I welcome all right hon. and hon. Members to this debate, and I thank them for entering into the spirit of things. We touched upon some of the problems of sports betting a few months ago, but we have the opportunity today to consider the matter in some depth and to hear contributions from across the House. I see that some of the sharpest brains in the House are here—I say that in the nicest sense. I am prepared to take bets, from general elections down, but we can talk about that later.

Sports betting is not a new phenomenon. It has been delimited for many years. Golf rules came in during the 17th century, because of alleged match fixing. Cricket came in during the 18th and 19th centuries, and again there was a bit of corruption here and there. I have a list of the various sports about which allegations have been made, some of which were proven and others not. They include football, baseball, boxing, basketball, American football, horse racing of course, snooker and so on. Betting goes on right across sport. It is a real concern. No one thinks for a minute that this is prevalent, but we must ensure that moves are made to prevent the odd event resulting in the police becoming involved, or the sporting organisations having to discipline the sports.

The Gambling Commission was set up under the Gambling Act 2005. It aims to monitor betting patterns and possible corruption; and the Financial Services Authority has considered spread betting. Indeed, the commission has identified some 47 cases since its inception. Last year, I watched the Norwich-Derby game after a tip-off, but it proved hard to gain any evidence. The Football Association and others looked into the game, but they found some difficulty in accessing all the information. However, it was clear that large bets had been placed on the Asian market at half time. Serious things are going on, and we ought to be able to trace them and prevent them from happening again. We all love sport, and we want to ensure that it continues.

I am flattered that so many people have been in touch to help me with this debate. They include bookmakers’ organisations—the Association of British Bookmakers and the Remote Gambling Association, which are taking the matter seriously—the Gambling Commission itself; various individuals; and the Central Council of Physical Recreation and the Football Association. All of them have the deliberate aim of preventing such odd events—even one is too much—in sports that are loved across the nation and across the world.

After our last debate, there was a move to consider the Accrington Stanley and Bury game. We cannot say much about it, as the case is sub judice. The FA is considering the matter, but five players allegedly put money on their team losing. That, of course, sours the whole process, not only for the fans but for everyone who loves sport.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He has spoken of widespread concerns and given numerous examples, but does he share my concern about the briefing that we received from the Gambling Commission? It states:

“While there is limited evidence to support it, the Commission recognises the widespread concern about the risks to betting integrity”.

Does not the hon. Gentleman believe that the commission is being a little naive?

Far be it from me to be critical, but there is enough dismay and concern for the Gambling Commission to take the matter seriously. Indeed, our debate may have precipitated the Accrington-Bury decision. I shall mention later something of what the Minister has said about corruption and the possibility of stamping out such things. The problem is being taken seriously by many. Indeed, the commission has picked up apace; it is almost in top gear, but not quite.

How many of the 47 notifications received by the Gambling Commission have been investigated to a conclusion? Is it that the commission does not have teeth, or is it not biting?

I cannot be sure of the number, but I remember from the previous debate that it is small. We could investigate that, but I am not sure. It starts from a low base, of course, getting the right people into the commission to investigate matters with professionalism, with the right contacts and so on, but it is a difficult arena in which to get evidence.

The commission is not quite there yet; but in such debates, we should be asking the question, “Do we need to help organisations such the Gambling Commission, giving them more support with intelligence units and so on, so that they can do their jobs properly?” I find it difficult, and not only because of Norwich City, bless their souls. One cannot find details on the Asian market, but that is not what happened here with the Accrington-Bury situation. In that case, the commission, with the help of bookmakers and others, nailed it down to those individuals who allegedly perpetrated the actions that the FA is investigating.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He has done the House and the world of sport a service in securing today’s debate. He comes to it primarily from a football-loving background. I am a cricket fan, and I remember Hansie Cronje, a one-time Leicestershire player, who was at the root of problems in the 1990s and who was banned for life in 2000. The key to the problem is the illegal betting markets, not the legal one, which is transparent. We must always remember that corruption and crime in gambling on sport is rooted in the illegal markets. We shall never root it out entirely, however, because it is a global market, and there will always be illegal black markets in betting.

I agree with my hon. Friend to some extent, but that is no excuse for not trying to root it out completely. I am trying to stop the syndicates and others involved in illegal acts as they emerge. They may be small in number, but they cause a lot of disruption for little effort, and we have to stamp it out. If we ever lose the belief that sport has integrity, we will lose the public. We must ensure that that does not happen, but one event could be enough.

Since the previous debate, the Minister has said that betting corruption is one of the major issues that threaten sport today. I welcome that statement. He said that he wants to ensure that everything is done to stamp it out. He wants to ensure that

“no stone is left unturned in the fight against corruption in sport.”

He has gone on—bravely so—to create a taskforce on betting corruption in sport. We will hear later who its members might be, and how it might work.

The Gambling Commission published a policy paper on betting integrity in March 2009, in which it went into detail on subjects that include information sharing, specific bets, terms and conditions, investigation and prosecution. I hope that the House will consider that paper. Betfair, the online gambling company, has launched a legal action against the Dutch Government, who have urged Dutch banks to block transactions to online gambling companies. Legal activity is developing on that subject.

The Gambling Commission’s policy called for better information sharing between sports governing bodies and the industry, to scrutinise and investigate betting patterns. That is a firm policy aim. However, the commission believes that that should become a non-legislative agreement. There may be some argument about whether that sort of path is tough enough, but further data sharing is to be welcomed. Sports governing bodies do not know the extent of bets on their sports, and they therefore do not know how to assess whether their sport is at a higher or lower risk from match fixing. We welcome such contact.

The commission is engaging with sport governing bodies on their rules about who may bet and what sanctions can be used against players involved in betting corruption. The Professional Players Federation has criticised sports governing bodies for not educating players well enough on the consequences of foul actions that could completely spoil the sport. That needs to be well thought through, and we must use plain language—the Alex Ferguson sort—on the consequences if one is caught acting in that way.

The commission can restrict betting types, but, in general, it does not want to tighten the rules. A huge diversity of bets is now available to the market; that is of concern. According to a Salford university academic paper entitled, “Risk to the Integrity of Sport from Betting Corruption”, novelty bets are creating the biggest problem or, at least, run the highest risk. For example, bets can be placed on how many cricket players will come on to the pitch at 11.30 am wearing hats or black spectacles. We might consider that trivial, but if it is fun and people want to do it, I guess that it should be allowed. However, we must handle the situation, because it is open to deviant behaviour in terms of where the bets go, who puts them on and so on.

The commission is considering employment terms when bets are made. An agreement should be reached, when a bet is placed, that there is no conflict of interest with the individual. For example, if they are a professional player or coach, they should not be allowed to bet on their team. Through section 42 of the 2005 Act, the commission can investigate suspicious betting patterns, although it is ultimately up to the police to investigate and bring prosecutions. According to the commission, the best way to deal with any prospect of match fixing is through sports governing bodies, but some confusion surrounds that. When should the commission initiate and close an investigation? When should governing bodies start and close theirs, and initiate disciplinary procedures? Some people feel that the Accrington-Bury thing was extended because of confusion about the different stages of the investigation. Will the Minister expand on that?

Betfair has a model for information sharing with sports governing agencies and their investigative programmes, but it does not always know the criteria for reporting suspicious bets. I learnt about the suspicious bet that started this debate from a newspaper, although I shall not name it, because it is not that friendly to us at the moment—it will get no more publicity here today. People in the media said to me, “You see, it was a Norwich match”; they know that I am—yes, I still am—fanatical about Norwich. It was difficult to get this debate moving, however: we tried to ask questions in the House, but we were not allowed to name the two teams; but then the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) managed to name them in a question—and so it went on.

We need guidelines on industry standard practice to inform sports governing bodies on how decisions are made to follow up suspicious betting behaviour. The commission’s intelligence unit, which I have met, is severely limited. It is not big enough. It needs to be sharper and to be able to investigate all sports and markets, to interact with different sports and to have greater jurisdiction, so that it can investigate these betting patterns and bring successful charges. An organisation can always be judged by the number of charges that it brings. I have already asked a question about that. Too few cases are being carried through to the end. There are some, but others are dropped, including the one on the Norwich-Derby game, because the evidence cannot be obtained.

The Salford university study identified the billions of pounds entering the betting industry—it went from £7 billion, in 2001, to £38 billion, in 2008—which, it says, increases

“the potential for corruption in the absence of appropriate action by sports governing bodies, regulators and government to address the new threats”.

There is an appetite for moving forward. The Asian market presents us with real problems. I am told that the premier league is the best football league in the world—I am not sure whether that is accurate, but we would probably all agree with it. It attracts more than $500 million in bets each weekend in the Asian betting market. That is big bucks and presents considerable opportunities for people to be tempted down funny pathways.

I mentioned that people can place bets on spectacles and hats worn on a pitch. A tennis player could win a first set, but throw the second and third and get beaten. It is quite possible for a second seed to look good and be playing well, but be beaten by the 487th ranked player. Of course, that could happen legitimately—it is what sport is all about—but, at the end of the day, if a match goes a certain way, a suspicious betting pattern might indicate that the match was thrown, that somebody did not play hard enough or that something was set up. We need to keep tabs on these betting markets across the world and on the size of the sums being bet.

I am pleased that some European countries are starting to take an interest. Often, in debates on Europe—on copyright, for example—people will dismiss an argument saying, “We can’t get all the other European countries to engage in this.” The taskforce gives us an opportunity to do that on this occasion. UEFA—on the football side—the Jockey Club and other groups could sit on the taskforce and play a part. It could be a wide taskforce with sub-committees and so on. However, as long as it is independent and sets its own terms and conditions, it will be acceptable to the public.

We need to fund education programmes. The all-party football group has produced a sterling report on what needs to be done in British football. For example, as the Minister has said, the four top clubs have all the money and resources. How can we devolve some of that down to the minor leagues and other groups? Delia Smith said that the demise of Norwich into a lower league was all about money. We have not got enough to buy the players. At all stages—including from youth—skills gravitate up to the highest level. The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) and I visited Cambridge United and saw its youth policy. It has some smart young people dedicated to playing football, but no money comes down to them, because they are not in the full league. Compared with other clubs, Cambridge United needs about £200,000 a year to help its youth academy.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the point that there must be some way of getting this vast amount of money flowing through sport into the lower leagues. However, youth development faces other problems. Youth development schemes, including the one at Cambridge United, are judged not on how successful they are, but on whether the club is in the Football League. At the same time, the Football League Trust is not spending its full budget. Football itself can do something to improve the situation.

I concur with the hon. Gentleman. Some players at that level end up in the championship or the premiership. I saw a match in the former when at least three or four players came from that level. Some also come in from Sunday league football and go on to become stars. We must encourage that in this country. The all-party group has suggested that the number of foreign players might need to be limited.

We need to get the money down to the minor leagues, to encourage those young people with skills, but, at the same time, they must be educated. Youth academies help them with their schooling, so that if anything goes wrong, such as a bad injury, they can move on and develop other skills that they have learned—a talent for law or business, for example. The opportunity is there to combine with the betting industry and say, “Look, here are worthwhile causes where we can support grass-roots sport.” The Minister might be tempted to take over that area and develop it very quickly to the benefit of sport in this country. The education and thrill that young people get from sport can be imparted into schools. Youth academy players go out into schools and bring the better players back into the academy. It could be so exciting.

Our fetish for the four big clubs will not do football any good. By widening perceptions, we might also address the essential problem about intellectual property. I am involved with writing and films and so on. Intellectual property is a big concept now. There are lawyers who work in that field alone. The rights are important not only to science, medicine, new discoveries and books, but to the skills in the sporting world as well. We have to protect such skills. Betting industries, associations and sports governing bodies should combine to form a taskforce to ensure that the whole sport gets the whack that it needs to develop and remain safe for the future.

I am slightly concerned about linking sports rights to integrity issues. My hon. Friend is right to say that we need to look at sports rights, but we should separate them from the integrity issues. The danger is that, by focusing on the sports right issues to get funding into the sport, we will detract from the serious issues on integrity. I caution my hon. Friend against linking the two issues.

There is an argument there, but it is the job of the taskforce to say how each organisation should play its part. The taskforce may want to separate issues or keep them intact. I am not putting down a formula; I am suggesting that we need to get the right people around a table to talk about the ideas. I will bring my speech to an end, because I think that I have put across my message. We need some kind of intelligence to be carried out by an organisation that is seen to be independent and active. It should look for ways to resolve issues and give the impression that, if there are any suspicions, it is really trying to find out what has gone wrong. We have not got there, so I encourage the Minister to think seriously about the matter. As we all know, if we let things drag on for too long, the situation will only get worse.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on securing this debate. He has raised the issue of integrity in sport on a number of occasions in the House, and I understand his concerns, particularly in relation to gambling. None the less, it would be fair to put the whole issue in context. The hon. Gentleman has raised his concerns about the Norwich game on several occasions because such occurrences are so rare; if this was an everyday occurrence, people would not raise these issues when they happened. The fact that it has been so noteworthy is a tribute to the fact that they are so rare.

William Hill told me that in the last year, out of the 20,000 football matches for which it provided odds, only four were deemed suspicious. In horse racing, not one of the 10,000 races was regarded as suspicious. Therefore, we must look at this issue in context. We should bear it in mind, too, that the people who suffer the most from such instances are the bookmakers themselves. When it comes to betting and match fixing, the people who are the victims of any kind of corruption are the bookmakers. At the end of the day, they are the ones who will pay the price.

I reject wholeheartedly the idea of imposing a sports levy on bookmakers to deal with the problem. I want to show how such an idea makes no sense whatsoever. Given that it is the bookmakers who suffer when there is corruption, it seems perverse to suggest that they should be the ones who pay. It would be a new concept to make the victim of crime pay. Surely, the person who pays when a crime takes place is the perpetrator. The sporting bodies themselves must take the lead responsibility. If a match is to be fixed in any particular way, the only people who can do it are the players in that match or, perhaps at a push, the officials. The people who are solely responsible for match fixing are those taking part in the game. Surely, the sporting bodies themselves should be responsible for stamping out such a practice because it is the players of those sports who are committing the crime in the first place. The issue comes down to one of risk and reward. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the number of bets on premier league football, and I will return to that matter later.

I submit that the chances of corruption and match fixing in premier league football are probably considerably lower than they might be in other divisions of football because the people who play are paid so much. Why on earth would they risk losing their £100,000 a week wages for a relatively small bribe to fix a match? The chances of that happening higher up are much lower. The sporting bodies must ensure that the risk of being caught doing such a thing outweighs any possible reward. That must be the easiest way of preventing the crime in the first place.

It is also fair to say that bookmakers and the betting exchanges do more than anyone to help stamp out corruption in sport. They liaise closely with the Gambling Commission and the sporting bodies. It is the bookmakers who flag up suspicious betting patterns, which means that they are doing their fair share. Organisations such as Betfair spend an awful lot of money on integrity departments, which monitor transactions and where things may be going wrong. They are doing more than anybody in that regard. I have asked to visit Betfair’s integrity department, and I suggest that other hon. Members do the same to see how much time the organisation spends on the issue.

The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point about the incomes earned in premiership football, which would be at risk if there was corruption. The famous Swan-Kay-Lane case in 1965 possibly took place before he was born. At that time, the level of wages was very low indeed. While premiership football is highly paid and resistant to that type of approach, most other levels of football—both here and elsewhere—have significantly lower pay levels, which makes them more open to the opportunities, threats and temptations.

I agree with the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s position; however, I refer him back to my opening remarks. Even given those temptations and the fact that such players may be relatively lowly paid compared with their premier league counterparts, we should bear it in mind that such instances are still extremely rare. Just because somebody might receive a sizable reward for doing it does not mean that they will. Most people who take part in sport do so because they are genuinely sporting people and want to do their best for their team, and we should always remember that.

Let me turn to the sports levy and why its imposition would be completely wrong. The Government have spent many years—and continue to spend an awful lot of time—trying to get out of a levy on horse racing. It would be entirely bizarre for a Government who want to do that to try to get into a levy on every other sport under the sun. I hope the Minister will make it clear that he totally rejects the idea of a sports levy.

The other issue, which relates to the points made by the hon. Members for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) and for Norwich, North, is that a sports levy would make the richer sports even richer. A huge amount of sports betting takes place on premier league football—it is probably the biggest single area of sports betting. Therefore, given that we all agree that the chances of corruption in premier league football are very slim, it seems inevitable that if we imposed a sports levy, the premier league would say, “Hold on a minute: a huge amount of the money being bet on sport is bet on the premier league, so we want that money. It is premier league money, not football money.” We would end up with the perverse situation whereby poor betting shop punters in our constituencies would be putting their hands in their pockets to bump up the wages of the likes of John Terry, who is on £125,000 a week. What on earth would be fair about that? It would be a prime example of throwing apples into full orchards.

My hon. Friend is making an interesting case. Does he agree that the amount of money already kicking around within football does not seem to have trickled down to clubs such as AFC Bournemouth, who, thankfully, have just managed to avoid relegation from division two? Those clubs work towards the possibility of getting just one game in the FA cup against a premier league team, simply so they can get the gate receipts that mean they can manage financially for another year.

My hon. Friend is entirely right. I submit that a sports levy would do nothing to address that problem; it would make it worse.

