppression system, and the failure to identify the full implications of successive changes to the fuel system and associated procedures.

In an oral statement to the House of Commons on the same day, the Secretary of State for Defence said:

“At the time of the accident, the Department took action to ensure that a similar scenario could not occur again on the Nimrod aircraft. Those measures have been revised as the board’s findings have emerged. The chain of command has accepted the majority of the board’s recommendations and continues to pursue the outstanding recommendations made by the board to enhance the safety of our aircraft.

The hot air system remains switched off so that there is no hot pipe against which any fuel could ignite, and we have an enhanced inspection regime to examine for any sign of fuel leakage. QinetiQ has conducted an independent investigation into the fuel system and confirmed that, in light of the measures taken since the crash, the fuel system is safe to operate.”

I shall return to that point. He went on:

“Air-to-air refuelling has also been suspended subject to further investigation. The Chief of the Air Staff’s professional judgment is that the Nimrod fleet is safe to fly. I have accepted his advice.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2007; Vol. 468, c. 686-87.]

In my reply to the statement, I said to the Secretary of State:

“Only recently, another Nimrod aircraft suffered a serious fuel leak and it has proved impossible fully to understand why it happened. It is also a cause for concern that the inquiry confirmed the loss of experienced engineering personnel from RAF Kinloss. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Ministry of Defence will do everything in its power to restore confidence in the Nimrod fleet, which performs such a vital military role?”

The Secretary of State answered:

“I have no hesitation in giving him the reassurance that he seeks. The safety of those who fly in these aircraft is our priority; it is not secondary to any other consideration. I have given careful thought to the issue of age and to all the other issues identified in the BOI as contributory factors. I am assured—and I accept those assurances—by those who have the vast technical ability and experience to understand these matters, and having gone into them in detail myself, that this aircraft is safe to fly and airworthy. I would not allow it to fly if I did not believe that to be the case.—[Official Report, 4 December 2007; Vol. 468, c. 693-94.]

That statement of confidence by the Ministry of Defence was followed in May by the coroner’s inquest. During the proceedings, which I attended, the court heard about the development of the Nimrod in the 1950s from the world’s first jet airliner, the de Havilland Comet. To make the Nimrod into a military aircraft, the Hawker Siddeley company added extra fuel tanks and a whole new bottom half to the Comet’s fuselage. Crucially, it also changed the engines, which meant installing a hot air pipe system to start the new Spey engines.

The hot pipe system crosses the centre section of the aircraft to enter the wings, where the engines are, passing through an area called dry bay 7, which was to become well known to the inquest. It is the area around the new No. 7 tanks, and it also contains fuel feed pipes. That should not have been a problem, as the hot air system was used only for engine starting. However, when the early Nimrod MR1 was developed into the MR2 version in the late 1970s, an extra cooling pack was added for all the new electronic equipment. Such packs work off hot air, from the cross feed pipe, which meant that the pipe had to be used continuously.

In dry bay 7, the cross feed pipe, operating at temperatures of 400º C to 500º C, was next to the large fuel feed pipes. That was a serious fire hazard, and it should have alerted the continuous safety assessment systems operated by the RAF and BAE Systems, the present aircraft maker, to the potential hazards. The coroner, Andrew Walker, said:

“I am satisfied that the design modifications to the MR2 made the aircraft unsafe to fly. This serious flaw in the design was not discovered despite a baseline safety case study undertaken by the (Nimrod) Integrated Project Team and the manufacturer.”

Mr. Walker added that in a previous incident to a Tornado aircraft, fuel had been drawn into the lagging around a hot pipe and had ignited, causing the loss of the aircraft. There had been no follow-up on the Nimrod, despite a recommendation from the RAF board of inquiry. He said:

“This cavalier approach must come to an end. In my view, it was this very source of ignition that, on the balance of probability, caused the loss of Nimrod XV230 with all souls on board.”

The coroner went on to detail failures of the so-called Cassandra hazard log, another matter to which I shall return. Had failures been recorded properly in the log and dealt with, the design flaw in the Nimrod fleet would have been discovered. He said:

“I simply do not understand”

how the Cassandra system could have assumed that there was a fire detection and suppression system in dry bay 7 when there was clearly no such system and there never had been. That meant that the crew of XV230 could do nothing to prevent the fire from developing into an explosive ignition of fuel in tank 7 in the wing root. The coroner added in his final verdict that

“the deaths were in part the result of failures...on the part of the aircraft manufacturer and those responsible for the safety of the aircraft”.

Mr. Walker recommended to the Defence Secretary that the whole Nimrod fleet should not fly again until the risks thrown up by the inquest have been reduced to a level known as ALARP, or as low as reasonably practicable. The Nimrod integrated project team leader, Group Captain Hickman, had already said in evidence that that was not expected to happen until the end of 2008. Asked if the process could be speeded up, Group Captain Hickman replied:

“No, it is driven by resources.”

I appreciate that the situation presents the MOD with a huge problem. The Nimrod performs an important role for the UK armed forces and coalition allies. It is also true that there is no replacement aircraft immediately available for the work and that the replacement Nimrod MRA4 is a few years off. Nevertheless, it was a surprise to all who attended the coroner’s inquest that literally within minutes of his lengthy summing-up, the Minister issued a statement refusing to accept the inquest’s main recommendation. It was, in my view, a rushed reaction. It cannot have been considered, and it illustrates my concerns about the developments.

I shall highlight three areas on which there has been precious little considered information from the MOD. In the 15 minutes that the Minister has following my contribution, he has an opportunity to provide details that I hope will reassure everybody about the safety concerns with regard to risk management, the hazard log and responsibility. First, on risk management, as I have already outlined, the Secretary of State assured the House that Nimrod was safe, citing a report by QinetiQ, the defence consultancy. To establish whether that was factually correct has been difficult, and it took an FOI request to establish that the report said that the aircraft would not be fully safe until its 30 recommendations were carried out. All but one of those related to a failure to implement mandatory airworthiness regulations.