It is also important that much of the corruption in sport is to do with illegal betting markets in any case, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Norwich, North for pointing that out. Therefore, charging a levy to the licensed market, which is doing its bit to stamp out corruption, is not only perverse but pointless, because it would not stop the corruption in illegal markets. For example, the Hansie Cronje case—he was captain of South Africa—mainly involved Indian bookmakers, and the Charlton versus Liverpool match case in 1999 involved Malaysian syndicates. Charging a levy on British-based bookmakers would make absolutely no difference to such alleged cases of corruption.

It is the sports bodies’ responsibility to clear up their sports. In fact, it has been suggested to me by a number of bookmakers and exchanges that asking bookmakers to pay for integrity services would be akin to asking Boots the chemist to pay for drugs testing for sportsmen, which would clearly be a complete nonsense. It would also be unfair to suggest that bookmakers make no contribution to sport: they actually make a massive contribution. We should not underestimate the extent to which bookmakers promote sports by offering odds on them—I would have no interest in some sports if I had not placed a bet on them. Additionally, bookmakers are among the largest sponsors of some sports, including many of those that have so-called corrupt matches. For example, snooker has come under a lot of scrutiny in recent years—when I was a bookmaker, our family business was affected by a dodgy match involving a chap called Silvino Francisco—and yet Betfred was one of the biggest sponsors of the recent world snooker championships. Bookmakers are putting their hands in their pockets and providing money to sports.

We would be in dangerous territory if we claimed that British bookmakers and the British betting industry in some way encourage corruption in sport. We are trying, as the Minister is, to help the betting industry to access some of the European and American markets. What are the chances of our businesses accessing those markets if we send the message that our betting industry is involved in encouraging corruption in sport? It would kill their chances before they had even started.

What lies behind the idea of a sports levy is that sporting bodies see it as a way of getting some extra money from the gambling industry. In effect, they want a share of the profits that bookmakers make from betting on those sports, which I reject entirely: it would be like bookmakers demanding money from tipsters because they make money from the odds being laid on racing and other sports, which would be a complete nonsense.

On the Minister’s proposed expert panel, I support his case that the Gambling Commission is not particularly well equipped to deal with such matters. My submission to him is that the commission’s biggest fault is that it knows nothing about gambling. Setting up an expert panel that bypasses the commission would certainly be welcome. The commission should be avoided wherever possible in anything to do with gambling, because it does not have the industry’s capability and understanding.

I shall draw my remarks to a close because others wish to speak. I hope the Minister makes it clear when he speaks that he totally rejects the idea of a sports levy.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on introducing this timely and important debate. I also commiserate with him as a Norwich City fan. A week last Sunday, he will have been sitting on the edge of his settee. Barnsley were the other team in the frame, and when they went 1-0 down to Plymouth, I thought it was curtains for us. However, we have a certain fighting spirit, like this Labour Government, and we pulled the iron out of the fire at the end to win 2-1. That could be an analogy for next year’s general election.

I am speaking primarily in my capacity as joint chairman of the all-party racing and bloodstock industries group. There is no doubt that betting on all sports has grown exponentially with the development of the internet, which has been accompanied by increased risk to the integrity of sport. Betting is a serious issue for all sports and for Governments worldwide.

The British Horseracing Authority has led the way in tackling the threat of corruption and has assisted many sports to deal with the challenges. It stands willing to help any sports that approach it and lends its expertise whenever it is called upon. As the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said, in the past 12 months, there have been no corruption incidents to do with horse racing in this country, which is a feather in the industry’s cap.

Dame Elizabeth Neville, a former chief constable and a director of the Serious Fraud Office, led an independent review of British horse racing integrity operations in 2008 and concluded that the BHA was a model for the effective investigation of corruption in sport. Four key principles underpin the BHA’s integrity operations: clear rules and regulations for all participants, accompanied by robust disciplinary processes and penalties; a partnership approach with the Gambling Commission and betting organisations, which includes information sharing; a high level of intelligence and investigative capability; and, finally, education across the sport, which is absolutely vital—my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North referred to that.

Since 2002, the BHA has invested significantly in infrastructure and modern processes, including employing a new director of integrity services and licensing, and two full-time betting investigators, who enable seven-days-a-week monitoring of betting markets on course and fully informed analysis of betting. It has agreed a memorandum of understanding with betting organisations that allows the sharing of information and intelligence, and it has established a fully resourced and funded intelligence unit.

The use of information and its conversion into evidence is crucial, and the system used to grade the information and its source is the same as that used by all UK police forces—many people involved in ensuring integrity in the racing industry are former police officers, as the Minister will know. Finally, the BHA has invested in sophisticated IT systems and a team of seven full-time investigators.

One outstanding issue that remains to be resolved as far as the BHA is concerned is overseas betting operators. The Government recently announced a review of such operators. A growing number of companies locate their online operations outside British regulatory and taxation regimes, yet they can advertise freely to British punters. That means that they do not have to comply with the regulatory arrangements applied by the Gambling Commission or pay the horse racing levy that funds the integrity arrangements that I outlined. The BHA believes that the loophole needs to be closed urgently. Will the Minister say something about that?

Another issue that has yet to be resolved satisfactorily is list positions in the on-course betting ring and the continuing dispute between the Federation of Racecourse Bookmakers and the Racecourse Association. Before the Gambling Act 2005 came into force, many on-course bookies paid high prices for their pitches in the belief that that investment would buy them their list position in perpetuity.

I am sure that all Members who like to go to the race course—as I did on Saturday at Thirsk with one or two hon. Members, in particular those who sit on the Opposition Benches—would agree that the bookmakers’ ring adds to the atmosphere at a race course. It makes the difference between racing in Ireland and Britain, and racing on the continent in countries such as France.

A certain amount of progress looks to have been made. I do not know whether the Minister saw the article in this morning’s Racing Post written by a good Doncaster Rovers fan, Howard Wright. It reads, “Shake-up in store for on-course bookies at Northern racecourses—Proposal for scheme to guarantee positions for 35 years”. The article puts the current position in a nutshell:

“Northern Racing is proposing a groundbreaking deal for on-course bookmakers operating at the group’s nine racecourses, which will guarantee positions in the ‘pick’ list for 35 years.

Bookmakers will continue to pay five times the cost of admission to the particular enclosure in which they are betting until August 31, 2012, after which the daily fee will go up by 25 per cent. for the next five years.

After 2017, there will be five-yearly reviews and the cost will rise according to the retail prices index since the date of the last revision.

A daily administration fee of £20 will continue to be paid, subject to review, according to the contract proposal that is being sent to bookmakers today and will appear on Northern’s website.

Auctions and private sales of list positions in existing rings will take place quarterly, with 10 per cent. of the sale price going to the individual racecourse as commission…There will be no arbitration system to settle disputes, which ‘will be subject to the jurisdiction of the English courts’.

The scheme is backdated to 2007 and, if agreed, could act as a blueprint to solve the dispute over pitch tenure that has raged between the Federation of Racecourse Bookmakers and the Racecourse Association since before the Gambling Act came into force in September 2007.

The row has also frustrated attempts by the sports Minister, Gerry Sutcliffe, to modernise the operation of the betting ring. The FRB has stood firm behind the principle of bookmakers holding their list positions in perpetuity, which the RCA denies.”

On the face of it, that looks to some extent like going down the right road. However, the FRB would like me to make a number of points about the issue, because it is not quite as clear and straightforward as Howard makes out in his article.

The FRB is concerned about the working party set up by the Minister. He was quoted in the Racing Post on 18 March as saying that he would

“give it one last crack”

by re-convening the working party and would consider using secondary legislation if agreement was not reached. I understand that that meeting has not yet taken place. Will he comment on that and tell us whether there will be one?

The next point concerns the UK-wide solution for tenure. The tenure of list positions must be agreed UK-wide, as it was before the passing of the 2005 Act. Although commercial access fees may vary, it would not be fair for some bookies to keep their assets for longer than others. If a negotiated agreement cannot be reached UK-wide, surely legislation is the only option.

The article mentioned the fact, which the FRB opposes, that there will be no dispute resolution mechanism. The FRB feels that agreement on tenure means nothing if access charges are not fair and reasonable, and a dispute resolution mechanism is essential to ensuring fairness for both sides if agreement is not reached. The FRB strongly advocates such a mechanism, but the RCA has strongly resisted it until now. In my opinion, a dispute resolution mechanism for forward negotiations must be seriously considered.

There are few industries in which this country can truly be described as the world leader, but betting and gambling is one of them. That is primarily due to the high levels of integrity encouraged in all UK sports. I believe that the leading best practice model is the one employed by the BHA. I hope that all major sports in this country will seriously consider adopting similarly high levels of integrity to those that operate in the British racing industry.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on securing the debate and I hope that he did not bet at the start of the season on Norwich to win promotion to the premier league. Sadly, it looks as if my bet on Celtic to win the Scottish premier league will not come to fruition either.

Obviously, the main subject of the debate is integrity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) did, I wish to mention briefly the integrity not of certain layers or of the sports themselves, but of the Racecourse Association and those who have followed its line. Having been present in the House during Culture, Media and Sport questions on 19 January and, like my hon. Friend, having read the Racing Post of 18 March, I am convinced that the Minister shares my concerns.

As some hon. Members will be aware, back in March 2007, the RCA unilaterally announced that race courses would cease to recognise on-course bookmakers’ list positions. Despite hon. Members’ repeated criticisms and calls for the RCA and race courses to alter their stance, two early-day motions and a Select Committee report, the RCA still has not withdrawn its announcement and race courses refuse to budge to a reasonable position. We have heard today about just one race course, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough that we need a UK solution.

What is a reasonable position? It is not right of first refusal. Under that system, race courses will hold bookmakers to ransom to use their own list positions. If a bookmaker cannot pay what the race course demands, the race course will offer the same position to somebody else, leaving the bookmaker with nothing. Tenure must be tenure. There must be two-way negotiation on access charges, rather than diktat.

To ensure fairness to both sides, a dispute resolution system, as my hon. Friend mentioned, is essential. I hope that the Minister will deal with that issue. As has been said, a UK-wide solution on tenure is necessary. We must protect all bookmakers, not just some. As list positions are assets conferring a priority order of pitch selection, it is also critical that new betting areas are allocated according to existing lists. It would be unfair for assets bought in good faith to be devalued.

There are three main points to address: duration of tenure, a UK-wide dispute resolution system and new betting areas. The matter is fairly straightforward and should not be complicated by more incidental issues. After the working party ended, it was hoped that discussions between race courses and bookmakers would be undertaken in good faith and without interference from the RCA. As the Minister said, that has not happened. Last October, the RCA wrote to its members, effectively advising them to delay agreement, resist the continuance of tenure rights and refuse dispute resolution.

Correspondingly, although race courses have had more than a year to make an offer to bookmakers, no concrete proposals have been made. For that reason, I urge scepticism about how the RCA and race courses portray the situation to the public, and note that its gambling group note from November states that

“we need to terminate DCMS interest in this, thus avoiding legislation”.

Frankly, that is a disgraceful position. It intends to “terminate DCMS interest” by “showing progress locally”. The important distinction is between the appearance and the reality; showing progress is not making progress.

I understand the Minister’s frustration over this matter. I hope that his last crack at reaching a voluntary agreement by reconvening the working party produces a UK-wide solution. Should that not happen, secondary legislation will be the only option. We should put the message out that we intend to use it if there is no agreement.

Thank you, Mr. O’Hara, for your indulgence in allowing me to say those few words.

May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) not only on securing this debate but on the interest he has long shown in this important issue? It pains me to say this and it is a rare occurrence, but I agree with almost everything the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said. My remarks will be shorter than they might have been because he has said much of what I was going to say.

It is important to place it on the record that sports betting in the UK is big business. According to various sources, it has seen about a fourfold increase over the last few years. Whether we believe it is the responsibility of sports governing bodies or others to pay for it, integrity work in each sport is expensive and the cost is rising. No major sports governing bodies have been able to give me a precise cost because such work is often integrated with other activities. However, many millions of pounds are spent by major sports governing bodies. It is critical that they do that work. A number of cases have been mentioned in this debate. The hon. Member for Norwich, North referred to various examples and I will speak about a couple of those later.

I was delighted that a number of hon. Members used this opportunity to raise other outstanding business in relation to gambling, and in particular to horse racing. The hon. Members for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) and for Livingston (Mr. Devine) spoke passionately. I, too, believe it is vital that we resolve the question of on-course bookmaker lists. I have attended Westminster Hall debates on that topic over the last two years. I hope the hon. Gentlemen will not mind if I do not comment further on that; they can find my views on the matter in Hansard. I share their view that the issue must be resolved soon, in the interests not only of on-course bookmakers but of the people who go to the races and enjoy the benefit brought by on-course bookmakers.

I will not follow other hon. Members in pressing the Minister to tell us about the sale of the Tote because we have debated that on many occasions. However, it could legitimately have been brought into this debate. I will not even ask him for the latest details in the saga of the horse race betting levy, although a comment from him would be interesting.

My point is simple. A lot of money is made from sports betting by the betting industry in this country. A lot of costs are incurred by sports governing bodies in relation to integrity. The question is whether a greater contribution to those costs should be made by betting organisations. Like the hon. Member for Shipley, I do not think the case for that has yet been made. I do not believe we should go down that route now.

The question that remains is, what more can we do if there is a continuing problem? There are a number of cases of matches being rigged for betting purposes. I welcome the Minister’s establishment of the expert panel. I look forward to hearing more details from him today and in the near future about who will serve on that body and what its remit will be. That body must help to resolve a number of ongoing problems, which centre around two things. The first is how we gather information about what is going on. The second is how we provide help to sports governing bodies so that they can put in place appropriate rules and sanctions to deal with any incidents.

The hon. Member for Norwich, North raised the matter of the Norwich City versus Derby match, about which my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) has asked a number of parliamentary questions. The issue concerned betting on the Asian-Chinese market. It became apparent from the debate on that issue that the Football Association finds it extremely difficult to act and to prove a case of match fixing. The FA has made it clear that it is able to act only if a whistleblower comes forward. It needs help in looking at these issues.

An interesting article in The Independent on 24 April said that the FA was “powerless to act” in such cases. It stated that

“an informed source told The Independent that the FA ‘is highly unlikely to charge a player with match-fixing’ and will not do so in this case. Match-fixing is simply too hard to prove, to specific legal satisfaction, whereas infringements of football’s own betting rules are more clear-cut and more likely to end in convictions, though the matter remains within the sport’s governing body.”

I hope that the expert panel will consider what help can be given to deal with those difficulties.

I share the concern that the hon. Member for Shipley touched on about the role of the Gambling Commission. In an intervention, I asked the hon. Member for Norwich, North whether he had confidence in the commission’s work in this area. He said that it was almost up to top gear. That is in marked contrast with the view of the hon. Member for Shipley. The commission document of March this year contained a degree of complacency. At least it is acknowledged that more work needs to be done, and I welcome the fact that the commission will focus more on this matter in future. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.

The recent worrying incidents demonstrate why it is difficult to have confidence in the Gambling Commission in this area. Many hon. Members will have read the reports of the recent mystery shopping exercise in bookmakers’ shops. The commission discovered that a 17-year-old was able to place a bet illegally in 98 of the 100 shops that were visited. However, the only resulting action that seems to have been taken is that a letter has been sent to each of those betting shops, telling them they must have procedures in place to prevent that from happening again. Similarly, we have discussed many times white-listed jurisdictions and the promise of mystery shopping as a way of checking that they are behaving correctly. However, as we have discovered in other debates, no mystery shopping took place on overseas-regulated, white-listed regulated betting sites until very recently. The Minister has told me in a letter that that has now started to happen; I would be grateful if he told me what progress we have made and what information we have received.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a rather damning indictment of the Gambling Commission that the Minister is having to set up an expert panel? Surely, if it were good at its job, it should be the expert panel.

I have already said that I welcome the setting up of the panel and I hope it will help to inform the Gambling Commission, so that it can do more effective work in that direction in future. The hon. Gentleman is perhaps being slightly unfair on the commission, which has made it clear what it plans to do—I just wish it had been doing it rather sooner.

Let me say to the Minister that the issue of internet gambling is critical. There are some 6,500 internet gambling sites around the world, only 1,000 or so are regulated anywhere in the world, and very few are regulated in the UK. The Gambling Commission’s briefing tells us that it is going to work hard on its licence condition 15.1, which is on the business of sharing information. It is critical that we get some assurance from the Minister that that licence condition applies to gambling sites regulated in the European economic area and within white-listed jurisdictions. Will he assure us that there will be regular checks that that is happening and that information is flowing?

I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Shipley, who praised organisations such as Betfair, which has gone out of its way to share information. The critical issue we now have to address is ensuring that all the organisations involved—whether the sports governing bodies or the betting organisations—are given help with knowing what to look for, and we must check that they are looking for it. We must also make sure that we support the sports governing bodies, not necessarily financially, but in adopting procedures to ensure that we have information flows, so that action can be taken if and when illegal gambling affects the outcome of a sporting activity.

It is a pleasure to work under your tutelage today, Mr. O’Hara, and to participate in this important debate, which has been entertaining, educational and informative. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to the many questions that have been asked about this industry, and it is worth echoing some of the comments that have been made.

We can be very proud of the sport offering that the UK provides and the general level of integrity that we have. If we glance over our shoulders at some other places around the world, we see that corruption is rife, so we can hold our heads up and be proud of where we are today. That should not mean that we are complacent, however, which is exactly why we are here today debating this subject.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on securing the debate and commiserate with him about where his football team are going, although he probably does not want to hear that again. If it is any consolation, should they have the misfortune of going down another division, I shall be delighted to meet him in the directors’ box when they come to play AFC Bournemouth in the second division, but I am sure that that will not happen.

The hon. Gentleman stressed the importance of sharing knowledge and of the communications required to ensure that the governing bodies can do their work and the Gambling Commission can have an overview. It is also important that the customer is aware that we have a transparent and fair system so that people will want to place bets in the first place.

What has changed the situation from that of 15 or 20 years ago is the advent of the internet, which has provided a new dimension in which sports betting can take place. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) stressed the importance of establishing who is responsible for match fixing and who should be penalised if any match fixing takes place. Whether it should be the responsibility of the governing body or the individuals who participate in a team or act on their own is an interesting question.

As my hon. Friend said, we should not forget the symbiotic relationship between bookmakers and sports. They need each other and we need both of them to ensure that the industry as a whole continues. We should never forget that. There are those who frown upon gambling as a whole, but in the correct, regulated environment, gambling can be seen as fun and a form of entertainment. When it slips over into being a short, fast form of investment, there should be processes in place to isolate and help those individuals who use it to try to make money, rather than as a form of fun and entertainment. That is where other responsibilities need to kick in.

The hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) mentioned the enjoyment of sports betting. It was a pleasure to meet him up in Thirsk on the weekend—perhaps I should confess, or make a declaration about that. I am not a betting man, but I have been introduced to this wonderful environment thanks to the portfolio for which I am now responsible, and I have to say that the event to which I was invited on the weekend, which the Minister also attended, was a wonderful evening of entertainment. I congratulate the Yorkshire race courses on that operation.

The wonderful sense of community at that event was noticeable, and people came not simply to place a bet, but to enjoy themselves. It was very much part of the fabric of the community there, which is exactly what we should be moving towards. We do not want people to feel that they cannot place a bet because they are worried that the outcome is preconceived or that a jockey will inadvertently throw himself from his horse at the last hurdle. Such things have happened, but I am glad to say that they do not happen regularly. Long may that continue.

The hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough mentioned the on-course bookmakers dispute. That issue wanders slightly away from the title of the debate, but I hope that the Minister will not use that as an excuse not to comment on it, because it is a concern. The dispute has been rumbling on for some time and is one of the three big issues of horse racing, along with the future of the Tote—clearly, there needs to be some security regarding what will happen to it—and the levy. I make a personal request to the Minister to try to solve these issues because I really do not want to have to deal with them if I take over his portfolio after a general election. I will be very grateful if he works hard on them in the next 12 months.

The point about the on-course bookmakers dispute made by the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough is important because the dispute is the Government’s responsibility. There is a dispute purely because of a legislative cock-up in the Gambling Act 2005, which did not understand the legacy that on-course bookmakers had and their intellectual property rights, as it were. Nor did it fully understand their relationship with the race course, which is so important.

On the Gambling Commission and its relationship with the governing bodies, the objective must be to keep gambling fair and open, and to keep crime out of gambling. One question that has been asked several times, including by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), is, can the Gambling Commission do its job? He mentioned the mystery shopping exercise, which is where the commission is supposed to zip around the internet, posing as an individual or whoever, to catch out internet companies. We do not see enough of those results coming through, and we do not see scrutiny on the level required to ensure that standards remain high.

The hon. Member for Norwich, North, who opened the debate, also raised an interesting issue about the types of bet that someone can now place. I agree with him. This is my personal view: I have concerns about whether someone should be able to bet on how many players come out to play wearing spectacles or place a bet on an outcome when the event is yet to conclude—for example, what the score will be three quarters of the way through a match. I do not have the answers, but I think that many people do in that, at the end of the day, it is up to the individual to decide whether they place a bet.

It opens up the possibility of types of corruption when someone knows that they can create, or design, a situation and then make up, or compensate, for it—for example, in relation to who scores the first goal in a match, that outcome might not affect the final result. I have concerns about interference with outcomes when that might not impact on the final result.

Perhaps I can set my hon. Friend’s mind at rest. If some of those novelty markets were being manipulated in the way he suggests, bookmakers would rapidly stop laying prices on them, as I believe has happened with, for example, the time of the first throw-in. Some footballers were hoofing it out straight from the kick-off and making a killing. Bookmakers soon cottoned on to that and started withdrawing those novelty bets, so if there were any great manipulation, those opportunities would soon diminish.

My hon. Friend makes an important point, but, again, the fact is that bookmakers constantly have to review and scrutinise the next type of imaginative event that might take place. Therefore, as a punter, someone is almost playing catch-up in deciding whether they are placing a legitimate type of bet or simply a novelty bet, which perhaps has no place in gambling at all. As he suggests, that is for the industry itself to market. The problem has not manifested itself on a large scale, but I raise the matter as a general concern.

In the next couple of minutes, I shall talk briefly about internet gambling as a whole. On white-listed companies, Antigua and Barbuda is the latest country to join the rather bizarre list of legislative areas that are allowed to operate companies in the UK. I understand from the answer to a parliamentary question that not one person from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport or the Gambling Commission visited Antigua and Barbuda to check out the standards.

That was an oversight.

Perhaps the Minister went there on holiday, but clearly he missed out on that particular visit. I have huge concerns, particularly in relation to Allen Stanford, who was involved with cricketing. The financial situation in Antigua is not good and I am concerned about allowing companies based in Antigua to operate and advertise in the UK via the internet. On top of that, they do not come under the direct scrutiny of the Gambling Commission and are not paying any money to GamCare, the Responsibility in Gambling Trust or whatever the successor organisation is in relation to education and research on problem gambling. Such companies are completely outside the loop.

The Minister made an announcement in relation to that last week. I am sorry that he did not have time to come to the Chamber to do so, but perhaps he can compensate for that by letting us know a little more about how that study will take place. It is very serious when there are different standards across the board. I met the Alderney Gambling Control Commission last week and it expressed concerns that when it looks over its shoulder, it sees that there are different standards within the white list itself. That means that we do not have the same integrity across the board.

As I want to give the Minister a full 15 minutes to conclude, these are my final questions. Can the legislation keep up with the developments and trends in technology, and is the Department for Culture, Media and Sport competent enough to be able to keep up with those changes, because the legislation is not being updated to keep up with the changing trends caused by use of the internet?

In addition, is the Gambling Commission able to keep up with the scale of scrutiny expected of it? It has talked about its relationship with the governing body, but the Gambling Commission’s report talks about a memorandum of understanding. When I was in the City, we worked on memorandums of understanding and they were simply used to say, “Yes, we’re going to be friends and have occasional meetings and coffee around a table.” We need something more robust if we are to get governing bodies to take full responsibility for how their sports are acting.

The hon. Member for Bath mentioned that 50 cases have come through. Is that right?

Forty-seven.

Almost 50 cases have come through. What are the results of those? Perhaps the Minister can clarify where those cases have taken us. Finally, I would also welcome his views on the on-course bookmakers dispute.

It is important to put it on the record that the vast majority of those 47 cases were drawn to the attention of the Gambling Commission by the betting industry itself. We ought to be grateful to the industry for the work it is doing in that area.

The hon. Gentleman prompts me to say, although I think I mentioned it earlier, that we can be proud of the work that our betting industry does here in the UK. My concern is that going overseas means losing that control and the relationship that we have. We all know the betting community well and encourage high standards, but we do not have that same relationship with companies based abroad. The Minister needs to clarify what level of suspicion triggers an investigation and allows the Gambling Commission to act.

I do not know, and it is not clear from the report, whether the Gambling Commission is familiar with every type of sport. Sports can be so different in many ways—from snooker to football to horseracing and so on. I worry whether the Gambling Commission has the necessary expertise and whether it is itself playing catch-up in understanding the diversity of the world in which it is working.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. O’Hara. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on securing this important debate. From the contributions that have been made, may I say that it has been a constructive debate on the issues that we face in relation to integrity? This is a timely debate, given the cases and issues that are out there.

I want to return to the point that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) made about the context of the debate and making sure that we put on the record—as has been done by all hon. Members—the fact that British betting is the safest in the world. We are proud of the way in which gambling operators and sports’ governing bodies operate in the UK. We need to put the matter in context of what is happening and what has happened, but we should certainly not be complacent about the issues that we face.

I shall go straight to the point that the hon. Gentleman made about the levy. The Government certainly do not support a sports levy—indeed, we want to see a fair return in the relationship between sports and betting. However, that should be achieved through a voluntary arrangement. Discussions are already taking place about the possibility of that being done. We certainly would not want to pursue another levy, given the issues that have arisen about levies.

May I update hon. Members about the research, education and treatment issues, in relation to which we threatened to impose a levy if we could not get voluntary contributions? I am happy to say that we are well on track to securing the required funding, but some small issues remain in relation to the offering of contracts and ensuring that we have the money for three-year contracts. I am confident that we will receive those assurances from the betting industry. Again, I pay tribute to what has been done.

I am grateful to the Minister for that information. I am particularly grateful to the sectors of the gambling industry that have made the contributions that have allowed the Minister to make that statement. However, will he confirm that a large number of betting organisations that are based in this country or regulated by this country in some way still make no contribution whatsoever? Notwithstanding that there will be no compulsory levy, what will the Government do to persuade those organisations to make a fair contribution, too?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention; he has raised that issue with me before. Certainly, in the context of the voluntary arrangements, I am satisfied that the betting industry itself is considering the issue of people who do not contribute, with a view to ensuring that they do so. The new arrangements that have been put in place will facilitate that, and when we conclude the agreement, I will be happy to report back and give an update on progress.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to ensure that those companies and organisations that are not contributing do so. He will be aware of my announcement last week about how we view overseas people who are able to advertise here and how that issue should be looked at in the consultation that we are undertaking.

So, no to a sports levy. We sorted out the research, education and training position, and I am happy to say that we concluded negotiations on the levy with the British Horseracing Authority and the negotiating bodies of the betting industry. I am pleased with that work, which will give the industry an opportunity to have a stable position over the next period. I hope that it will take advantage of that, look at the issue of modernising the levy system, and, as I know is happening, move forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North has raised these issues regularly. He is a keen sportsperson who wants the integrity of sport to be maintained, which was the basis of his securing the debate. I congratulate him on doing so.

I do not accept the challenge of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) who said that the Government have not done anything. We have actually done a great deal.

I did not say that.

Okay, not “not done anything” but not enough. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members say that we could have done more, sooner. The reality is that we have done a great deal to regulate the gambling industry in recent years. The old Gaming Act 1968 was out of order and needed amending to reflect the development of internet technology in particular. That is why the Government introduced the Gambling Act 2005 and set up the Gambling Commission, whose remit included focusing on betting integrity. We all know that people still like to visit the high street bookies, but there are now numerous ways to place a bet, especially on sport.

We spoke about sporting issues, and I share the concerns that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East raised about the number of corners in a game and so on. Such things do not materially affect the result of the game, but there are concerns. The hon. Member for Shipley is right to say that the bookies may get on to it, but we have to get the balance right. Betfair and bets in running are a concern as well, but I hope that there will be an opportunity to look at the integrity issues that may come from that.

People can bet with their TV remote. Anyone with a Sky subscription can place a bet with Sky Bet. We know that having a flutter can add to the enjoyment of watching sporting events. From the regular racing punter to the football fans betting on the result of their team’s game on a Saturday, betting on sport is an accepted, everyday occurrence.

As the hon. Member for Shipley said, the likelihood of serious, widespread corruption is small, but the threat and risks to reputation are real. We want the UK to maintain its standing as an honest and well-regulated country for gambling. Therefore, it is vital that the threat of corruption, especially from overseas and online betting, is reduced. A major sports betting scandal could damage the concept of sport and conceivably affect public interest in and support for a particular event or sport.

Significant corruption, or a series of betting scandals, would also call into question the regulatory ability of some of the sports governing bodies and the effectiveness of the betting regime, which could have implications for the wider gambling industry. That is why we must do more to ensure that the threats of betting corruption do not become real.

The solution is to bring together all the relevant organisations to support the people who do the intelligence work and to work with the Gambling Commission. The commission has come in for a bit of stick today, but I believe that it is doing well. It is the main player in regulating betting that is licensed in Britain, and its approach to what we are trying to achieve is now heading in the right direction.

On the role of the Gambling Commission, is the Minister telling us that he is perfectly satisfied with a situation in which 98 out of 100 betting shops allowed an under-age 17-year-old to place a bet, and the only effect of that was for the bookie shops to get a letter from the Gambling Commission basically telling them to get their house in order?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. Let me say from the start that the actions of the bookmakers were totally unacceptable. We need to find out what happened—we need to hear their responses. The letter that went out demanded action and a response within 28 days. I agree with him that just sending out a letter may have looked a bit complacent, but the reality is that action and a response were demanded within 28 days. That level of problem—98 out of 100—is totally unacceptable. I said earlier that the betting industry does all that it can, but it must do more. We cannot have vulnerable people and people under 18 put into such a difficult position.

In setting out and clarifying the regulatory position on integrity, the Gambling Commission is moving in the right direction. We need to give confidence to the public and ensure that the regulations are given a high profile. People felt that the cases in the horse-racing industry were not followed through or collapsed because of insufficient evidence or other problems, so it is important that the Gambling Commission recently published its policy position paper on betting integrity, which outlines the work that it has done and the direction that it wants to take.

As ever, time will overtake me. I am happy for hon. Members on both sides of the House to suggest people who should be on the expert panel that I want to set up. It will include eight to 10 people who will be taken from betting, sport and the police. I had a meeting with UEFA the other day, which is keen on the panel because it spends a great deal of money on integrity issues in football throughout Europe. The expert panel will give advice and support to the Gambling Commission on processes, procedures and what needs to be looked at. It is right and proper that experts in the field offer such support to the Gambling Commission.

The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was right to raise the 47 cases. More than half of them did not involve serious issues, but the Gambling Commission was right to ensure that they were investigated. The remaining cases that are under consideration, in some cases by sports governing bodies, include a number of active cases in which the commission will be further involved. It is difficult to work out the full extent of the underlying problem, particularly as the Commission can work only with gambling operators who are licensed in the UK.

Time is running out, so I want to take the Minister back to the Antigua and Barbuda situation. He spoke about having the ability to look at UK issues. How can we sign up a jurisdiction without anyone going there to see whether its gambling commission stands up to scrutiny and can do the same job that ours is able to do here?

The Antiguan authorities came to see us. We checked their credentials in terms of the criteria for whitelisting. I am satisfied that they met all the criteria in respect of the like-for-like responsibilities that we asked them to undertake. We were happy to whitelist Antigua and Barbuda, although we did not do so initially. We looked for further information, which was forthcoming. I do not think that there was any need for anyone to go to Antigua and Barbuda, but I might follow the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion and go myself to have a look. Whitelisting is important for the reason that the hon. Member for Bath gave, and as I announced last week, we will be looking at all the issues again in that wider context.

Let me deal with on-course betting in the last two minutes of the debate. The situation was outlined by my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) and for Livingston (Mr. Devine). I am frustrated by the fact that no progress has been made, although I am heartened by reports in the Racing Post this morning. I made it clear to the working group that there should have been discussions between the racecourse operators and the Federation of Racecourse Bookmakers. I will try to arrange such a meeting. I have given the racecourse operators another opportunity, and some have taken it up, but, if we cannot make progress, I shall reconvene the working group in the near future to have one last crack at it. If we do not get a solution that meets the requirements of all sides, I will consider legislation, because this can and should be resolved. I will not allow discussions to take place until we reach the deadline with nothing happening. That would be the wrong thing to do. I give assurances to my hon. Friends that we will deal with the matter.

This has been an important debate. We could have discussed many other issues, and they will be discussed as we take matters forward. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North for raising the issue. We will keep under review—

Order. We must turn our attention to the next debate.

I am delighted to have had this debate chosen today. It is important for those who work in the construction industry. [Interruption.] If the hecklers stopped heckling, perhaps we could get on with the debate.

I shall always be proud that the Government gave their support to passing and implementing my private Member’s Bill targeting illegal gangmasters, which sought to flush out those who were exploiting both migrant and indigenous workers. Despite the powerful argument put forward, the Bill covered only agricultural and related industries. Along with the trade unions and the legal gangmasters, I argued at the time that, should the Bill prove effective, the unscrupulous gangmasters would move into other industries. The evidence suggests that that is exactly what has happened.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s diligence in bringing forward the original gangmasters Bill. Does he agree that although that Bill was narrowly focused on agricultural activities, it enabled the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, which it established, to prove the value of an approach that engaged all the participants?

I remember having discussions with my hon. Friend—along with Tim Bennett, then president of the National Farmers Union, and Jack Dromey, from the Transport and General Workers Union, who one might think were not natural bedfellows—to produce something that would work. That strengthens my hon. Friend’s argument for going further into other industrial areas.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention and pass on my appreciation to him. He was a Minister at the time and was supportive of and helpful in guiding the Gangmasters (Licensing) Bill through the appropriate Committee to get it to its destination. I wish to put on the record my thanks for his work and for the work of the others he has already mentioned.

At the time the Bill was being discussed, we used the construction trade as an example because of its diverse, mobile nature, and this is where we find the illegal gangmasters working now. Those of us who worked in construction and related industries are well aware of the dangerous environment faced by those in the job. I will return to this later.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. As he will be aware, the unions in construction, including the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, have been calling for some time for an extension of the gangmasters regulations to include construction because of the size of the migrant labour population in that sector. If we could extend those regulations, would they bring greater protection to that migrant labour force while at the same time allaying the fears of the indigenous labour force and reassuring them that their wages would not be undercut? There seems to be a feeling that that is happening.