The inquest heard that, if the risk of something going wrong on a plane is only “tolerable”, MOD rules stipulate that it must be further reduced to make it

“as low as reasonably practicable”

before the plane can be declared safe. In a letter to me on 19 May 2008, the Defence Secretary said that of the 30 recommendations, 21 have been accepted by the MOD and are still being implemented, six relate to air-to-air refuelling, which is no longer done with Nimrods, and three more are still being considered.

On 26 May, I wrote to Secretary of State asking:

“Please could you make a status report on all 24 recommendations which do not relate to Air-to-Air refuelling? How many have been implemented in full already? When specifically do you expect the remaining recommendations to be implemented in full?”

I am still waiting for an answer! Two weeks ago, in the defence procurement debate, I asked the very same questions, and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), said he would write to me. Again, I am still waiting for an answer. Today, Minister, I expect answers, and the questions are the same: how many of the 30 QinetiQ safety recommendations have been implemented in full, and when specifically does the MOD expect the remaining recommendations to be implemented in full?

Secondly, as the Minister must know, QinetiQ has already raised an issue relating to the structure of the Cassandra hazard log and linking of hazards to causes, controls and supporting evidence. It proved very difficult, if not impossible, to track the accident from the hazard back to the cause and the corresponding controls, and then to establish whether the controls had been fully implemented. In addition, it was found that the assessment of probability made assumptions concerning the implementation of recommendations that proved not to be valid, and supporting evaluations were found to be contradictory.

It was unclear which recommendations and controls required implementation to support the hazard probability. Furthermore, hazard controls often did not apply to all causes of hazard and, therefore, did not mitigate the hazard in full, but mitigated only specific causes. It proved impossible, therefore, to validate the hazard probability. QinetiQ recommended that the hazard log be restructured to facilitate ease of further review. It argued that that would clarify hazard-accident risk controls, the hazard causes to which they apply and the status of their implementation, which would in turn clarify the argument underpinning the evaluation of risk. In view of the importance placed on the Cassandra hazard log in determining Nimrod safety, what steps have been taken by the MOD and the integrated project team to implement QinetiQ’s important recommendations? With the current hazard log in such a confusing state, how can anyone claim that Nimrod is safe to operate?

My third point is simple, but crucial, and relates to responsibility: has any action been taken in relation to those with delegated responsibility for Nimrod airworthiness at the time of the Nimrod crash? Safety worries about the Nimrod fleet will remain as long as concerning incidents continue. With more than 111 fuel leaks since the crash of XV230, and the regular grounding of aircraft, those concerns remain and will remain until the MOD maintains its aircraft to its own applicable risk standard which must be as low as reasonably practicable, and for as long as it fails to restore confidence in the Nimrod fleet as promised.

Visits to RAF Kinloss by the Secretary of State are welcome—I have said that on the Floor of the House—and his participation in a Nimrod test flight was a statement of confidence, but that is not enough. Ministers have failed to make written or oral statements to the House of Commons when necessary, have imparted key information only after a coroner demanded it and released key studies only after freedom of information requests were made. Asserting from a television studio that the Nimrod fleet is safe is not good enough. I know that the Minister wants the best for our service personnel, as do I, and I strongly urge him to answer my questions, because otherwise this matter will not rest.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) on securing this debate on the safety of the Nimrod fleet and thank him for the opportunity to respond, on the record, to the important issues that he raises.

I repeat the condolences offered in the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and myself to the families, friends and colleagues of the brave crew of the Nimrod XV230. It is clear from the board of inquiry and the recent coroner’s inquest that the crew of the XV230 acted with the utmost professionalism in the face of a tragic incident. We owe them, and all those who serve in our armed forces, a continuing debt of gratitude. I would also like to repeat the apology given by the Secretary of State, which he made on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, for the failings that contributed to this tragic incident. I was astonished, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman said that we made assertions from a television studio. The Secretary of State came to the House and made a statement in the House. He apologised for the failings and set up a further inquiry to get behind the issues that had not been addressed by the board of inquiry. Yet the hon. Gentleman feels able to say effectively that we have failed to be responsible to Parliament. I find that unjustifiable.

Will the Minister give way?

No, I shall give way at the end of the debate, if I have time.

The board of inquiry into the crash was rigorous and exhaustive, and the deputy assistant coroner for Oxfordshire subsequently conducted an inquest into the incident. The inquest, and the MOD’s response, raised further concerns, not least for the families and friends of those killed in the crash, which I should like to try to address.

I turn first to the very important issue of the level of safety that applies to the Nimrod today. Many people are concerned that the aircraft is still flying despite being described as “tolerably safe”. They say—I have a statement from one of the family members to this effect—that Nimrod must be 100 per cent. safe. I, the hon. Gentleman and any other lay person, including the families and friends of those who died in the Nimrod XV230, would expect an aircraft, or any other vehicle, to be completely safe. However, the problem lies in the language and terminology. Our technical experts do not use words such as “completely safe”. Nobody connected with aircraft safety would talk about equipment being “completely safe” or “100 per cent. safe”. That is not in their vocabulary. Those people, who constitute the technical expertise available to the Royal Air Force, the integrated project team, QinetiQ and BAE Systems, judged Nimrod, as it is today, safe to fly.

MOD standards and policy on safety are derived from Health and Safety Executive policy guidance. They have not been invented by us, the MOD or the IPT. The guidance specifies three levels of risk: unacceptable, tolerable and broadly acceptable. In that terminology, which is necessarily used by technicians, and is the language used to classify equipment risk, there is no such standard as 100 per cent. safe. Our technical experts do not use such language. Indeed, I am told that the consequences of a fire or an explosion in any military aircraft means that the risk can never be reduced below the formal categorisation of “tolerable”, no matter how unlikely the hazard or how comprehensive the mitigation. That applies not only to the Nimrod, but to the Harrier, the Tornado and the C-130. It applies across military aircraft, irrespective of age. “Tolerably safe” is the level at which military aircraft must be to be allowed to fly.