My hon. Friend is right. Again, I put on the record my appreciation for his support for the initial legislation on gangmasters and for his work on health and safety in construction and related industries. He is well respected throughout the industry for the work that he has done on health and safety and on promoting workers’ rights. We need more of that in this place, particularly at this time.

There was a major lobby last week in the House of Commons. Hundreds of construction workers came to this place to tell us about the difficulties that they face. People who are desperate for work and others who took time off work came to the mother of Parliaments to tell us exactly what the problems are. Those people were angry and frustrated that they could not get jobs because of the cowboys operating in the construction industry, who are often organised by the gangmasters. Those construction workers are looking to this Labour Government to do something to help them to try to get decent jobs and decent conditions in the construction industry, which is vital for this country.

Migrant workers who come to this country for legitimate reasons and for legitimate work are often lured into the twilight world of illegal gangmasters. I caution those who blame the workers and ask them instead to focus on the real villains, who are the illegal gangmasters. Anecdotal evidence from those who have suffered under those unscrupulous people suggests that they are experiencing the same desperate conditions as those who were exposed in the agriculture industry—none more so than the Chinese workers who perished on the shores of Morecambe bay. That was the rationale behind our introducing the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004.

Despite the financial situation, most commentators agree that we can build our way out of this downturn with major construction projects, such as the house building that we are proposing, the Olympic village and related projects.

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this issue to the fore and giving a Minister the opportunity to allow it—I hope—to progress even further.

I recently met my hon. Friend the Minister for Borders and Immigration, with colleagues from the Chinese community, to give him evidence of gangmaster involvement in the Chinese community in respect of the hospitality industry and other industries. I have asked him to try to get the rest of Whitehall to come together to look, with the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and his Department, at a comprehensive approach to gangmasters, not just in the construction sector, but in other parts of the economy where they are clearly operating to the detriment of the health, safety and well-being of the people employed by them.

My right hon. Friend is right. He has a proud track record, while in ministerial office, of looking after and promoting the rights of workers. The construction industry is a major problem, but it is not the only problem. Some of those people are operating in the service and leisure sectors in this country and people are being exploited in the most terrible ways imaginable. We are talking about people in the United Kingdom—not just migrant workers, but indigenous workers.

I would welcome the opportunity to extend the 2004 Act to all sectors, but I realise that that may be somewhat over-ambitious. Perhaps we could learn from our experience and concentrate on the construction industry.

Health and safety matters are important to those in the building trade and, in the wider context, in related industries. People must have the fundamental right to return home safely after their work. Since 2007, there have been 120 fatal accidents in the construction industry. In terms of serious accidents, those are only the ones that are reported. I would struggle to guess how many unreported serious incidents or accidents there have been in the construction industry. Given the nature of that industry, people are sometimes afraid to report accidents, simply because they fear being sacked or losing their job.

Again, there is evidence that illegal gangmasters supply unskilled labour to major construction companies and their subcontractors to carry out skilled and dangerous work without taking into consideration the safety consequences for the general public, others on the site and themselves. They also undermine legitimate employers who invest in training, and pay their taxes and national insurance contributions.

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, concentrating on a single industry to ensure that it is dealt with. Does he agree that the lesson that we should learn from his private Member’s legislation is to get everyone in the industry together? Does he hope, as I do, that the Minister will take the initiative to get all partners in the industry together to promote the right environment for extending the gangmasters legislation quickly?

My right hon. Friend is knowledgeable about the industry and the legislation. He may be aware that last week I asked the Prime Minister whether he and like-minded colleagues would have a meeting on gangmasters in the construction industry. He has kindly agreed, and I look forward to that meeting so that they get a feel for the Gangmasters Licensing Authority’s work and how effective it is, and accept that it must be properly resourced.

Companies that pay their taxes and train apprentices for the future are damaged financially, especially small businesses that are struggling to survive and that must compete with cowboys in the construction industry. Cowboys often advertise on mobile phones tied to lamp posts, so they are untraceable. It would be helpful if Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs tracked down those mobile phones and asked the people who operate illegally how they pay their taxes and national insurance, and how they treat their workers.

As my hon. Friend is aware, the construction industry is peculiar in its diversity. It is made up of some 274,000 companies—that figure was given to the Select Committee on Business and Enterprise—and has many thousands of self-employed workers, many of whom have their tax deducted at source as though they were full-time employees. That makes the industry peculiar, and the Exchequer loses out.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the powerful arguments for the 2004 Act was the benefits to the Treasury, and I will return to that. It is important to understand that the result for the Government of taking steps to protect workers’ terms and conditions, and their safety in the workplace, is win-win, because registering gangmasters provides a financial return from the registration fee and ensures that taxes and national insurance are paid.

There is increasing tangible evidence that if gangmasters are required to register, they must also be tax compliant and follow the VAT registration rules. In 2007 alone, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority identified more than £2 million of extra VAT payments for the Exchequer, and that figure takes no account of additional income tax and national insurance contributions being paid as a result of the authority’s work. The Government have a vested interest in seriously considering the matter, and I sincerely hope that they do.

Hon. Members should also be aware of the serious matter of community unrest when genuine workers see others doing their work and not contributing to the community or to wider society. That generates social unrest and frustration, which manifest themselves in people turning to extremist parties, such as the British National party, which are happy to exploit such situations. There is political advantage in addressing this matter.

My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. He will be aware that at the lobby that we both attended last week, there was a feeling among the many hundreds of workers present that they are being badly let down and that employers are using the immigrant labour force to drive down wages. Does he believe that extending the regulations on gangmasters would introduce greater harmony and avoid extremist expression such as that we heard at the lobby last week?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There was anger and frustration among last week’s lobby of construction workers, and it was targeted at us—the Government—for not providing proper legislation to protect them. People are saying that foreign workers are taking our jobs, and undermining our terms and conditions, and that the Government—a Labour Government—are not doing anything like enough to help them. That resonates in communities.

People on English oil platforms were recently on strike for a long time, and 400 Italian workers, based on a ship offshore, were taken on during the day. That generated anger and frustration among indigenous workers. There is a community cohesion issue, and if the situation is allowed to continue, people will turn to extremist parties, which will provide simplistic answers, but not many solutions.

Trade unions, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Federation of Master Builders are asking for help to get us through these difficult times. With a little vision, we can make that change, help the industry and get people back to work with the terms and conditions and, more importantly, the safety environment to which they are entitled.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) on securing this debate, on all his work through his private Member’s legislation, and on championing the issue. As he said, the Prime Minister agreed last week to meet him, and I assure him that the Government believe that it is important to debate the matter, particularly when health and safety issues are involved.

As my hon. Friend knows, we have carefully considered extending the licensing regime to other sectors. That was part of the vulnerable worker enforcement forum’s work last year. The forum consisted of union and business representatives, Citizens Advice and the key workplace enforcement bodies. There was disagreement about the strength of the case for broadening the Gangmasters Licensing Authority’s remit, and it is important to recognise that employment agencies operating outside GLA areas of agriculture and food processing are not unregulated. They are, in fact, subject to employment agency regulations enforced by my Department's employment agency standards inspectorate, and I will say a little about its work.

Following the forum’s work, the Government announced that we have no plans to extend the licensing regime, but that we want to prioritise effective enforcement of the existing law. We are doing so by taking steps to strengthen the employment agency standards inspectorate, and to raise its profile among agency workers and agencies as an effective, but less intrusive regulatory alternative. It is important to remember that the majority of agencies want to comply with the law, but my hon. Friend rightly highlighted a number of incidents of abuse and I recognise that there is a live debate about the matter.

I rise briefly in support of the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan). I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take on board the fact that although regulation exists in a variety of areas, the success of the GLA arises from the partnership of people who engaged in the industry to go beyond what top-down regulation can do, think outside the box and create an environment that changed how the problem was dealt with. That development was stimulated by events in Morecambe bay, which removed much of the opposition that had existed. We do not want something like that to be the necessary trigger to opening up the debate to which my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North has drawn attention today.

I certainly agree that we do not want a repetition of the events of Morecambe bay. We need to make progress with effective enforcement of the existing law, while continuing to have the policy debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North has been encouraging us to have. No doubt he will continue to pursue that with the Prime Minister and others, and we are certainly open to listening to his arguments.

However, we are strengthening the employment agency standards inspectorate by doubling the number of employment agency inspectors. In addition, provisions in the Employment Act 2008 that have now come into effect give it stronger powers of investigation—for example, through access to bank and other financial records. Inspectors also have access to stronger penalties. The Act now makes infringements of employment agency regulations indictable, so that they can be tried in a Crown court, where unlimited fines for certain offences are available. It is important to recognise the strengthening of employment legislation that we have done on the back of my hon. Friend’s campaigning.

As I think my hon. Friend is aware, a campaign was run in February and March to build a higher profile for the EAS inspectorate and to increase awareness of the special safeguards for agency workers. That has had a significant impact on the number of calls to the helpline and visits to the direct.gov website.

In addition to raising awareness, the EAS inspectorate is increasing its targeted enforcement activity. Last December, it had a blitz on agencies supplying workers to the construction industry. Using locally sourced intelligence, together with information previously provided by unions working in the construction sector, 52 agencies were identified and inspected to establish compliance with the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003. Of the 52 agencies inspected, 40 were found to be breaking regulations, with a total of 192 separate infringements. They were sent warning letters, which are being followed up.

I can assure my hon. Friend that the EAS inspectorate has teeth. It has powers to send warning letters, to prosecute in the civil courts and to prohibit people from running employment agencies for up to 10 years—something the GLA licensing system does not provide for.

Some of the people operating as illegal gangmasters will not take much cognisance of warning letters; in fact, they will probably just throw them in the bin. It would be extremely helpful and would send a clear message to those who wish to operate in that way if they, or the company they are working for as subcontractors, were denied the opportunity to tender for Government work. That might concentrate their minds more than just receiving warning letters.

I agree that warning letters are unlikely to be taken into account by some of the people whom my hon. Friend describes. That is why, under legislation, we have further powers for enforcement through the courts. On what he says about Government contracts, he will be aware of Government procurement processes and the high standards that are applied to Government procurement. We certainly do not want to be procuring services from the sort of agencies he is talking about.

What has come out of the blacklisting saga is that some companies were operating a blacklist in the construction industry, but solely with public sector contracts. They were getting public sector contracts and private finance initiative work, and all the companies were operating a blacklist against British construction workers. Large numbers were involved. That is just not acceptable. What will we do about it?

I shall say something about blacklisting in a moment, but first I want to make the point that although there is clearly more work to be done, it is important to recognise that the EAS inspectorate is having increasing success in cracking down on agencies that flout the law. The team has doubled in size. The inspectorate has been given stronger investigative powers and a higher profile, and we are confident that it will have increasing success in the future in ensuring compliance with the law. That does not mean that there is not more to be done, but we need to recognise that the Government have made progress.

We are putting a great deal of effort into closer working between the enforcement bodies that enforce basic employment rights. At the recent fair employment enforcement board, made up of unions, business representatives and the enforcement bodies, praise was given for the even closer working relationship between the EAS inspectorate and the GLA. They hold joint management sessions, have signed a memorandum of understanding, and work closely together to share information about non-compliant or suspect businesses operating across their respective sectors.

Good progress is being made on setting up a single enforcement helpline, bringing together the helplines of the five key workplace enforcement agencies. That will make it much easier for vulnerable workers to report abuses, and will facilitate more joint enforcement activity where abuses raise issues for more than one enforcement body. I recognise that there is an issue regarding linking things together more effectively.

Let me make some comments about the construction sector, which accounted for a significant part of the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North. According to Construction Confederation figures, only 3 per cent. of workers in the construction sector are engaged through agencies, which suggests that licensing agencies in this sector would have a very limited impact. They are none the less a significant group of employers, and even 3 per cent. accounts for a significant amount of employment. I recognise the points that my hon. Friend makes.

However, given serious economic problems in the sector, which is facing the full impact of the economic downturn, we need to be careful about imposing significant new regulations. That might not only place extra pressures on construction businesses at this time, but could make it more difficult for them to engage workers when the upturn comes. Construction is a tightly regulated sector that also has an unusually large number of small companies, which could suffer disproportionately because of the cost and administrative burden of a licensing regime. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the abuses that exist. We need to ensure that we take action in that regard, and to take into account the appropriate way of taking action.

Will my hon. Friend the Minister give way?

I have only three minutes left and I have some other points to make in direct response to what my hon. Friend said.

Construction is also a relatively skilled area in which, unlike agriculture and food processing, workers earn more than the minimum wage. However, my hon. Friend is right to point to examples of abuse, and it is important that the Government take action in those areas. Therefore, although we are not currently persuaded of the case for licensing in the construction sector, we will certainly continue to listen to the arguments made by my hon. Friend and others, and I can assure him that we are taking a very close interest in health and safety matters and in self-employment, which he also raised.

The updated and tightened Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 place a duty on construction sites to employ competent, skilled staff and to ensure health and safety on-site. The regulations now extend to all construction sites—large and small—and the possible fine for non-compliance is unlimited, so there is a big incentive for sites to comply. The Health and Safety Executive is recruiting additional inspectors with a construction industry background. They will join the HSE next month, so further work is taking place, as it is on self-employment.

I want to mention the action we are taking to tackle the issue of blacklisting, which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). He will be aware that on Monday, we announced that we were minded to introduce new regulations under the powers in section 3 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 to tackle blacklisting. My Department will launch a short public consultation in the summer, seeking views on revised draft regulations, with a view to securing parliamentary approval of the final draft regulations in the autumn. We had previously thought that there was no evidence for taking action in that area, but we had legislation on the stocks. It is right that we check that it is appropriate, but it is important, given the events that have come to light recently, that the Government take action. We want to ensure that it is the right action, which is why we shall be consulting on it.

It is marvellous that I was able to secure this debate at such a timely moment. I am pleased that it is being held today, as the national campaign “Rivers on the Edge” was launched last night by the World Wide Fund for Nature. The campaign highlights the plight of our rivers, their poor condition and the fact that action is needed if they are not to run dry. Early-day motion 1392, in my name and those of many colleagues, also highlights the problem. I thank Martin Jee, my researcher, who has done a good deal of work in researching the subject. I also thank Charles Rangeley-Wilson of WWF for his work on the campaign.

I was brought up close to the banks of the River Kennet in the Newbury constituency, and I often used to walk by the side of what is probably the best chalk river in the country. I believe that the river runs through the constituency of another Member here this afternoon—the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter). If I am wrong, it is nearby. It is good to see the hon. Gentleman here today.

The beauty of the Kennet—a wonderful river—is now spoilt by the fact that great parts of it run dry. In my constituency of North-East Hertfordshire can be found the four towns of Letchworth Garden City, Royston, Baldock and Buntingford, but the geography of the constituency consists of 180 square miles of rolling hills and fields, with a tracery of lanes joining the many villages, and nestling in the valleys are the seven chalk rivers and streams—the Ivel, the Ash, the upper Rhee, the Rib, the Quin, the Beane and the Mimram. Chalk rivers naturally have uniquely pure water.

Water bubbles up from the chalk aquifer and sustains many species. The main chalk rivers are located in the south east of England and a small part of Normandy in France; they are internationally unique and should be prized and considered as important as other major international ecological concerns such as the ice caps or—

The rainforests.

Indeed.

The River Mimram, in my constituency, features in the WWF campaign and includes a site of special scientific interest, at Tewin Bury, which is home to wetland birds, rare plants—for example, the southern marsh orchid and the golden saxifrage—fish and the white-clawed crayfish. It is also a refuge of the water vole, the population of which has collapsed—it has fallen by 90 per cent. It would be sad to lose the animal that was the inspiration for Ratty in “Wind in the Willows”. The Hertfordshire and Middlesex Wildlife Trust has undertaken a major survey of the vole population using data from Tewin Bury.

The River Mimram rises at Whitwell in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), flows through Welwyn and Hatfield, into my constituency and then on into Hertford. Over recent years, these wonderful rivers in my constituency, which are much loved and form an important part of our environment, have suffered. In 2006, the Mimram ran dry. Residents felt helpless—they have described it to me—as they watched trout dying and discovered that the rare white-clawed crayfish had died, too.

Recently, the Mimram has had low flows for far too many years, which is why it features in the campaign. For environmental purposes, it has adequate flow only 1 per cent. of the time, which is worrying, not only because of the rare flora and fauna at the SSSI, but because of what is being lost by local residents. I have visited the Mimram on a number of occasions with Tony Last and Tony Langford from Friends of the Mimram and I pay tribute to their work in highlighting the situation of the river.

The River Beane Preservation Society works hard for its river, too. I have visited the Beane north of Watton-at-Stone, with Ian Knight and Dave Stimpson, and I recognise, too, the contribution of Andrew Bott, who is the society’s secretary. The Mimram provides the water supply for Welwyn Garden City, and the Beane for Stevenage. Near the Whitehall pumping station, the River Beane runs dry going north away from Watton-at-Stone. There has been some improvement this winter, but the river has adequate flow, for environmental purposes, only 10 per cent. of the time.

It does not need to be like this. These rivers are great—and could be greater—leisure resources. An expert report by Entec, for the Environment Agency, shows that the benefits could be worth as much as £32 million to £34 million for the Mimram alone. If boreholes were used farther down the river, the benefits could be achieved at a modest cost. Dry fly-fishing is already well-established further down the Mimram and, in living memory, there was swimming and fishing in the River Beane—in parts that are now dry in the summer. It is vital that any new borehole for the Mimram does not damage the precious SSSI, but the site being considered at Tewin—only 1 km from the SSSI—is causing great anxiety.