Another term that causes confusion—and I understand why—is ALARP or “as low as reasonably practicable”. I used to think—and one’s intuition makes one think this—that ALARP is a level of safety below perfection, but it is not. It is part of a process derived from the HSE policy guidance. We make ALARP judgments on an ongoing basis to ensure that we continually drive down the level of risk to equipment. The MOD, having carefully considered all those issues, has declared that all reasonably practicable measures have been taken to reduce to ALARP the risk to the Nimrod aircraft. It is the view of all those involved in the equipment safety and environmental working group, which includes QinetiQ, BAE Systems, the RAF and the IPT, that the Nimrod is tolerably safe and ALARP, and is therefore safe to fly. No member of the group demurs from that view.

In the June debate on procurement, the hon. Gentleman talked about the QinetiQ independent fuel system safety review, and stated that

“the report said that the aircraft would not be fully safe until its 30 recommendations had been implemented.”

He also stated, and he has repeated this assertion today:

“All but one of those recommendations related to a failure to implement mandatory airworthiness regulations.”—[Official Report, 19 June 2008; Vol. 477, c. 1173.]

I am told that that is not correct. I do not know where he got that information from, but I am more than happy to talk to him about this subject outside the Chamber, or to brief him on it. He has made that statement twice, but the technical expertise available to me asserts that what he says is incorrect. I am prepared to try to give him the level of understanding that I have tried to establish for myself over a period of time.

Of the 30 recommendations in the report, six related to air-to-air refuelling, which no longer takes place. Three of the recommendations have not been taken forward—two of them because appropriate systems that satisfied the recommendations were considered already to be in place by the operators of the aircraft. The third recommendation that has not been taken forward was that we should consider producing a system-level statement of design for the fuel system, which would be a highly structured suite of documentation that would be maintained throughout the life of equipment to retain a complete record of its design evolution. Given the level of scrutiny that the fuel system has already undergone, it would not be a sensible use of expert resources to collate that documentation retrospectively.

The remaining 21 recommendations have all been accepted. They relate to processes and procedural issues, and do not impact on the immediate risk of flying the aircraft. We are implementing them as soon as is reasonably practicable to ensure that the aircraft remains ALARP throughout its life. Let me give some examples of what the recommendations are, lest people ask why we have not implemented them yet. One recommendation is that we clarify the publication management arrangements, which are currently being revisited, to ensure the quality of technical information and to confirm that they satisfy corporate guidance. Another recommendation is to formalise a service level agreement between the integrated project team and the release to service authority. Another recommendation is to review the hazard log structure, giving consideration to adapting the way in which accidents are recorded to improve the visibility of dominant risks.

The recommendations will all be implemented by next June, and QinetiQ is happy with that. We are not taking that decision in isolation. It is being taken with the engineering staff and the people who fly the aircraft, and with the expertise that is available to the RAF. QinetiQ is exposed to that decision; indeed it is part of the conversation and is happy with our approach to taking those recommendations forward. I have only a few minutes left, and I shall try to allow some time at the end, but I have not answered all the hon. Gentleman’s points—there is at least one left to address. I should like to put on the record an additional point that he made about the timing of my statement on the day of the coroner’s verdict. I know that the speed with which that statement was made upset the families and friends of those who were killed in the crash. Given the way in which it was presented, I do not blame them and the hon. Gentleman for thinking that we had not taken any time to consider the coroner’s verdict. Understandably, he repeats that allegation today.

While I regret any distress that our response to the coroner’s verdict caused to the families, I want to reassure them, and the hon. Gentleman, that it was carefully considered and was based not only on the verdict but on the evidence that was heard during the inquest, which I followed closely. We had two people permanently in the coroner’s court and I had a daily brief. We anticipated the verdict from the evidence to which we listened. The day before the coroner’s verdict, I went home 90-odd per cent. certain of what it would be, and I had already discussed potential verdicts with the Chief of the Air Staff, the RAF’s chief engineer and others. The inquest did not reveal anything that changed the view that we had already reached, following the board of inquiry: that the aircraft remained safe to fly. Our statement was considered, and we thought it important to reassure our people as soon as possible, particularly those who fly the plane, that it remained safe to fly. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to put that on the record, because I know that people were very upset on the day.

Before the inquest, I wrote to all the families, offering to meet them afterwards if there were any issues that they wished to discuss. A number of families have taken me up on that, and I plan to meet them. I hope that I will be able to explain that point to them in person. The only other point that the hon. Gentleman has raised that I have not answered stems from his question about what action had been taken. A board of inquiry does not lay blame on anyone. He knows that there is an ongoing inquiry by Mr. Haddon-Cave, QC, that will consider the wider issues of what happened to the Nimrod, over time, and will make recommendations. Mr. Haddon-Cave has said that if he needs to make an interim report he will do so.

That is where we ought to leave matters. We have an eminent QC considering the more detailed issues of how we got to where we were with the Nimrod. That inquiry was set up by the Secretary of State, and is designed to answer some of the questions that the hon. Gentleman justifiably asks. However, I am more than happy to brief him outside the Chamber and to help him to get to the point that I have tried to get to on this complex issue.

This is not a big issue to bring before Parliament, but I raise it because I was asked to do so by 150 residents at a public meeting. I could have done it in a few ways, but I thought that a half-hour Adjournment debate was the answer.

If I were to use the words of Oliver Hardy, “This is another fine mess”, I think that I would be right. One has to see the estate to understand its problems. We can talk about the issues, but we need to see them to understand them. Northumberland county council decided to move to a two-tier education system and brought in Peter Vardy and the Emmanuel Schools Foundation to build an academy. South Beach first school had to be demolished, because a site was needed for the enormous new school. The decision was taken to build the school on the playing fields of South Beach against the advice of the local district council planners, who referred to the number of pupils who would have to go into the estate. The county council planners, however, pushed the matter through against the wishes of most of the people who lived near the school and of the local authority at the time. I opposed the project, but my voice fell on deaf ears—it always does—in the county council.