Is this a sensible way forward? We must keep that wetland wet. Against that background, the additional burdens on water resources in the south and east need to be taken into account. The Environment Agency designates all rivers east of Luton as “over-abstracted” and “over-licensed”. Development poses a major challenge. The east of England plan calls for 83,200 extra homes in Hertfordshire. Yet no sensible plan is in place either for the water resources and infrastructure for those properties, or for maintaining or improving the environment.

Hertfordshire is losing water to pollution. It has all the usual problems, as well as bromate contamination at Sandridge, where an old potassium bromate factory has created a plume across Hertfordshire, resulting in higher-than-permitted levels of bromate in water supplies. One borehole is completely out of use, and seven public and three private boreholes have restricted use. The “polluter pays” principle is very important. Why is the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs taking so long to decide the case of the bromate plume? I have asked several parliamentary questions about it; but after four years, still no firm decision has been made.

I welcome Thames Water’s approach; it says that one case of pollution from its sites is one too many. It achieved 100 per cent. compliance with the Environment Agency’s stringent sewage treatment standards at its Hertfordshire sewage treatment works in 2008-09, and it is working hard to keep it that way, with carefully targeted programmes of maintenance and investment. I am glad that it is supporting the campaign. However, it will not welcome some of my later comments about abstraction.

None of us can ignore the likely effect of climate change, with Three Valleys Water expecting to lose 5 per cent. of available water by 2030. Decisions will have to be made about our rivers this year. The water framework directive requires our rivers to be of “good environmental status” by 2015, yet the Government’s draft plans do not include any improvement in Hertfordshire. Currently, only 20 per cent of our national rivers and lakes are of good status, and the Government’s draft plans will improve that by only 4 per cent. by 2015. That is simply not challenging enough and more needs to be done. We need to draw up a proper Government plan to waste less water and reduce consumption to 130 litres per person per day; to keep our rivers flowing, which means altering and amending abstraction licences and, in some cases, moving our boreholes further down river; and to introduce a tiered pricing system for water to help vulnerable people and to reward those who conserve water—the technology is now available to achieve that through smart metering. We need to help farmers avoid pollution through advice, training and incentives; to create a firm policy on pollution; and actively to regenerate our dying rivers.

The draft Flood and Water Bill will provide us with some opportunities, but the clause on water may not be robust enough. The people drafting the Bill were fairly open-minded about some of the improvements that might be sought when the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee spoke to them last week. I advise the hon. Gentleman to look very carefully at that piece of draft legislation.

The hon. Gentleman’s contribution is thoughtful and helpful. However, powers are available and the Government have compiled 39 reports on the issue, but we have not seen any improvement. It is a question not just of taking powers, reporting on the matter and having a structure and framework in place, but of taking action and making improvements. The debate should be about making things happen.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and I am listening with great interest to what he says. Does he agree that the River Kennet, which flows through my constituency, is a very important river that does not get the same attention as the River Thames, which also flows through my constituency, and that it is extremely important that it is protected and enhanced for the benefit of future generations, particularly in and around my constituency?

I could not agree more. The people of Swindon could help us out. The River Kennet provides the water supply for Swindon, and it runs dry because too much is abstracted. If the people of Swindon are listening—I hope that they are—I say use a little less water and we can save the Kennet. There are lessons in this for all of us. For example, if we used less water in my area and if more of us were metered, we might be able to save the rivers in my constituency. The problem is that all the current plans for metering and improvement seem to work on the basis that any water saved will be used for new housing. There must be some balance in the system that allows the environment to have its share, too.

Some people argue against the idea of moving boreholes downstream, but there is evidence to suggest that such a move would help the River Mimram, but it must be done sensitively. Similarly, recycling used water could be a way of helping the River Beane when a new sewage plant is built for Stevenage.

Water metering should be introduced sensitively. Smart metering enables companies to introduce a tiered pricing system, so that they can reward those who use less water, help vulnerable groups and better target water resources. Apparently, many people refuse to pay their water bills, knowing that they will not be cut off, because of the commitments made by the water industry. It is estimated that £150 million is owed—about £11 for every customer’s water bill—and water companies therefore have less money to invest in improvements.

An initiative called a trickle meter enables someone who is a bad payer to have enough water on which to exist but not so much water as to enjoy the resource. Apparently, that is a good way of encouraging a bad payer to pay. None the less, I accept that it is very important that vulnerable non-payers are given every assistance and that the measure should be used only for those who flagrantly abuse the system.

At present, housing need and other pressures are likely to take all the water released by efficiencies and water metering. Predictions by the east of England regional assembly on the need for water for the east of England plan are simply unrealistic. The assembly is working on the basis that each person will use 105 litres a day. At present, Three Valleys Water’s customers are using 175 litres per person per day. The national average is 148 litres per person per day. The “Rivers on the Edge” campaign hopes to reduce it to 130 litres; the Government guideline for a new build is 125 litres per person per day. The idea that housing in the east of England can be planned on the basis of 105 litres a day is optimistic to say the least.

My hon. Friend’s debate is very valuable. His last point was raised at the original east of England inquiry. When I talked to the water companies, I asked, “Do you not have any way that you can raise your concerns over this?” Basically, they said, “We are obliged to deliver water if the houses are planned.” I think that all of us would say that that is putting the cart before the horse. Rivers running dry and showing stress should be taken into account before more housing is planned, and not the other way round.

My hon. Friend makes a customarily excellent point. That is a ludicrous way of planning. We have all become very used to water and are careless with it. We cannot build extra houses without having a sensible plan to deliver the water that is needed. We cannot just say to the water companies, “Abstract away.” That does not take adequate account of what a precious resource these chalk rivers are; they are unique and we need to fight for them, which is what the campaign is all about. Councillor Derrick Ashley, who is the planning executive for Hertfordshire county council, has made it clear that development without the proper infrastructure will put huge pressures on our environment in Hertfordshire.

Reading has just been informed that it must build an extra 12,000 homes. Does my hon. Friend not agree that that will place an intolerable pressure on local rivers as well as other infrastructure?

When I was a boy, Reading was a market town and not a huge place. One could walk through Broad street and know everyone—at least, it seemed that way. Over the years, it has grown and grown. I am proud that Reading is such an important centre, but it has done its bit in housing the people of this country. It is a good size, and it should not get too much bigger. However, I am not a Member for Reading—I was just brought up there—so the hon. Gentleman will know more about it than I do.

We must not have a situation in which our rivers die just for the sake of a desert full of development. It is important that we take the issue seriously. Unless we have a plan, we will not even ensure that the flow remains as it is in the Mimram and the Beane. That is not good enough; it needs to be better. The rivers should flow, and they should be given as much importance as housing. We need homes, but we need to preserve the environment, especially in a county such as Hertfordshire, which is already one of the most heavily populated and close to London. We value our countryside in Hertfordshire. We have already lost a lot of it to building, and we do not want to lose what we have left; we want to improve it.

Will the Minister and the Secretary of State come to see the Mimram and the Beane, which are not far from London? I have asked the Secretary of State to visit on a number of occasions. Those rivers are a unique environmental resource, and they should not be as they are at the moment. All rivers east of Luton are over-licensed and over-abstracted, with no available water supplies. Must our precious chalk rivers die, or will the Minister take the necessary steps to meet our demands and improve the condition of the rivers of England?

I welcome the debate and congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on securing it. I do not know how he managed it, but the debate coincides with the launch of the “Rivers on the Edge” campaign, which it was my privilege to attend last night. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the chalk streams that are at risk in his constituency, but he will be aware that the campaign, which is generously supported by the HSBC Climate Partnership, also focuses on the upper Lea catchment, which is in dire need of attention and has appallingly low flows.

The primary River Lea, which flows through his constituency, is down to about 9 per cent. of normal flows in summer, which could be ecologically disastrous. The campaign also focuses on the River Itchen in Hampshire and, as has been said, the River Kennet. The latter gets a lot of attention—one could argue that too many organisations are dedicated to saving it, but I will address their work in a moment.

I am a keen angler, as is the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), who is not in the Chamber. The Rivers Beane and Rib, in years gone by, particularly in the 1950s, were heralded as fine dry and coarse fisheries. The grandfather of contemporary angling, Richard Walker, who was from Hitchin, fished the Beane and the Rib. As a child, I remember reading about his exploits in a river that now, I suspect, barely has enough water to cover the tip of a float, never mind to sustain fish life for the bulk of the year.

I was talking last night to Andrew Bott, whose father used to fish the Beane in the stretch to which I referred, north of Watton-at-Stone. He told me that it was a fine fishery.

Perhaps in the not too distant future, the hon. Gentleman will invite me to fish the Beane when it has some water in it. That is the purpose of the debate and the campaign.

I was pleased to launch the parallel “Stand up for Your River” campaign, which is promoted by the World Wide Fund for Nature, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Angling Trust and a number of other organisations. The campaign feeds into the Environment Agency’s river basement management plan, the consultation for which closes on 22 June.

We launched the campaign just outside my constituency boundary in the Newbury constituency, in the aptly named Lower Benyons fishery. Conservative Members might be interested to learn that we anglers refer to Lower, Upper and Middle Benyons and may wish to quiz the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) on which bits of him are lower, upper and middle. We are grateful to the Benyon family for making their fishing available to us and for their contribution to some important wildlife and conservation projects in the Kennet valley.

I ought to declare a number of interests that may make me sound slightly fanatical. I am founder member of the Cleaner Kennet Campaign and a member of the Angling Trust, which is the new governing body for angling, having taken over from the old Anglers Conservation Association. I also chair the Blueprint for Water coalition in Parliament. Those organisations, and the Wye and Usk Foundation, are all doing sterling work, for which I praise them.

The River Kennet brought me to Reading. I had no intention of becoming the town’s MP; I went there to go fishing—simple as that. I was lucky that in 1979 and 1980, Reading was a relatively cheap place to buy a house and one of those rare places where small, terraced properties for first-time buyers backed on to the River Kennet in, as the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire will know, Elgar road.

Most riverside properties tend to be outside the reach of the first-time buyer, but it was my privilege to own my own 12 ft of river bank, which, for a mad-keen angler in his 20s, was a bit of dream. I found after a while that I kept catching the same fish, but it was wonderful. I commuted to work, but did not have to commute to go fishing. That is what brought me to Reading and I have a deep affection for the river.

The Kennet and Avon canal, which runs parallel to much of the River Kennet—until about halfway between Hungerford and Newbury—had been in a state of disrepair since the 1950s. I was lucky as a young man, until 20 years ago, to be able to fish the Kennet at its peak. It was a crystal-clear chalk stream. Even down to the outskirts of Reading, I could stand and see the bottom in 5 ft or 6 ft of water, which teemed with wildlife. It was an amazing fishery.

Things started to go wrong—none of us spotted why—with the opening of the canal. As anglers, we thought it would be inconvenient to have more boats on the river between Reading and Newbury, but we had no idea of the impact that opening and linking the two watercourses would have.

For 50 years, the sediment in the canal had got deeper and deeper. At the entrance to the canal and the confluence with the river, where the waters first mix at Copse lock, just upstream from Hampstead Marshall, one can now see great slugs of silt and turbidity flowing into what is a crystal-clear chalk river further upstream. The gravels consequently silted up, so the light could not get through, which meant that the ranunculus, a protected species that is vital for the biodiversity and shelter of other plant life and invertebrates in the chalk stream environment, ceased to grow. Slowly but surely, the Kennet began to decline.

We can add to those problems the increase in abstraction, as the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire said. It was appalling that the Environment Agency lost the inquiry on the Axford borehole—I cannot remember what year that happened. There was a reduction in flows, especially in summer, as well as an increase in point source pollution as a result of insensitive farming practice, increased run-off from the road network and a gradual decline of one of the finest chalk streams in Britain.

I do not want to bore hon. Members too much about fish, but the grayling, a wonderful fish, is an indicator species. I advise anyone who wants to know about the health of a fishery, especially a chalk stream fishery, to look at the lowest downstream point at which the grayling is found. I used to catch grayling at Padworth, which is well downstream of Thatcham. The most skilled anglers would struggle to find many grayling downstream of Hungerford, some 20 or 25 miles upstream. That is how far the water quality in the river has declined.

The hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) referred to increased housing, but the biggest threat—the 7,500 houses for the Kennet flood plain to the south-west of my constituency, proposed by the independent panel in the south-east plan—has already been averted. On top of that, we have seen the growth of signal crayfish numbers and increased predation. However, all is not lost. It was my privilege, in 1992, to set up a unique partnership between West Berkshire council, boat owners, wildlife groups, Reading borough council and the angling organisations—the Cleaner Kennet Campaign.

The campaign has played a key role in lobbying for funding, catchment management plans and habitat restoration projects, which can and will make a difference. If we cease damaging environments and allow wildlife to regenerate and regroup, mother nature will do the rest.

I am a trustee of the old Thames Rivers Restoration Trust, which runs a chalk stream restoration project. That project is levering in funding for habitat restoration and looking at whether there is an environmentally sensitive way to filter out the increased silt and turbidity coming into the river as a result of the canal and chalk stream watercourses being mingled downstream of Copse lock.

National organisations are also highly supportive of the work that we are doing in the Kennet valley. In particular, I want to highlight the work of the former Anglers Cooperative Association, which is now part of the Angling Trust. The association is the only organisation that has used the common law consistently to prosecute polluters, often using civil actions to secure far greater damages than the Environment Agency or the statutory authorities.

The association’s 2008 annual report showed that record damages were reclaimed from polluters on behalf of riparian owners and angling clubs. The River Blackwater was polluted with tin oxide in 2002, and a case was settled after many years of delay, with compensation being paid to the Ilford and District Piscatorial Society and the Kelvedon and District Angling Association.

In Somerset, a farmer was prosecuted for a liquid food waste spill that caused massive damage to the waters of six different angling clubs on the River Brue, which is a beautiful river in the west country. The Environment Agency managed to secure a paltry fine of £1,000, which is hardly a disincentive to the polluter—the hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) talked about the “polluter pays” principle. However, the ACA pursued a civil claim in the courts and secured more than £7,000 in additional damages, as well as £4,000 in costs against the farmer. I am therefore proud to be a member of the association, which has now been absorbed into the new governing body for angling.

On top of that, some other quite inspirational work is going on. The debate is about not just the Kennet and the Lee, but all the rivers of England, and I draw Members’ attention to the work of the Wye and Usk Foundation. It is well worth the Minister and the shadow Minister visiting the foundation’s website to see how we can adopt a professional approach to the restoration of one of Britain’s most famous rivers.

The river will be under dire threat, particularly as a fishery, if the proposal to build the Severn barrage goes through, and I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Member for Salisbury has done to highlight what an environmental disaster the Severn barrage could be.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, to a man and woman, all those involved in the area’s fisheries and all those interested in fishing and in conserving fish in the Severn and its tributaries oppose the Severn barrage?

They are opposed to it to a man, woman and dog. It is not that we are environmental vandals; we want the tidal power of the River Severn to be harnessed, because that could make a contribution to green energy, but we do not want that to happen at the cost of destroying the environment, the spawning habitat of 25 per cent. of all salmon in England and Wales, and the jobs that depend on angling tourism, particularly in the constituency of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) and in rural Wales and the border counties. Such a development would run completely contrary not only to the spirit but the letter of the European habitats directive.

I may be Labour’s vice-chair on environmental issues, but if my Government pursue the Severn barrage, I give due notice that I will actively pursue action in the courts with non-governmental organisations and hon. Members on both sides of the House to ensure that the European habitats directive is enforced, because it is not possible, as the directive requires, to recreate a compensatory habitat in this case—we simply cannot build a new salmon river. We will return to that battle.

The Wye and Usk Foundation was founded in 1996 and then became a company limited by guarantee. It has introduced radical measures to tackle acid rain and the acidification of the upper Wye catchment, which were making it impossible for salmon to spawn. We have seen the removal of man-made and sometimes natural obstructions, which were preventing the fish from reaching their spawning grounds. We have also seen amazing partnerships.

We have seen sometimes insular owners of fisheries working together, allowing coarse anglers on to rivers that had been closed to them for many years. We have seen about £6 million of public money—particularly European money—channelled through the Wye and Usk Foundation into voluntary groups and professional work carried out by contractors to restore a river that is certainly the pride of Wales and, in my view, the pride of Britain.

There are some big issues facing hon. Members. This is an easy speech for me to make, because I am not standing for re-election, but we as politicians—we have all been guilty of grubbing around for a few votes—need collectively to confront the issue of water metering, conservation and the price of water. The public will not value water if we continue to treat it as a throwaway commodity. I have no doubt that the third world war—I hope to God that there is not one—will be fought not over culture or religion, but over access to dry land and clean water. That is an inevitable consequence of climate change.

The way we allow winter run-off from our rivers is appalling. If hon. Members stand on the Terrace in winter, they will see billions of gallons of water washing away to the North sea, but in a few months we will be complaining about low flows. We in this country are not efficient at retaining, storing and using the resource that we are blessed with. That is why projects such as the upper Thames reservoir at Abingdon must go ahead and why strategic planning decisions must be made.