Now, we are building another big academy—a senior academy—on a derelict old school site in the middle of a council estate. Again, the same arguments were put about another big school going into the middle of an estate. The Bede academy is based on the South Beach site, which is in a private estate. The big school is to be built on the council estate. The locals have faced many problems. For examples, contractors work until 1 am, and big wagons full of cement have been driven through the estate. It is easy to imagine how the residents feel. I understand that a local county councillor was dragged from his bed to experience the noise and disruption—I am pleased that I was not him—and witness the scene. I received first-hand information about what happened, and it had something to do with the cement.

When such schools are built, they are not planned with the residents’ needs in mind. If they were, different sites would be used. The awful thing about this is that there are—and were—alternative sites. Delaval middle school is off a main road, and the school could have been built on that site. Wensleydale middle school, which will disappear as well, is off a main road, and that site, too, could have been used. What the planners envisaged—and what we all envisage—were the numbers of parents driving their children to school. When we were at school, we all walked to school. Unfortunately, all the kids are driven to school today. I can understand that if a school is built in a council estate or in a private estate, all the kids would be able to walk there. However, that will not be the case, because the school has a big catchment area.

Road safety is also an issue. It is not a big site and there is no room to park, but the school will be massive. It has already enrolled 320 pupils, and it will eventually take 630 pupils, with 70 in the nursery. It is not hard to imagine the problems that the little estate will have in future. Local residents have experienced a number of problems in the past. For example, an ambulance could not get through to an emergency because of the cars parked on the pavements outside the school. The worst example was when an old lady from one of the streets was being buried. The hearse could not turn round. People had to bring out the coffin into the middle of the road because of the cars parked outside the school. The local residents have had an ongoing battle with the head teacher, who shakes her head and tries to ignore the complaints. The problems will be compounded by the heavy wagons coming in. I understand that the problem may abate because negotiations are under way with the breweries to put in a temporary road, which will take the lorries off the street and bring them straight on to the site. That might alleviate the number of big lorries driving through the estate, but it will not stop the problem of huge numbers of parents coming into the school.

I met some parents at the public meeting who did not want the school located on the estate; they never wanted it there, because they had seen the problems. As far as I understand, the contract has been signed. The Emmanuel Schools Foundation is going to build the school. It is ready to go on site when the new road is constructed, so I do not think that we can stop the project. I would love to say, “Look, Mr. Vardy, you have it in the wrong place. The planners have made a big mistake.” The district council planners, too, believe that that is the case, and they told the organisation that it is making a big mistake building the school on the estate. However, the decision has been made. It is bad planning by the previous county council. That council has made a few messes, and the new school site was one of them.

Local resident Carol Innes said:

“At the end of the day this academy school is in the wrong place.”

She was right; it is built in the wrong place. Another resident said:

“This estate was never designed to take a school of the size now proposed.”

They said it would be hell not only for the 18 months when the contractors were on site, but afterwards, when all the parents were dropping off their children at the school and the nursery. I do not know how we will handle that problem, or get anything decent in the area for the residents. If one road is cut off, people could drive down the other road, but the residents in the area there would be affected. If we close the entrance through Shearwater way, Curlew way will suffer. Either way, this estate was not built to take heavy traffic to a school. The council should build a small school by all means. A small school was there before and there were a few problems, but now they will increase.

The residents are so angry that they are going to form a picket line to stop the traffic coming in—I do not mind that, and I will stand on the picket line; I have been on many picket lines—because no one listened to them when they questioned the planning. What amazes me is that when I ask whether anyone has inspected the site from a road safety angle, residents say, “No, we have never seen anyone from road safety.” If I ask whether the planners have been back, residents say, “No.” The police say that the road is a highway and that nothing can be done to cars on a highway. They cannot do anything unless the car is causing an obstruction.

The local people certainly have a problem. I do not know how it will be resolved, but I hope that the Minister can put some pressure on the county council. I know that the council is at sixes and sevens at the minute, because it has a new administration and the officials need to get their feet on the ground. By the way, the county council is not Labour; it is Liberal—we lost it at the last election—and it has the same problem that it had under Labour. We bulldozed the plan through, but if the Labour administration had not been so pig-headed, and had listened and taken the time to look at the decision, so that everyone agreed, we might have ended up getting a better site, and we would not have this problem.

I feel sorry for the residents, because I can see the problem, which is why I have brought this issue to the Chamber, because if we cannot do anything else we need to put some safety measures on the roads that the traffic will use to come into the school. Laws need to be laid down hard and fast. Nobody should be allowed outside the gates, and there must be plenty of room inside the new school for parking facilities, if the project has to go ahead. As I have said, the contracts have been signed. I told the residents that they would be lucky to get the county council to withdraw, and they will certainly not get the Emmanuel Schools Foundation to withdraw, because it wanted that site all the time. It will not withdraw, as the contracts have been signed. If it did so, it would cost millions of pounds.

I therefore urge the Minister to talk to the county council and ask officials what they have been doing. He may have already done so; I do not know. He might have been in touch with the council. However, road safety measures must be put in place, to give local people some respite. Hopefully, permission will be obtained from the brewery to put the new road in, which would alleviate part of the immediate problem. It must be remembered that the other school must be demolished, and it will take 18 months to clear the site and demolish the buildings. The big wagons still have to come in. They cannot come in on the new road; they must come in on one of the low roads, because the old school is on one side and the new road is on the other side. There is therefore a problem all round. The residents obviously know that and they are up in arms. I have done my job; I have raised this issue in Parliament, and I hope that the Minister can give us a bit of leeway.

In calling the Minister, I must say that I look forward to hearing him explain the ministerial responsibility for this matter.