I am afraid that such decisions cannot be left to little local councils, with their predilection for parish-pump politics. That is why we have to be big people on the issue of water and be cognisant of the fact that we should be working closely with the powerful coalition of birdwatchers, environmentalists, anglers, naturalists and wildlife groups out there, just as we are working with the coalitions involved with the Blueprint for Water and the “Rivers on the Edge” campaign. Such issues should set the environmental agenda for the next generation, and water must be at the heart of that.

We are talking about Arcadia—nothing less—and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on drawing the issue to the attention of the House.

In the 16th century, the Avon catchment in the heart of Wessex gave rise to the whole concept of Arcadia—the relationship between the land, the water, the people and what happened there. In 1220, at the confluence of the rivers of the Hampshire Avon catchment—the Ebble, the Nadder, the Wylye, the Avon and the Bourne—we saw the creation by Bishop Poore of Salisbury, with its great cathedral. Later, the landscape was painted memorably by John Constable. Isaac Walton—father and son—fished and wrote on the Avon in Wiltshire. The land on which the Parliament tree stood at Stratford-sub-Castle flows down to the river itself, which was a Roman ford.

The great chalk grasslands where the water for the Hampshire Avon originates are the most extensive west of Poland. On the plain in the midst of those grasslands is Stonehenge. The land round about is under the stewardship of the Ministry of Defence, and the well-being of that landscape has been protected, ensuring that it has remained balanced and diverse. As a result, the Avon river is now a special area of conservation under the European habitats directive.

I have an intimate relationship with the rivers of southern England. In 1947, I fell into one, and I was pulled out by the Bishop of Bombay, who happened to be passing—the true stories are always the best. It was the same river in which I learned to tickle trout and to tie my flies for trout fishing and where I enjoyed lazy summer days in the water meadows. Since then, however, we have seen the destruction of hatches and the abandonment of water meadows. I pay tribute to the work of the Harnham Water Meadows Trust, which has retained, improved and rebuilt much of the water meadow infrastructure. We have also seen the end of water bailiffs, who understood every inch of their waterways and who regulated our streams and rivers.

When I was first elected to the House in 1983, we had great arguments about fish farms. There were 23 fish farms in the Avon catchment, including the biggest in Europe, which was at Barford Park at Downton. I pay tribute to the late Lord Radnor, who instigated that fish farm, which is thriving. He argued long and hard that fish farms were not the devil incarnate, but he had a tough time.

On Thursday 16 February 1984, I asked the then Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

“when he will announce the date on which the provisions of the Diseases of Fish Act 1983 will be implemented.”—[Official Report, 16 February 1984; Vol. 54, c. 257W.]

You will not be surprised to hear, Mr. O’Hara, that he answered, “Shortly.” Well, the question was not answered shortly. The situation went on and on, and I corresponded with the Natural Environment Research Council and its excellent chairman at the time, appropriately named Mr. Hugh Fish, about the future of the Hampshire Avon. On 10 April 1987, The Independent published an article headed “Fishermen blame trout farms for river’s slow death: conspiracy claim as anglers and landowners clash over decline of the once-glorious Avon.”

When the third report of the Environment Committee was published on 13 May 1987, it stated that the problem was caused by much more than just fish farms, referring to everything from controlling polluters to the control of sewage sludge, agricultural pollution, afforestation, fish farms, nitrates, silage, industrial pollution, chemical formulation and consented discharges. That is part of the long story of our steady destruction of our rivers, and we have only ourselves to blame.

The problems we now face arise principally from the demands of the public water supply. It is outrageous that we go on plundering our chalk aquifers in the way we do. The boreholes in the upper waters of the Avon catchment are responsible for taking up to a third of the water from the chalk aquifers right out of the region, and the water is piped to places such as Yeovil, and even to Bristol and towns such as Chippenham. Under the south-west regional spatial strategy, the water companies, without even being so much as formal consultees, simply had to provide as much water as the planners decided would be allowed for the houses they planned. Another 12,000 houses were planned in my constituency alone. Lord knows where that water would have come from, and, indeed, where the drainage would go and how much it would all cost. We simply cannot go on like that, because the impact on the aquifers is too serious. It takes 30 years for the pollutants to travel right through the aquifers on the Salisbury plain to their exit into the English channel off the Dorset coast.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I am a member of the Longford fishing syndicate, which is based in his constituency. Is he aware that the beloved Hampshire Avon, one of the finest chalk streams in the country, now barely operates as a chalk stream? A few years ago it would not have been unreasonable to expect heavy rainfall on the chalk downs to take perhaps 24 to 36 hours to find its way down to Salisbury and into the river system. That water now reaches the river in a matter of hours because the aquifers are ceasing to work for the river and it is effectively acting as a Scottish spate river, which is a terrible indictment on what should be one of the finest rivers in this country.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. One can now find the real-time readings for the boreholes on Salisbury plain on the Environment Agency’s website and see for oneself that when the rainfall comes—in buckets—it does not do what it should do. It should go straight down into the aquifers, but instead it just runs off like a Scottish spate river, as the hon. Gentleman said.

We have many problems in this regard, which the water companies have to face, but this is the time to put pressure on them, because they are just at the beginning of their new plans for their five-year business cycles. I am delighted to see the Minister in his place, because he is a reasonable man who understands these things better than most Ministers do—we all have experience of being parachuted into a job in a Ministry.

One of the problems facing those who care about rivers is river restoration. Rivers have become canalised, over-dredged, over-widened and sometimes over-narrowed. They simply have not been looked after properly. If we are to look after our rivers properly, river restoration is a huge programme facing our nation. Climate change is also important in that regard. It will not be felt for perhaps another 30 or 40 years, but mark my words, by then the salmon population will be negligible and there will be no spawning because the water will be too warm. The decline of water fly life has already been dramatic, and there are now few big hatches on our rivers in the summer. Where is the research on that, and who is meant to be paying for it? Research is always the first thing to be struck off when organisations and agencies have a cash crisis.

Ten years ago, we started to look at one of the serious causes of biodiversity problems in rivers: endocrine disruption cased by the use of the pill. That problem derives not only from the female of the species—after all, it is us who cause the trouble in the first place, so we are all involved.

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whom he means when he says “us”?

Well, I had better not go down that path, Mr. O’Hara, or you will have something to say. The problem of sex change in fish is serious and is leading to a decline in fertility. The spawning gravels in our rivers become repositories for endocrine disruptors, and for phosphates and nitrates from run-off from our farms.

That brings me to changes in farming practices, which we must ensure take place. The silt load in our rivers is worse than it has ever been, largely because of farming techniques and practice and the use of particular crops. The worst crop is maize. If only we could persuade our farmers not to plant so much maize, we would not have nearly so much top soil in the rivers. Maize is the biggest polluter when it comes to the problem of run-off. The phosphorous in the fertiliser gives rise to algal bloom, which in turn disrupts the spawning gravels.

There was an initiative about 15 years ago to introduce buffer strips along our watercourses, but that came to nothing. I spoke to the Environment Agency only this morning about that, but it had not even heard of the initiative because the current generation of people at the agency do not know what happened 15 or 20 years ago—why should they? They are not historians.

The hon. Gentleman is making a superb speech and a great contribution, but is he aware of something happening in his part of the world: the countryside stewardship scheme, which compensates farmers for creating those buffer strips? In the upper Kennet catchment we had problems with pig farms but managed to alleviate them in that way.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that scheme was actually introduced in the higher-level stewardship scheme. The gentleman I spoke to at the Environment Agency this morning, who is a great professional, was unaware that it had been introduced—I kid you not, Mr. O’Hara. Actually, it was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) when he was Secretary of State for the Environment.

There are other problems apart from those resulting from agriculture that we must address, although the nitrate problem and the nitrate directive are very serious issues, which are linked to the question of the nil-grazing of stock. If we nil-graze stock such as Holstein cattle, we will feed them on imported soya, which in turn gives rise to climate change issues elsewhere in the world. This is a global issue that is related not only to rivers in this country. I invite the Minister to address those other factors. Control of mink is seriously needed, for example. If we are to maintain biodiversity, we must keep a balance. Water voles are destroyed by mink, with which we have huge problems on the Avon catchment. Controlling mink means trapping and shooting them, but no one likes doing that to nice furry little mink, which look so nice. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire mentioned the problem of the signal crayfish, the American cousin. It has just about seen the back of the indigenous white-clawed crayfish, which I used to catch in the river in Salisbury as a child, turning over the stones to find them. They were wonderful eating.

Another bone of contention and serious problem, which we thought we had licked, is the number of cormorants on our rivers. They consume vast numbers of fish, which upsets the biodiversity in our rivers. The restocking of our rivers with fish cannot keep up with the stock lost to cormorants. In the Salisbury area, 30 miles upstream from the coast, we have huge problems with the loss of both coarse and game fish. All that is caused by there being insufficient food in coastal areas, including through the loss of sand eels. Again, that shows the various interrelationships and how enormous a brief the Minister must carry as he answers for all these problems in his winding-up speech.

Invasive plants are a serious problem in all our rivers. The Himalayan balsam is by far the worst. When the Himalayan balsam is present at the headwaters of a stream, as it is in the chalk streams of southern England, including the Kennet and Avon systems, everything downstream is clogged up. It has become endemic. Most major areas affected by Himalayan balsam have been identified by the Environment Agency, but if anyone spots it—if fishermen, for instance, see the plant or notice seeds floating down the river—for heaven’s sake, they should tell the Environment Agency. Not nearly enough effort is being put into the issue.

I could go on but I will not, as other Members wish to speak. I will just say that we have no right to plunder our rivers as we are doing. It is our duty to protect our heritage. It is our duty to protect Arcadia and the silver streams of Albion.

I remind Members that with the addition of injury time, winding-up speeches should now start at 3.42.

I congratulate my fellow Hertfordshire MP, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), on securing the debate. Chalk streams are an extremely valuable and incredibly fragile resource. The River Ver, an important chalk stream, starts in the Chilterns and runs right through the middle of St. Albans. Indeed, St. Albans was probably founded where it is because of that wonderful natural asset.

The river runs through Verulamium park in the city centre, which was a major part of the old city of Verulamium, bending sharply to the south where its flow was blocked and diverted by ice half a million years ago. It is a globally rare chalk stream bordered by rough grassland, water meadow, rare reed beds, hedgerows and woodland. That important mix makes a huge difference to the species of flora and fauna in the area, and we disturb it at our peril.

Although periodic low flows are not good for many species, the farmland along the river is becoming much more wildlife friendly, as colleagues have said. The countryside management scheme and the previous set-aside schemes are starting to take effect. There is some diversity of species—kingfisher, heron, coot, moorhen, little grebe, wagtail and so on. I am not knowledgeable about birds, but people who are tell me that certain species have been declining alarmingly during the past 20 years, particularly skylarks. However, they have started to recover slightly in recent years because we are starting to recognise what damage we are doing to the fragile ecosystem.

Hertfordshire chalk streams have shallow gravel beds and clear water, as the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) said, and are fed by groundwater stored in the layers of chalk beneath, which soak up water like a sponge. That soaking-up is crucial. One thing that has not been mentioned in the debate is the run-off resulting from hard landscaping, which causes water to course down culverts and run off rather than being absorbed by the area surrounding the chalk streams. If we build the expected thousands of additional houses, we will have to deal not only with abstraction, but with hard landscaping and run-off.

At various points, water emerges in the form of springs that feed the river. Chalk streams are important and deeply sensitive to environmental pressures, including increased pressure to build in our area. They are unique in Europe. I find it staggering that we are asked to be concerned about rain forests, ice caps and all the other environmentally sensitive areas when we treat some of our local environmentally sensitive areas with such disregard and disdain.

I cannot help but stress how annoyed I was by the apparent statutory obligation to provide water and the fact that the Government can ratify a plan that local people do not feel is acceptable, putting thousands of extra houses in an area that is already stressed. We must stop that now. It is no good saying 20 years down the line, “We have ruined our rivers, and by the way, we put 82,000 houses in Hertfordshire at the same time.”

Our chalk streams are unique and recognised globally. They are the European aquatic equivalent of the rain forests, and we should treat them as such. We cannot lecture other societies about what they do in the name of their economies, such as cutting down masses of timber, while we say that our economy in the south is the powerhouse of England and we are going to build wherever people want to live. We must think about it.

The Environment Agency allows Three Valleys Water to abstract more than 30 million litres of water a day from the Ver aquifer by pumping from deep underground at several pumping stations. We have our concerns about that. The Buncefield oil depot disaster in 2005 occurred just outside my constituency, but as we have heard, the flow of rivers and aquifers means that the pollutants that entered the water will reach everywhere. Perfluorooctane sulfonate has entered our waterways, and I am still not reassured that we know exactly what the impact will be. I cannot understand why the Government altered the acceptable threshold of PFOS.

We are still waiting for a particular borehole to be opened. A large aquifer was polluted. The Bow Bridge pumping station, which serves my constituency, cannot be used, but is soon to be reopened. We have not had the environmental reassurances that we need, nor have the long-term impact studies that we have been calling for been done. What will this mean for the environment of our area, which relies on that valuable resource?

I am pleased to report that, after several months of above-average rainfall, the aquifer returned to average in March 2007 for the first time in more than three years, and remained at roughly that level throughout 2008. It is amazing that we had a hosepipe ban for 11 of 12 months, despite the fact that it bucketed down with rain everywhere in St. Albans and we had several dreadful summers in a row. The levels had gone so low that it has taken three years just to get back up to the average.

I forgot to say earlier that our hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) wanted to be here, but parliamentary business did not allow it. He is very concerned about the Buncefield issue, which my hon. Friend has just mentioned.

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who has worked so hard, particularly in relation to the pollutants from Buncefield, and been pressing hard for the aquifers to be monitored vigorously.

A lot of good work is going on; we have heard about wonderful work in all locations. The St. Albans Watercress Wildlife Association has opened the watercress beds. They are a fantastic resource, but pressures on building in my constituency mean that people look at those bits of green and think, “Where should we put our houses? How much do we value this?” When I bang on about the green belt and open green spaces, it is not because I am being a nimby; it is because, as all hon. Members have said, such spaces are part of a sensitive ecosystem.

There has been a huge decline in butterflies and pollinators in Hertfordshire. I know that bee decline has featured heavily, but butterflies have been decimated by farming practices. I am privileged to say that Butterfly World, which is opening in St. Albans, will address that issue. We are lucky that the chalk streams support butterflies such as orange-tips, brimstones, peacocks and small tortoiseshells, as well as dragonflies.

Such species are an indicator of good, clear water, but some are declining. As the hon. Member for Reading, West said, they used to be seen further downstream. Not only will we not see those beautiful creatures, but pollinators are being wiped out. That is incredibly important. The film supporting Butterfly World shows that when butterflies and bees decline, so do we.

We must make an incredible effort to support our rivers, resist inappropriate development and be mindful of the fact that houses bring people and that people have expectations about lifestyle and water usage. We cannot curtail those expectations and we cannot just expect water to be delivered by pumps from somewhere else. What is taken from somewhere else might cause pressure somewhere else. We should all ask the Government to listen to local people when they say that certain things must stop, including unsustainable development.

I am hopeful about the good work going on in my constituency and that the concerned people who value such things will not be seen as sandal-wearers fighting for their precious little bit of river and the right to selfish enjoyment of the countryside. It is not like that at all. They should be seen as curators of the future of us all. We are only borrowing the land for a short while, and we should hand it on to the future in better condition, not worse.

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. O’Hara.

It has been a privilege to hear the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and his colleagues speak so enthusiastically about the chalk streams in their constituencies. We have had the benefit of the experience and knowledge of the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter), who is an acknowledged expert on fishing and fisheries. I remember listening to the late Lord Denning speak about chalk streams after he retired as Master of the Rolls. That filled me with ambition to see those wonderful streams. Now that my son is living in Harpenden, I have more of an excuse to do so and might spend some time there.

We make huge demands on our rivers for all sorts of purposes. Usually, they are forgiving and can accommodate many of the abuses that we throw at them. However, there comes a time when demand on our rivers becomes such that it damages them, whether temporarily or permanently. It is a huge challenge for us and the Government to find ways to correct the damage that we do.

Obviously, we look to our rivers to provide water, and concerns have been raised over the demand for water for additional housing. The Government must work with local planning authorities to see what can be done. I am sure that the Flood and Water Management Bill will contain proposals to deal with run-off from hard surfaces and to create a more permeable approach to development. There should be less concrete and more lawns and gravel, so that rather than run off and be lost immediately, water joins the aquifers that supply the streams.

It is not just housing that puts demands on water. There are demands from agriculture and irrigation. As a result of climate change, the need for irrigation will increase if we are to keep up with the food output targets that many think should be introduced. Irrigation can be improved. Rather than having a broadcast system of irrigation, more targeted forms such as the trickle system could be used so that water was delivered to the plant, rather than going across the whole piece of land. That would ensure that the water for irrigation was better used.

We also look to our rivers for conservation. Hon. Members have compared them to the rain forests in the Amazon in saying that rivers are our rain forests. That is probably true. We have heard examples of the plants and birds that they support. If the parks of London are the lungs of the capital, the rivers are perhaps the arteries and veins of our countryside; they support the countryside and its wildlife. Rivers also contribute to the landscape. Nothing is as great as a river flowing through countryside in completing the Arcadia that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) described. Artists have celebrated our landscape on many occasions.

We look to our rivers for recreation. Nothing has yet been said of the ongoing conflict between canoeists and fishermen. Perhaps the Minister will say a word about that. I was with a prime mover in the Wye and Usk Foundation on Monday night. He is hopeful that progress can be made by better management and through working together on those issues, rather than through conflict.

The Minister has not been in his post long, but he has impressed so far. It has been the policy of previous Ministers to say no to the absurd campaign being fought by the British Canoe Union for a statutory right to paddle up every river, ditch, stream and spawning ground the length and breadth of England and Wales. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that voluntary access agreements are the way forward. There will be problems if he does not.

I knew that I would be able to incite the hon. Gentleman.

There is much more scope for work on voluntary agreements. I hope that the BCU will work with us to take that forward, including in the devolved nations. We are keen to do a lot more within the current settlement.

I thank the Minister for his intervention. I believe that that is the correct approach. There must be give and take on both sides. David Jones Powell holds the ring for riparian owners on the River Usk and has negotiated an agreement with the BCU. It has signed that agreement on a fairly regular basis, but I understand that lately the BCU has been unwilling to sign the document because it believes that it will create a legal right for riparian owners to control and negotiate on the matter.

The BCU believes that canoeists should have the right to access whenever they want it. All the sentiments that have been expressed today point towards a voluntary approach, not a right for canoeists to go wherever they want. We have to manage our rivers. If we are not able to do so, they will be in danger.

Just as there are debates over the recreational use of rivers for canoeing, there is much debate about their recreational use for fishing. Many comments on that have been made this afternoon. Our rivers are also used for transport. British Waterways controls some river areas around Gloucester for the movement of goods and for the use of pleasure boats.

Because we have abused our rivers in the past and continue to do so, we have suffered many problems. The problem that has been emphasised most today is low flows. There is evidence that if climate change develops as we think it will, by 2050 the autumn flows of all our rivers will fall by 80 per cent. Therefore, not only chalk streams, but rivers throughout the UK, will be damaged. In a way, you are highlighting what could be a problem for the whole UK, not just the streams in your area.

Order. As Chairman, I have no interest in any of these rivers.

I am sorry; I got a bit carried away with my enthusiasm for the rivers.

Another problem is pollution. Mention has been made of specific problems in specific places. Farming must play its part in ensuring that rivers are improved. Everything must be done to prevent the massive pollution incidents that occur from time to time, but those are not the only problems. There is also diffuse pollution. That is why nitrate-vulnerable zones were introduced. However, nitrate problems in river water are not solely to do with agriculture.

Certainly, the legislation on nitrate-vulnerable zones does not seem to be fit for purpose. Regulations were introduced many years ago, since when the condition of many of our rivers has improved in terms of nitrate pollution. However, the Minister should be aware that not only agriculture but sewage systems and various other industries are involved. The burden on agricultural industry should be viewed in proportionate terms, not in the absolute terms that the NVZ legislation requires.

The cleaning of rivers that pass through private agricultural land is both a private and public matter for which the Westminster and the devolved Governments must take some responsibility. Because we have had a certain amount of pollution, I am concerned about the licences that the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform issues for specific, large-scale civil engineering work such as the gas pipeline through my constituency. Such licences have not been accompanied by conditions on remedying and alleviating the pollution of rivers over which those big schemes pass. DBERR issues the licences, but does not have the powers to ensure that those conditions are implemented, so the pollution goes on.

I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion, as the Minister has a lot on his plate. He will need all the time available to him to respond on all those issues.

I apologise for my voice, Mr. O’Hara, and I shall ensure that the Official Report gets the full text of my contribution.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on the sterling contribution that he has made under your excellent chairmanship, Mr. O’Hara, and may I say what a privilege it is to appear under your chairmanship? My hon. Friend has put a lot of thought into his contribution and covered a lot of ground. I should like to make my bid for having the most stunning countryside in my constituency, which is also blessed with a number of very fishable and beautiful rivers, and I thank my hon. Friend for setting the scene.

Most hon. Friends and colleagues who have spoken today have done so in the context of the rivers that they live next to—chalk streams in a particular part of the countryside have been discussed—or the anglers whom they represent, but I am sure that the Minister will want to broaden his response to include the water framework directive. I was touched by my hon. Friend’s contribution, especially when he set the scene regarding unsatisfactory flows in our rivers and pointed out that the UK has a variety of local climates, with differing rainfalls. Having represented part of East Anglia in the European Parliament for 10 years, I am only too aware that the rainfall in East Anglia is probably less than in northern areas, and I am grateful to him for drawing our attention to the issue.

I congratulate the WWF on its latest campaign, “Our Rivers”, which aims to protect river habitats. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) for drawing the Chamber’s attention to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon), because he was the first to set up a protection zone local area committee to protect the River Kennet, I think. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the Benyon family have, for many generations, allowed fishing and other natural activities to occur on that river, and we pay tribute to the Benyon family today.

I thank the hon. Lady for her generous tribute to my neighbour, for whom I have great respect. It is actually the River Pang that he was instrumental in enhancing.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that my hon. Friend will take me out and beat me up for misnaming the river.

I was particularly struck by the contributions on biodiversity, especially those of my hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury (Robert Key) and for North-East Hertfordshire, who spoke about the loss of the water vole, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Anne Main) about the loss of butterflies. We have had debates about the bees, but we should also be aware of the contribution of the butterfly to biodiversity.

There have been many degrees of consensus in this debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire spoke at great length about biodiversity issues. Personally, I would yield to no one in my quest for clean rivers of excellent quality. The main thrust of my remarks to the Minister will be about the need to assess the implications for England, for biodiversity and for water quality of the European water framework directive, which has huge implications for water companies, local authorities, highway authorities and, not least, farmers.

The WWF campaign, which most people would want to support, refers to three strands, the first of which is developing water efficiency, particularly in relation to new housing. The second strand is about providing incentives to promote water efficiency, and the third strand is about reviewing water abstraction. In all this, the Environment Agency is being asked to maintain a delicate balance. One relevant issue is the requirements of agriculture. Given that I represent one of the most rural constituencies—the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) represents another rural constituency—I am cognisant that the main industry in the Vale of York is agriculture. The requirements of agriculture and the responsible use of water should be encouraged and respected, as should the use of water for human needs and the protection of the natural environment.

One thing that has emerged from the debate is a forming consensus that we do not want development on the scale that is being discussed for the various constituencies that have been so well represented here this afternoon. We also want water to be used more stringently and recognised as a resource, and we want to encourage adaptation to climate change, which is one of the few remaining aspects of the climate change brief for which DEFRA is now responsible. We all want a reduction in water stress.

The Conservative view is that the water requirements of agriculture are extremely important and must be given some priority, although protection for human needs and the natural environment are important. We must also recognise that, over the next two decades, the population is expected to increase by 10 million, so there will be further housing development and continued pressure on supplies. With climate change having a significant impact on supply, we will need to prepare for long dry periods and droughts such as those in the summers of 2005 and 2006, and for potential problems with abstraction, particularly as rising temperatures reduce river flows, possibly by as much as 80 per cent. That is a real concern.

My constituency has a substantial farming interest, and I recognise the point that my hon. Friend made about farming. Does she agree, however, that it is possible, as the environmental stewardship scheme has shown, for farmers not to pollute rivers and to use water for farming in a thrifty way? Does she agree that advice, incentives and Government policy should be targeted at achieving that?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for flagging up two very worrying trends on which I hope the Minister will respond; I shall end with some questions on them. The stewardship scheme has, over a number of years, greatly advantaged rural constituencies—my own is no exception—but there is concern in the farming community about how DEFRA is seeking to amend the stewardship scheme, between the higher-level and entry-level schemes. He might also like to respond regarding flood-alleviation schemes, as the water at the riverbanks will expand naturally, as with the significant flooding in Yorkshire and Gloucestershire. I hope that he will see fit to use some European Union funds—some rural development funds—to allow farms to be compensated for taking excess water off riverbanks.

I shall conclude with a number of questions for the Minister. What does he understand by good ecological status? A number of consultations were carried out for the draft Flood and Water Management Bill—we warmly welcome that draft legislation—but the exact meaning of the water framework directive’s requirement to achieve ecological good status for all surface waters by 2015 is unclear and, either today or in writing, I would welcome the Minister providing a better definition.

What assessment has the Minister and his Department made of the obligations that the water framework directive will impose on local authorities, water companies, farmers and others? From meeting the Commission officials who drafted the directive, my understanding is that those obligations will be significant and are additional to what is already in the pipeline—if hon. Members will pardon the pun. What will the directive cost those bodies, and how will they be expected to raise the money? On the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire, when do the Government aim to introduce a plan for the water industry to hit water resource consumption in relation to the four new developments that are in the pipeline?

Thank you, Mr. O’Hara, for your chairmanship. There are several styles in which I usually make these concluding remarks—sometimes I am slow and languorous, and at other times, I am like a machine gun. Today, the style will be like a machine gun, as I try to deal with the many points raised. I am happy to write to hon. Members or engage in further discussion and dialogue on the points that I do not address.

I congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on securing this important debate and on how he put his points across. I also congratulate the hon. Members for Salisbury (Robert Key) and for St. Albans (Anne Main) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Reading, West (Martin Salter) on their contributions. I will turn to some of those contributions in a moment. I also congratulate the Front Benchers on their contributions—the hon. Members for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams).

I thank the Minister for his kind remarks. Will he and the Secretary of State come to see the Beane and the Mimram?

I am more than happy to accept that invitation—perhaps we can look at some other issues surrounding biodiversity and so on in the area at the same time. I shall ask my diary assistant to engage my people to get in touch with the hon. Gentleman’s people, and we will try to sort that out—perhaps during the summer. It will be delightful. We have indeed learned much about the River Mimram—for example, about its biodiversity, beauty and sometimes its fragility. We have also learned much from hon. Members’ contributions about other localities.

I will not waste time by reiterating what a valuable resource water is. On the comments about Arcadia made by the hon. Member for Salisbury, this is a complex area. We are considering the beauty of the environment and our rivers; the water quality; the biodiversity and the habitat; and the water supply and demand. We are also considering abstraction for canals, which everyone loves, and abstraction for farms, which everybody treasures, and how to square that circle. On top of that, we have the issue of home building and the necessity of providing affordable homes for rental and purchase for all our constituents across the country. How do we square that circle? There is also the necessity of providing good water supply for businesses, recreation, anglers and canoeists, and the massive challenges that we face in relation to climate change. In addition, we have to consider the water framework directive, to which I will return in a moment, and the importance of local engagement. All those issues mean that this is one of the most challenging subjects. There are no simple magic bullets, but I shall mention some of the issues and the way forward in a moment.

I commend the opening comments of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and the work that he has done. I also commend the engagement of the Environment Agency with the friends of the River Mimram, the Beane restoration association, the Ver Valley Society, the Chiltern Society and others. The Environment Agency is committed to continuing engagement with those organisations and to finding workable solutions on the ground—however difficult and challenging it is.

On the hon. Gentleman’s comments about metering and tariffs, he will know that Anna Walker has been commissioned to bring forward a piece of work on that issue. We look forward to her reporting imminently. We hope to have another debate on that matter to consider what solutions can be brought forward.

As others have done, I commend the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West on environmental issues and angling. I note that there is often a significant overlap between conservation and angling. Among other things, I commend his chairmanship of the “Blueprint for Water” campaign and his work on the Marine and Coastal Access Bill—we attended a meeting on the Bill together earlier today. He pointed out—this is a crucial theme—the importance of partnerships on the ground and how they can deliver benefits through river catchment management plans. He will be a great loss to the House, and I urge him to reconsider and stand again as a Member of Parliament. I will try to assist him in any way I can, but I urge him not to go—for goodness’ sake!

The hon. Member for Salisbury commented on the fact that I was reasonable. I hope that the Government Whips were not listening when that compliment was made, because it could be the end of my career. I thank him for his comments. He talked about his intimate relationship with rivers and having fallen in and been pulled out by no less a person than a bishop. He did well to talk about the very long and complex history of the issue, and he talked about the necessity for correspondingly complex solutions. I hope that those are not long solutions—they might be long term, but I hope that they do not take a long time to put in place.

On the aspects of river restoration that the hon. Gentleman talked about, we need to focus our work on balancing the ecological, chemical and biological status of rivers and driving forward. Work is being done, and I will talk about it in a moment. We have to deal with this matter—not least to comply with the water framework directive.

The hon. Member for St. Albans rightly talked about biodiversity and the richness that she wants to protect. However, in trying to square the circle, there is also the challenge of providing the affordable homes that her constituents want. It is difficult, but we have to make sure that engagement is done in a top-down way and that it takes place genuinely across the board.

St. Albans fully accepts that it needs a certain number of homes; it is the number that is in dispute. That is where the sensitivity lies, and that is the balance that needs to be struck. I hope that the Minister listens to the representations on that.

Indeed. That is where the balance must be struck. On the Bow Bridge aquifer, I will ask the Environment Agency to contact the hon. Lady and discuss that and other issues further. She did a good job of reminding us how important the birds and the bees are, as well as the butterflies.

The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire talked about intelligent approaches to abstraction. I absolutely agree—that is the direction of travel in which we are going. It is also important to balance supply and demand. On the importance of agriculture, yes, it is a major component of diffuse pollution, but there are many other aspects, too. We must also move forward on those issues.

In the few minutes remaining, I shall turn to some of the issues that the hon. Member for Vale of York mentioned. She spoke comprehensively on many matters—not only agriculture, but the wider issues surrounding the water framework directive. We all share the same aspirations: to have a sustainable, affordable and secure supply of clean, good quality water and a healthy environment. I think that everyone recognises that achieving that is no easy feat. The two biggest challenges ahead of us in the water sector are the increasing demand for water and our changing climate. The population is growing and the pattern of hotter summers, wetter winters and extreme weather will continue. We also still need to tackle ongoing issues, such as pollution. None of those problems have quick fixes; we must take a long-term view. That is the basis of the future water strategy, which outlines how we intend to deliver our vision right through to 2030.

We are taking a long-term approach, but we will achieve our aims only by working together. Homeowners, businesses, water companies, environmentalists and everyone else need to work with us. In many areas, we are already reaping the rewards. We have made great progress. No one today has remarked on the progress that we have made in cleaning up our rivers across the UK. We have considered issues in highly stressed areas today, but across the UK—as the title of the debate implies—we have made progress in cleaning up our bathing waters, beaches and rivers. We have addressed some of the most acute sources of pollution, such as sewage treatment works and overflows.

Fifty years ago, the River Thames outside our doors here was so polluted that it was declared biologically dead, but it now supports more than 120 fish species. Otters and kingfishers have returned to stretches of river from which they were absent for many years. We have been used to figures reported under the general quality assessment, which has shown a consistent improvement in the quality of our rivers since it was introduced in 1990. Let us remind ourselves where we are. Some 72 per cent. of rivers were of good biological quality in 2007, compared with 55 per cent. in 1990. However, we need to go further.

The water framework directive sets exciting—I have to use these often over-used words—and extremely challenging new targets for the quality of our rivers, and it brings with it a more stringent set of requirements for measuring their quality. We are now looking at the ecological health of our rivers—not just simple indicators of water quality—and, indeed, other water bodies including lakes and coastal regions.

The headline figures look far worse than those reported under GQA, because we monitor many more quality indicators under the directive than under the GQA and because the worst-rated element determines the overall class, yet the quality of our rivers continues to improve. Working with others on the ground—industry sectors, local stakeholders and local partners including, I am sure, some of those who are listening to the debate—the Environment Agency has developed many draft river basin management plans. Some people believe that such measures do not go far enough, and I agree. We want them to be more ambitious, but they have to be more ambitious without resting on one individual or one organisation. Across the board, we must all play our part. We are currently exploring ways flexibly to manage areas where water quality standards are falling, and water protection zones are one possibility there.

Agriculture has a huge impact on such pollution, but we have been supporting farmers in their efforts to reduce a range of pollutants, including nitrates. Through the England catchment sensitive farming delivery initiative, farmers have received advice as well as capital grants in priority areas. Such measures will help.

Water companies have a vital role to play, and I am keen to see more initiatives like SCAMP—the United Utilities sustainable catchment management programme—and South West Water’s Exmoor mire restoration projects. Ofwat is undertaking its periodic review of water price limits for 2010 to 2015. I am glad to say that there are now more than 100 management schemes in water companies’ final business plans—more than double what originally appeared in their draft plans. Misconnections and bringing people together are other issues.

We have much more work to do, but our rivers are continuing to improve. Now more than ever, through the river basin management plans, we have the chance to plan and manage sustainable, long-term improvements in the quality of our rivers. We are all striving to square the circle, deal with all the difficult and challenging issues and bring back the Arcadia that the hon. Member for Salisbury described, and the more that we can engage with that actively—on the ground, not just in Whitehall—the more chance we have of success.

This debate is about Alan Irwin, who is one of my constituents. I am afraid that I shall read from notes because it is important that I get every aspect of this case into the debate. I shall probably speak rather quickly because there is a great deal for me to get into the time I have been allocated.

Order. We are simply running 12 minutes late.

I am sorry, Mr. O’Hara. I meant that there is a great deal to say within the time allocated for the debate.

Alan Irwin is a licensed aircraft engineer who is facing criminal prosecution in Greece for manslaughter as a consequence of a fatal air accident in summer 2005. In that accident, 121 people died. It would be difficult for any of us to understand or imagine the impact that it has had on his family, and on him and his health, or the consequences of having to live with and deal with such an event hanging over someone. That is why I asked for this debate. I gave the Minister notice of it, and I hope that we can get some good, conclusive answers.