Mr. Wilshire, it is a pleasure to see you presiding in the Chair this afternoon.

May I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) on securing the time to discuss traffic, parking and road safety issues related to the Bede academy, which is in his constituency? Indeed, we have been researching the road safety issues in the Department for Transport. I know that he has raised a number of planning issues and wider issues of policy, including those about the relationships between the county council, the local council and his own role as an MP. However, I will refer only to the road safety issues, which at least will give him an indication of what the Department lays down as guidance and what we think is about to happen, which he will be able to relay to his constituents. They can then identify whether the proposals or the consultative arrangements, which will allow them to influence the proposals in due course, meet their requirements. I will outline those consultative arrangements shortly.

The introduction of the all-age academy is linked to the county council’s reorganisation of schools in Blyth from a three-tier system to a primary-secondary system. The primary school site will expand in size, because it will take in year 5 and year 6 pupils currently educated at middle schools as part of the school reorganisation project, which was described by my hon. Friend. That will be on top of the existing first school pupils up to year 4. Therefore, the site will be substantially larger than the existing first school.

The transport assessment produced for the expanded school proposes a number of actions to curb poor parking and to improve safety. It is important that, as the planning approvals for the primary academy are implemented, that package of measures is put into place. The academy received its main planning approval from Northumberland county council last year. The Emmanuel Schools Foundation, which is promoting the academy, produced a transport assessment of the impact of the development. That is consistent with Government policy that, where a new development is likely to have significant transport implications, a transport assessment should be prepared and submitted with the planning application. For Blyth as a whole, the transport assessment is that the redistribution of traffic resulting from the change in educational provision in the town would represent no change in exposure to risk.

The transport assessment then focuses on what should be done at and near the site of the junior academy. The strategy proposed in the assessment rests on two main components. The first is that there should be travel planning to promote more walking and cycling and less travel to school by private car. The target is to reduce the proportion of children arriving by car from about 48 to 40 per cent. in the next two years. The second component is that the planning permission itself should include a number of conditions related to traffic and parking, to reduce on-street parking and to improve safety on the roads near the school.

The Emmanuel Schools Foundation submitted a travel plan framework alongside the planning application last year. That framework scopes a travel plan that would include many of the interventions contained in “Travelling to School: a good practice guide”, which the Department for Transport and the former Department for Education and Skills issued in 2003.

For example, the travel plan framework for the junior academy indicates that cycle parking will be provided on site and that cycle training is being considered for year 4 pupils. The framework also includes a new pedestrian access from Curlew way as well as the existing access from Fulmar drive. The existing entrance from Shearwater way will be gated and restricted to vehicular access for staff and formal visitors only. Staff and visitors would then reach the school itself via a controlled security door to prevent unauthorised access. This is to discourage the use by parents’ vehicles of Shearwater way, where there is a lot of concern about parking, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend.

The school building cannot be brought into use until the school travel planning framework is developed and then approved in writing by the county council in its capacity as the planning authority. I hope that that provides an assurance to my hon. Friend that the travel planning framework is important and that it will and must be developed further.

I will now turn to the second strand of the strategy: the planning conditions associated with traffic and parking. A key condition is that the approved development cannot be brought into use until a traffic management and calming scheme has been approved. The traffic scheme will be designed to reduce speed, obstruction and indiscriminate parking on the adjacent highway network.

I am pleased to report that the Emmanuel Schools Foundation’s technical consultants have drawn up an outline scheme. A public consultation is planned for this autumn or perhaps sooner. That will enable full consultation to happen in time for the scheme to be implemented by September 2009, when the junior academy is due to open. The scheme is likely to include a 20 mph zone, traffic regulation orders, parking bays and some physical traffic calming measures. Exactly what will be done will depend on the result of the public consultation.

The county council, in its capacity as the local highway authority, would approve the laying of any necessary legal orders in the light of the consultation. There are some other conditions of the planning permission that are relevant to traffic and parking issues. For example, the existing public car parks will be modified, rationalised and marked out, so that they become more suitable and safe dropping-off points. A better staff car park must also be provided. Further planning conditions relate to construction traffic. For example, construction traffic is not allowed to enter or leave the school site at or near the beginning or end of the school day.

Finally, in respect of the road network near the junior academy site, I understand that the county council is committed to introducing traffic signals at the junction of Fulmar drive with the A1061 South Newsham road before the expanded school opens. The work has been needed because of the existing traffic at the junction, but it will also help traffic en route to the primary academy. Although the precise local issues are different, a similar process of planning approvals, travel planning and local works is in progress at the secondary site of the academy.

I hope that I have helped to reassure my hon. Friend that the Government have a framework in place to ensure that developments such as the Bede academy are implemented safely and sustainably. I recognise that it is inevitable that some developments will give rise to local concerns about road safety when they are planned and implemented. Local authorities, which are accountable to their communities and working within planning legislation, are well placed to reach balanced decisions about planning applications.

Road safety is a well established part of the development planning framework. It is covered in the planning policy guidance that the Government issue to local authorities. The Government have also emphasised the importance of reducing the traffic impacts of all schools through travel plans to reduce the proportion of pupils being driven to and from school. They have produced advice on good practice and provided specific funding to local authorities for school travel planning.

There is evidence that the county council and the schools foundation have considered road safety issues and have proposed to take action. The next step is for them to deliver the actions and, in particular, to consult on the traffic management and calming scheme for the area near the primary academy. The planning conditions provide a good starting point for local people to ensure that they do deliver as the academy is built and then when it opens.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will play his full part to ensure that the scheme is as good as it can be. He indicated that constituents requested that he raise this debate. They will no doubt check Hansard and listen to the proposals that have been made. I am sure that some will be given sound reassurance but others will have questions. They will see from the text that a consultation is planned in due course, and I am sure that they will want to play their full part on their own, and with and through my hon. Friend and the assistance that he and his office can give them.

With that, I hope that I have given my hon. Friend some assurance. Obviously, there is a long way to go and much work to be done, but at least we have outlined the protections that are in place for local people.

I am here to take forward the case of one of my constituents, Gaye Herford, who came to me last year, telling me that her son had suffered a photosensitive epilepsy attack while playing a computer game. The more I looked into that specific case and the more general issues surrounding photosensitive epilepsy, or PSE, the more concerned I became.

It rapidly became clear that for an attack of photosensitive epilepsy to happen two things have to be true. First, somebody has to be photosensitive, and it is not always apparent that they are. A lot of people have latent photosensitivity that is invisible to medical science and it only becomes clear that someone is photosensitive when, sadly, they suffer the kind of attack that Gaye Herford’s son experienced. Secondly, such a person has to be exposed to the wrong stimuli or triggers—particular combinations of rapidly flashing or flickering lights, colours and patterns. If someone is photosensitive and is exposed to particular combinations, that will trigger a photosensitive epileptic attack.

The good news for all the people who are photosensitive in this country is that we have a relatively well established set of regulations, which have been in place for many years and have been supported by successive Governments of all political stripes, that were introduced to regulate TV broadcasters. Approximately 23,000 or so people in the United Kingdom are known to have photosensitive epilepsy. What is not known is the total number of people who are photosensitive but whose epilepsy has not been triggered because they have not been exposed to the wrong, dangerous combination of flickering lights, patterns and colours. The only evidence that we have comes from an incident in 1997 in Japan, which was triggered by a four-second flashing sequence in a TV episode of the cartoon, “Pokémon”. In that incident, 685 people were admitted to hospital. A follow-up report showed that 560 of them had definitely had epileptic seizures and, of that number, 76 per cent. had no previous history of epilepsy. In other words, if those proportions held good in the UK—there is no evidence either way to say whether they do or do not, but it is the best indicator that science has at the moment—the number of 23,000 PSE sufferers in the UK can be grossed up, probably, to show that at least 100,000 people are photosensitive, three quarters of whom are latent and do not know that they are at risk if they see the wrong combination of lights, as I have just described.

Why is that important? This Government and previous Governments were right to put in place the existing regulations applying to TV broadcasters, who are required to check everything that they put out and usually remove any offending passages in what they plan to broadcast to ensure that the risk is reduced. As a result of that, TV-triggered instances of photosensitive epilepsy are comparatively rare in this country. The last well-documented occasion happened when the logo for the 2012 London Olympics was first broadcast on TV and triggered 30 reported incidents at least. That was so rare that it made the national news.

We have hitherto been relatively risk-free because of the regulations that have been in place for many years in Britain. Those regulations have stood the test of time in this country and variations on them have been taken up by many other countries. Britain was the leader on this issue—it set the tone and the pace—and many countries have, in their own different ways, followed Britain’s example. However, an important caveat is that we are running a double standard, because although we have a system that works well for TV broadcasters, the regulations do not apply to computer games.

I am sure that all hon. Members know that the number of computer games and the incidence of computer gaming has exploded in this country over the past decade or two. It is far more common now, obviously, than when the TV regulations were first put in place. When the original regulations were drafted, I doubt that anybody had ever heard of computer games, which, even if people had heard of them, would have been slow and clunky and at nothing like the level of both ubiquity and sophistication of modern games.

To give an idea of the scale of the problem, 335 million computer and video games have been bought in the UK over the past decade alone. Some 20.8 million current generation games consoles and handhelds are in UK homes. I suspect, in all probability, that those numbers are rapidly becoming out of date as the popularity of gaming increases. I suspect that it is also true that, compared with the number of TVs that were originally around when the UK’s regulations were first passed, the level of gaming activity in the UK is probably rising rapidly towards the same level that TV watching was at when the regulations were first introduced. In other words, this is a major problem. We are running a double standard because those regulations apply only to TV broadcasters, not to computer games.

What do computer games do? A voluntary code currently requires warnings to be put either on the packaging of computer games or, as many of them have, on an opening screen before getting to the main game. However, anybody who has seen a 10 or 13-year-old scrambling to get into the package containing their new game on Christmas day will know that the warnings are never read and that, when a warning flashes up on the screen in front of them, there is an irritated, “Tsk”, and they hit whatever button they need to in order to get past it and into the game itself. Nevertheless, the computer games industry has adopted that approach voluntarily to attempt, rightly, to be responsible and look after its customers. One can only say that they are starting from the right principle in doing so.

The problem with the warning approach, though, is twofold. First, as I have said, a large number of people are latent photosensitives—people who are at risk, but who have never had an epileptic seizure as a result of watching TV, because they have not encountered the particular set of triggers that will set off an attack. Part of that can be attributed to the fact that our existing regulatory environment works quite well and has reduced the total amount of risk in British society for many years. However, those people who are photosensitive—we are talking about a genetic predisposition—are still at risk when they start playing a computer game. The danger is that, because they do not know that they are photosensitive, the warning does not work because they do not know that it is intended for them. In all honesty and conscience, they start playing, saying, “No, that doesn’t apply to me.” If they bother to read the warning, they say, “No, I’m not photosensitive”, and on they go, discovering that they are photosensitive only when it is too late, when they have suffered an attack.

It is worth pausing just to say that the consequences of suffering an epileptic attack can be severe. As anybody with any of the different forms of epilepsy will say—there are many kinds other than photosensitive epilepsy—it can be extremely severe and can occasionally, in some sad cases, result in death. However, even for people for whom that is not true, it can be a major crimp on their lifestyle and can mean that they are unable to do many things that some people regard as normal. Many people find it hard to drive, for instance, and find their ability to drive restricted. Undertaking other activities such as swimming can be a problem for some. As well as additional costs, such as insurance premiums, there is, of course, in public policy terms, the ongoing medical burden of providing them potentially with a lifetime’s treatment.

The problem with photosensitive epilepsy is that, once it has been triggered, for three quarters of sufferers it is a lifetime affliction. A small number, roughly a quarter, grow out of it, but for everybody else it is a problem for which there is no known cure and they are subjected to treatment at whatever level is necessary, depending on the severity of their level of suffering, for the remainder of their life. It is clearly sensible for any Government to adopt a precautionary approach, but the double standard of one system for TV regulation and another for computer games is not sensible.

The first problem is latency. People do not know that the warnings may be relevant to them. Secondly, the warning approach does not adopt the same precautionary principle that the Government have sensibly and correctly adopted for many years of trying to prevent attacks before they take place, because if someone has an attack, all sorts of negative consequences follow for the sufferer, their family and society as a whole because of the medical implications. Those are two fundamental flaws in the current approach to computer games, which is why the approach that this country has always taken with TV broadcasters is far superior.

One would think that the simple and straightforward answer is to take the existing successful, tried-and-tested and well-proven regulations that apply to TV broadcasters and, because they were invented at a time when computer games were unthought of, unheard of and were not even a glimmer in the eye of a silicon valley geek or venture capitalist, bring them up to date. One would also think that because it was unintentional—because no one realised—that they excluded a huge and growing section of screen-based activity in modern society, they could be extended from TV broadcasters to include computer games.

A couple of games-makers, notably Ubisoft, with which I have been in contact, have decided voluntarily and admirably to apply the sort of screening that I am suggesting to their games. That is an excellent example, which I am sure all hon. Members applaud, and I hope that many other games manufacturers will follow their example. The point is that some games manufacturers may decide to do that, but there is a huge number of games-makers and manufacturers throughout the world. Some are large and responsible, such as Ubisoft, but as in any industry, there is a large number of manufacturers who are relatively tiny, and although some may be responsible, we cannot be sure. The problem is that the risk of developing photosensitive epilepsy and having an attack triggered is at its height between the ages of seven and 19. The risk is approximately 1.1 incidents per 100,000 people in the population per year, but for people between the ages of seven and 19, it is more than five times higher. We are talking about the health and safety or public health of a key group of society: Great Britain’s young people.

It is all right to talk about a voluntary code, but we cannot be sure that that voluntary code, even if it is extended from responsible players such as Ubisoft, will be applied to all games sold in the UK, so anything less than proper regulation, which has been applied for some time to TV broadcasters, is likely to be unsatisfactory and inadequate.

The double standard that we are operating is not logically supportable. If regulation is right for TV broadcasters, it should be right for games manufacturers. The risks of watching a screen in either case should not be different and the worrying combination of flickering lights, colours and patterns is the same whether it is on a TV or a computer screen. It is not logical to support treating the two differently. The difference at the moment is unsafe, and I urge the Minister if necessary to liaise with her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions, who are responsible for health and safety, and in the Department of Health, as the problem is also one of public health. The matter is also a problem because the double standard is old fashioned and out of date. No one would argue that the regulations were intended to apply to only part of today’s screen-based society, because clearly they should apply to all parts of society.

Another point is that not only are the regulations well understood and well proven, they are relatively straightforward and cheap. The technology that is and has been applied by TV broadcasters for many years is based on a series of competing software programmes that quickly and relatively cheaply pre-screen anything that is put out. Those programmes have already been developed and have been modified, based on the same principles for TV, by companies such as Ubisoft, to apply also to games. We are not talking about something that is expensive, difficult to understand, groundbreaking or even cutting edge. This is old technology, which is well understood and could be implemented simply and straightforwardly. It would cost the Government nothing, and it would cost the industry a tiny fraction of the costs that they already incur in developing their computer games. The Minister would be able to look not just me but anyone else in the eye and say that her Government had done the right thing, the safe thing and the modern thing.

I launched this campaign with my constituent, Gaye Herford, supported by Professor Harding, who is the world expert in this area and was an original Government adviser on the first set of regulations for TV broadcasters. Since doing so, there has been an enormous amount of interest on the web and on blogs all over the place from people around the world. The problem is not confined to the UK. We have had interest from many countries, from people who suffer from PSE and their families, from the scientific community, and probably from a fair few lawyers in some countries, depending on whether they are litigious.

I do not want to sound over-dramatic because I am sure that the eyes of the entire world are not on us here this afternoon, but there is a great deal of interest in the matter, and Britain has an opportunity to do again what it did when the first set of regulations was established: to take a lead and to set an example that the rest of the world will follow. I am not pressurising the Minister, but I look forward to her response.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) on securing this debate on what is an important issue. It is a shame that more hon. Members are not here. I know that he feels strongly about the topic, and he and I have corresponded about it. I welcome his contribution to the agenda. His actions have led to significant progress since he first raised it in 2007. He should take credit for that. I acknowledge that I received a letter from his constituent, Gaye Herford, and read that when preparing my response.

The hon. Gentleman calls on the Government to make it a legal requirement for computer games publishers to test their products before publication, and to remove scenes that could trigger a photosensitive epileptic seizure. He is right to acknowledge that more and more people play computer games, although a fact that surprised me may interest him. The average age of those who play computer games is 28, so they are not played just by children. They are increasingly being played by adults, and the gender balance is changing because they used to be played by men, but are now played increasingly by women.

The hon. Gentleman is thinking about computer games in relation to television broadcasting, and as we get closer to convergence, different issues will arise. As the net becomes more powerful, our ability to regulate it nationally will become more constrained, although we shall continue to try to protect UK citizens.

No one would argue that we should not do all that we reasonably can to prevent people experiencing epileptic attacks, but we also have—I know that the hon. Gentleman and his party strongly advocate this—better regulation principles that demand that we always strike a balance between protection and regulatory intervention. I shall deal with that first.

We must ensure that the safeguards in place are proportionate to the level of risk. To assess the proportionality, we have to review both the risk and the existing safeguards, and if the hon. Gentleman bears with me I will do that.

First, I shall explain what we mean when we refer to photosensitive epilepsy. It is a particular variant of epilepsy—I know the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the condition, but others might not be. PSE, as it is commonly known, is triggered by flashing or flicking lights or by certain shapes and sizes. Both natural and artificial light can trigger seizures and different types of seizures can be triggered by flickering light. If a seizure happens because of PSE, it will normally happen immediately. It is commonly believed that everyone who suffers from epilepsy is photosensitive. In fact, only five in every 100—5 per cent.—of people with epilepsy have that condition. In terms of the general population, we are talking about two people in every 10,000, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman can now understand the proportionality argument.

Most people with PSE will not have a problem playing video games, although seizures can sometimes happen by chance. Tiredness is important and excitement when playing computer games can also be a factor. Some of the research that I looked at found that only in 29 per cent. of patients with partial occipital epilepsy were video games associated with seizures. Even with those who have seizures, it is difficult to find the correlation in all instances between watching video games and having seizures.

It is also important to recognise the distinction that computer games do not cause either epilepsy or PSE—I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that—although computer games might trigger a seizure in those already prone to PSE, whether already diagnosed or not. That does not diminish the importance of the issue, but is an important clarification.

Let me now turn to the safeguards that already exist. On the statutory safeguards, the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 make it compulsory for producers to place warnings and instructions on all consumer products, including video games. The Department of Health advises if there is anything further that we need to do in relation to PSE seizure warnings. To date, I have not received such advice and that might be an avenue that the hon. Gentleman wishes to explore. The 2005 regulations also place a duty on producers to investigate complaints concerning the safety of their products and to inform trading standards if they become aware that they have placed an unsafe product on the market.

On the Ofcom rules, there are rules about what is allowed, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that there is still an element of editorial judgment. PSE triggers are not entirely banned. I shall quote from the rules. They state, for example:

“Broadcasters must take precautions to maintain a low level of risk to viewers who have PSE. Where it is not reasonably practicable to follow the Ofcom guidance...and where broadcasters can demonstrate that the broadcasting of flashing lights and/or patterns is editorially justified, viewers should be given an adequate verbal and also, if appropriate, text warning at the start of the programme or programme item”

Of course, if someone has a latent PSE condition, that will not be enough. However, I wanted to draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the fact that the Ofcom rules are not as complete as he may wish them to be.

As I said to the hon. Gentleman in my letter to him of July last year, there is no legal provision that requires games publishers to offer warnings about the specific risk of a PSE-related seizure. However, it is a responsible industry and I acknowledge that much work has been done—particularly by the Entertainment and Leisure Software Publishers Association and many of the bigger games publishers in the UK. Mainly, warnings are offered in instruction manuals, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s point that for those with latent photosensitivity, those warnings will not be enough. He is right. However, I repeat that we have to consider whether new legislation or codes of conduct are a proportionate response. It must be recognised that we are talking about a very small number of people.

I would like to take the issue away from today’s debate and meet with ELSPA—the trade body that represents the industry—to see what progress can be made on a voluntary code of conduct. I accept that that will not necessarily cover all games producers, but it might give the hon. Gentleman and his constituents comfort that we are taking action. Of course, if I am unsuccessful in extending voluntary agreement for a voluntary code of conduct or if we find that it is insufficient, we can always return to the matter at a later stage.

As a responsible industry, the games industry continuously considers the implications of all health issues that are raised with it. Let me give the hon. Gentleman a couple of examples of proactive initiatives. He talked about Ubisoft and acknowledged the work that it had done. It is now using the harding flash and pattern analyser as standard. That is an example on which I hope we can build. ELSPA, which acts on behalf of the majority of video games publishers in the UK, also responded positively. It is actively exploring the issue to ensure that it adopts a sensible and responsible approach. I will engage in discussions with the association and write to him about the outcome of that.

In addition, ELSPA maintains a website—www.askaboutgames.com—that gives a lot of information. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has visited it. The website gives all sorts of information about playing games safely and is designed to help those who are unfamiliar with video games—often parents—to understand what is involved so that they can be sure that their children are playing safely.

I appreciate the spirit in which the Minister is responding and thank her for what she has said so far. Her pledge to take the issue away and speak to the people she has mentioned is a valuable step in the right direction. While she is having those conversations, I urge her to bear in mind that, if a voluntary code is the right thing to do for the computer games industry, why is what is in place for TV broadcasters different? I am still concerned that we will end up with a double standard and that there will be regulation for one part of an industry and a voluntary code for another. I am not sure that I understand—I urge the Minister to push for clarification on this—why it is acceptable and logically supportable to have two different approaches for two industries that are converging, as she said earlier.

To some extent, the answer is that it is historic. Our desire to constrain ourselves from introducing more regulation is stronger today than it might have been in the past. In addition, television was much more universal in its early days, when those sort of regulations were brought in. I accept that the popularity of games is exploding, but I put it to him that games are only part of the changes to the way in which we communicate.

There are some interesting things and some good advice on the website to which I referred. However, I accept that that is only helpful if one knows that one has a condition. The website says things such as,

“Sit farther from the television screen

Use a smaller television screen

Play in a well-lit room

Avoid playing when you feel drowsy or fatigued”.

I hope that the work on that website demonstrates that the industry is taking the issue seriously.

On broadcasters, they take precautions to maintain a low level of risk to viewers who have PSE. When watching television, I have noted, for example, that every now and again people get a verbal warning not to watch a bit of news in which there might be a lot of flash photography. That is the complementary mechanism that exists in broadcasting.

In summary, if we look across the supply channel, we see what I believe, through my dealings, to be a responsible industry. We have seen what the industry can do to remedy the problem in a proportionate way with instruction manuals. Some publishers already actively screen their games, there is wider industry funding and an information website is maintained. The industry is also actively considering what, if any, further action is needed. On behalf of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, I will undertake to have further discussions with ELSPA and will write to him with the outcome of those discussions. I hope that we can make some progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o’clock.