At 9.7 am on 14 August 2005, Helios Airways Flight 522 left Larnaca for Athens on the first leg of a flight to Prague. The aircraft only partially pressurised and both pilots succumbed to hypoxia, which is caused by oxygen deprivation. Their performance deteriorated rapidly, and they soon lapsed into unrecoverable unconsciousness. With no further input from the pilots, the aircraft continued on its pre-programmed flight to Athens.

The flight was on autopilot for about three hours. It ran out of fuel and crashed at Grammatiko, north-west of Athens, at 12.3 pm. All 121 people on board lost their lives. The accident received worldwide media attention —indeed, I remember it well—but particularly in Cyprus, Greece and the United Kingdom.

The Greek Air Accident Investigation and Aviation Safety Board investigated the accident, and the final report was published on 10 October 2006. It is highly contested on several issues, one of which is the unsupported assumption that Mr. Irwin left the pressurisation mode selector in manual after a pre-flight maintenance task. The report makes it clear that the accident was caused by the crew not identifying the aircraft’s failure to pressurise, due in part to the use by the Boeing Company of a misleading warning horn. The United States Federal Aviation Administration recently said that the system creates an unsafe condition in this widely used aircraft. In layman’s language, the same sound and tone of horn is emitted for two completely different faults. The pilot and aircrew misinterpreted the sound of the horn as indicating a different fault.

The report found that both pilots were licensed and qualified in accordance with international standards, and that they were adequately rested and medically fit to conduct the flight. The aircraft also conformed to international standards and had no recorded defects. The Cypriot company, Helios Airways, was found to be in compliance with the European joint aviation requirements known as JAR-OPS 1. The last audit of the company, in July 2005, was conducted by UK Civil Aviation Authority inspectors who were contracted to the Cypriot authority.

Mr. Irwin was working on a short-term contract with Helios Airways for the summer of 2005. It was the second season that he had worked for Helios Airways in Cyprus. He is now facing criminal charges in Greece for manslaughter with potential intent, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. There is also the emotional impact of knowing that 121 people died on the flight. Although there is only one charge of manslaughter, Mr. Irwin is facing criminal charges for 121 deaths, not one.

Mr. Irwin was not insured for the prohibitive cost of defending himself, and his continued defence is now in jeopardy because of the lack of financial support available to him. Helios Airways did not carry legal expenses insurance, which would have indemnified him in respect of the defence costs he now faces.

At 4.25 am on 14 August, the aircraft arrived at Larnaca from London Heathrow. The cabin crew reported freezing around the rear service door seal at cruise altitude, and loud bangs during the flight. The captain consequently requested a full inspection of the door. With two other engineers, Mr. Irwin carried out an inspection of the rear service door of the aircraft. They found no fault when they inspected the door on the ground, so Mr. Irwin pressurised the aircraft to reproduce conditions similar to those experienced in flight. This is a normal procedure for a flight engineer. Again, the engineers found no fault with the door, so the aircraft was depressurised. During the test pressurisation, the aircraft pressurised as normal, and as it would have done at altitude in flight.

Mr. Irwin entered the details of his actions in the aircraft technical log and recorded that no fault had been found with the rear service door. At 6.15 am, he signed off the maintenance procedure. That was about two hours before the flight crew arrived to start their pre-flight preparations.

The accident report maintains that Mr. Irwin left the pressurisation mode selector in the manual, as opposed to the automatic, position after depressurising the aircraft. He has stated that he left the selector in the automatic position—the normal position for flight—as was his usual practice over, I believe, 20 years.

The final accident report states that

“the Board concluded that if the Ground Engineer number one had not returned the mode selector to the AUTO position, this could not be considered an omission as there was no specific requirement to do so.”

I repeat that he was not required to leave the selector in the automatic position.

However, the report inconsistently concludes that a contributing factor in the accident was the omission of returning the pressurisation mode selector to auto after unscheduled maintenance of the aircraft. It is that conclusion which forms the foundation of the prosecution of Mr. Irwin.

Since the accident, Mr. Irwin has carried out certain tests recorded on video in the presence of various aviation experts. The tests demonstrate that it is unlikely that he had left the pressurisation mode selector in the manual position after depressurising the aircraft.

The draft final report was issued by the Greek board in May 2006. It was sent to the various entitled states for comment under the provisions of “Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation”, which is annex 13 to the Chicago Convention 1944. Despite the fact that Mr. Irwin’s alleged omission was the key to the predicted accident scenario, the Greek board would not give permission for him to have a copy of the draft report. After representations by Helios Airways, he was eventually allowed to see only those pages that related directly to his actions. Even though he was unable to appreciate the full picture, having only been given selected pages, he made limited comments through his lawyer on 11 July 2006. Although the state agency is entitled to receive a copy under annex 13, chapter 6.3 of the Chicago convention, the United Kingdom Air Accidents Investigation Branch did not receive a copy of the draft final report when it was first issued.

On about 23 July 2006, the AAIB was able to send a copy of the report to Mr. Irwin to enable him to make significant and substantial comments. He was given 28 days to submit his comments, instead of the usual 60 days mandated by Greek law. Mr. Irwin acknowledged receipt of the report on the following day and included details of the tests he had carried out. On 26 July, the AAIB forwarded these comments to the Greek board by e-mail and post. On 4 August, the AAIB forwarded Mr. Irwin’s final comments, which again included details of the test, to the Greek board by e-mail and post. Mr. Irwin requested:

“Should the final report not be amended to include my formal comments, I would like them to be appended.”

The state of the United Kingdom is entitled to make such a request under the provisions of annex 13, chapter 6.3. The state of Greece is obliged to comply with such a request under the same provision, but it did not do so. Although the AAIB was led to believe that Mr. Irwin’s comments had been received by the Greek board, it has since transpired that the comments were either not received or have been mislaid. Therefore, details of the tests that cast reasonable doubt on the contention that Mr. Irwin left the selector in manual were neither included in nor appended to the final report.

Annex 13, chapter 5.13 of the Chicago convention makes provision for an investigation to be reopened if new and significant evidence becomes available. As the comments of the state of the United Kingdom on behalf of Mr. Irwin do not appear to be in the possession of the Greek board and have not been included in or appended to the final report, they constitute new and significant evidence—obviously, as they were not included.

The UK AAIB has been asked to make representations to the Greek board to reopen the investigation to consider the comments of the state of the United Kingdom on behalf of Mr. Irwin, particularly those related to the tests. Annex 13, chapter 3.1 of the Chicago convention states:

“The sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident shall be the prevention of accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability.”

It has always been the case that any major air accident has been investigated with the sole purpose being not to apportion blame, but to take the evidence from that investigation to prevent accidents from occurring in future. The Greek final report into this accident is being used openly as the basis for the criminal charges that Mr. Irwin now faces, although his statement was not taken under caution and he was not afforded the usual protection of persons under investigation for criminal wrongdoing.

There is no direct evidence that Mr. Irwin’s actions contributed to the accident, yet he has been publicly vilified at extreme personal cost. Mr. Irwin’s name was released to the United Kingdom, Greek and Cypriot media during an extremely emotional time—children were on board the flight—and as a consequence he became a figure of public hate. Mr. Irwin’s actions were portrayed in the media as a causal factor in this accident, and he is now facing criminal prosecution in Greece.

Even if Mr. Irwin had left the selector in manual, which he did not, it is a basic principle in aviation that an aircraft engineer is never responsible for configuring an aircraft for flight: this is the sole responsibility of the flight crew, as part of their pre-flight checks, and the ultimate responsibility rests with the captain.

The cost of a criminal defence in Greece is prohibitive and Mr. Irwin faces the prospect of funding his defence personally. A small amount of funding for all the defendants was secured when the Greek charges were initially served. However, there is now a parallel criminal prosecution in Cyprus and although Mr. Irwin is not yet named in the Cypriot proceedings, this has placed an immense strain on the diminishing funds that are available. Those funds will shortly be exhausted. Mr. Irwin is not in a position to continue funding his defence personally, although the failure to mount a proper defence could lead to a custodial sentence in Greece—a life sentence.

It is anticipated that the Cypriot proceedings will overtake the Greek proceedings: they are already at an advanced stage, owing to the differences in the two criminal justice systems. Mr Irwin will not be entitled to a reimbursement of the fees paid in Greece, regardless of the outcome of the proceedings. For the sake of clarity, it is important to highlight the fact that parallel criminal proceedings in two different European jurisdictions are as yet not prohibited, though this is the subject to debate at European Commission level.

Thankfully, Mr. Irwin is not included in both cases, but the double proceedings do have an impact on him. The legal resources are now split between two countries and the funding has to be divided between both cases to ensure that a full and proper defence is mounted in both courts. Mr. Irwin’s legal team believes that he may not receive a fair trial in view of the damaging and speculative press stories that circulated in the aftermath of the accident.

This accident had a huge emotional impact in both Greece and Cyprus. Mr. Irwin’s name and actions were freely discussed in media reports and his home address was also published. Despite receiving various retractions from the UK press after the defamatory comments had been published, the belief remains in the public’s eyes that his actions caused this accident. Various senior aviation experts disagree with this allegation, but, as far as Mr. Irwin and his family are concerned, the damage has been done. If the case is allowed to continue in Greece, it is obvious that the media-fuelled speculation and rumours will have an effect on the courts.

Neither Helios Airways nor Mr. Irwin had access to any of the components of the pressurisation system after the accident. They cannot therefore review the tests done during the investigation or carry out their own independent tests. The relevant components are still being held by the Greek Government, although the major part of the wreckage has been released.

I have a number of questions to ask the Minister, of which he is aware. Will he address Mr. Irwin’s case with his counterpart in Greece? In light of the issues highlighted in this debate, it is apparent that the prosecution in Greece is misconceived and the use of the accident report is inappropriate under the circumstances. Can the use of the official accident report in respect of criminal prosecutions be raised by the UK with the International Civil Aviation Organisation? Will the Government assist Mr. Irwin with his defence costs in Greece?

Article 1 of European Union Council directive 94/56/EC of 21 November 1994, establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of civil aviation accidents, states:

“The purpose of this Directive is to improve air safety by facilitating the expeditious holding of investigations, the sole objective of which is the prevention of future accidents and incidents.”

Both the UK and Greece have adopted this directive. Will the Minister now make representations to the EU for its members to adhere to the overriding objective of the directive and prevent the misuse of air accident reports being used to criminalise aviation? Will the Minister make representations to the UK AAIB to request that the investigation be re-opened in accordance with annex 13, chapter 5.13 of the Chicago convention, in the light of the evidence that was not considered by the Hellenic Air Accident Investigation and Aviation Safety Board?

I thank the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) for the way that she presented a complex case that is of extreme importance to her constituent and to the wider community impacted by the air accident in Greece. I also thank her for giving notice of some of the issues that she wished to raise. It is helpful for me to know about such matters in detail so that I can try to respond accordingly.

As the hon. Lady mentioned, the accident led to the loss of 121 lives and it is, understandably, an emotive issue in Greece. The Greek authorities take it particularly seriously. The implications of the Helios accident of 14 August 2005 have already been brought to the attention of the Ministry of Justice and of my colleagues in the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for Transport. The Government are willing to help and support where we can, as far as we can, wherever possible.

The Government take cases such as that of Mr. Irwin, as set out by the hon. Lady, very seriously. For that reason, as well as answering the debate, I want to offer her an opportunity to meet Ministers in the Ministry of Justice to raise these issues outside the Chamber and discuss them in more detail, if that would assist her.

I am acutely aware—the hon. Lady described it so clearly—of the incident’s impact on Mr. Irwin and his family. The prospect of facing criminal charges for manslaughter with criminal intent, as well as his naming in the media, to which she also referred, have placed him under considerable strain emotionally and financially. I cannot begin to imagine the nightmare that he is going through, faced with a tragic accident that needs to be investigated and needs to be resolved and on which we all need to have answers as to why the incident occurred.

The hon. Lady mentioned a number of key points, and it is important that I respond to them. I want to touch on the principle of mutual recognition and the European arrest warrant. The general principle is that the Government should not and do not interfere in the judicial systems of other countries, particularly when the principle of mutual recognition is fundamental to our relationship with the other country.

We expect other EU member states to follow international and European standards that guarantee the rights of our citizens, and there must be mutual trust in the operation of member states’ legal systems. An important principle is that just as we would not want other member states to interfere in the judicial proceedings of the United Kingdom and those that take place in our jurisdiction, we would not, in normal circumstances, intervene in proceedings in other member states.

The proceedings being discussed today, which the hon. Lady presented very well on behalf of her constituent, are at an early stage. If proceedings continued to prosecution, and indeed to conviction, a number of safeguards through EU mutual recognition instruments are in place and would be of assistance. The most important for the UK is the European arrest warrant.

That warrant contains robust safeguards against extradition of UK nationals to another member state if there is a request for extradition. Those safeguards include double jeopardy, the passage of time and the age of the subject. In addition, the request for a warrant must be agreed by a district judge, who must be confident that ordering extradition would not be in breach of the subject’s human rights.

As the hon. Lady said, the EU is also negotiating an instrument to prevent separate prosecutions from taking place in two member states based on the same case and the same facts. That will prevent some of the difficulties facing Mr. Irwin in relation to the financial implications of two criminal prosecutions.

The hon. Lady raised a number of key questions and recorded the history well. I will try to respond to those key questions in particular, because they are the nub of the matter for her and her constituent. She asked whether I would contact my counterpart in the Ministry of Justice in Greece to discuss these issues and Mr. Irwin’s case. The proceedings against him are at an early stage.

On that basis—this will disappoint the hon. Lady—it is difficult for the Government to raise the case with the Greek authorities because that would be seen as interfering with the independence of the investigation. I will keep the matter under review and, as ever, we can continue to consider whether we can discuss it in future, depending on the outcome of progress on prosecution. However, until such time as the Greek authorities have determined their course of action, this is a particularly difficult matter for us to raise.

The hon. Lady asked whether we can raise the issue of the use of the report with the International Civil Aviation Organisation, in particular whether we will raise the use of the report in the criminal prosecutions. As she mentioned, paragraph 5.12 of annex 13 of the Chicago convention provides that Greece, as the state conducting the investigation of the accident, should not make evidential statements and certain other records available for purposes other than accident or incident investigation. That is clear under the convention.

However, an exception allows for the appropriate authority for the administration of justice to determine that its disclosure outweighs the adverse domestic and international impact that such action may have on that or any future investigation. If any records, such as the accident report, are being used in the prosecution, it is likely that their disclosure has been considered and permitted by the appropriate courts in Greece. I will certainly investigate that issue, and we can return to it if the hon. Lady takes up my offer of a meeting.

The hon. Lady rightly raised the important point of the defence costs, which I can understand will be a burden for Mr. Irwin, particularly as Helios Airways does not have the indemnity that I would have hoped it had. She considered the issue in relation to the separate prosecution in Cyprus, where Mr. Irwin may have to fund the majority of his defence from his own funds and will not be reimbursed for any costs.

However, I hope that it helps the hon. Lady to know that the administration of justice in Greece, including provision of legal assistance, is a matter for the Greek authorities. Article 6(3)(c) of the European convention on human rights makes it clear that Mr. Irwin has the right to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing and that legal assistance is to be given free when the interests of justice so require.

If Mr. Irwin finds himself finally being prosecuted and having to fund his own defence, he should urgently make representations—I am sure that the hon. Lady can help him with that—to the Greek authorities to enable him to access the legal assistance to which he would be entitled.

The hon. Lady also raised the question whether the Government will make representations to the EU for member states to adhere to the objective of Council directive 94/56 on investigation of civil aviation accidents. Annex 13 to the Chicago convention provides:

“The sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident shall be the prevention of accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability.”

I recall the hon. Lady quoting the same tract, and that objective is mirrored in Council directive 94/56. However, that does not mean that criminal proceedings should not be brought against persons who are believed to have been responsible for an accident, nor does it prohibit the use of the factual evidence contained in an accident investigation report to support such proceedings. That will be a difficult issue in relation to her constituent and the representations that she has made today, but that is the position.

The hon. Lady asked me to consider inquiring whether the Government would make representations to the UK air accidents investigation branch to reopen the investigation. I appreciate that this answer will disappoint her, but the investigation can be reopened only with the approval of the Greek authorities. While there are strong arguments that the setting of the pressurisation mode selector should not be considered a causal factor in this accident, it is not a significant issue from an accident prevention point of view. There are no air safety grounds for reopening the investigation, as far as I have been advised, so we cannot ask the AAIB to reopen the case.

When the hon. Lady has reflected on what I have said, and if she believes that there are further grounds to consider, I am happy to discuss those issues in our meeting and consider them on behalf of the Government. We recognise that this case and the prospect of criminal damages and charges are causing great distress to Mr. Irwin. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for presenting a complex case professionally on behalf of her constituent. She will want to consider my answers. Some are disappointing to her, but I am willing to meet her, and to meet Mr. Irwin if that is appropriate, to discuss what assistance the Government can provide at this stage. Subject to progression of the case and formal prosecution, mechanisms are available whereby the British authorities can consider the issues in detail, given the complexities involved in making any approach to the independent Greek judiciary and the role of member states within the EU.

I hope that my comments are of some help to the hon. Lady and I thank her for raising this case today.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. O’Hara. At a time when Westminster is under such scrutiny, it is good, as a Member of Parliament, to be able to focus on trying to get tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of pounds of investment into my constituency. All Members of Parliament try to do that in their day-to-day lives.

What a story we have to tell in Gloucester of what has happened over the years, but before I do that, I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister. I know that she is standing in for another Minister, who is on paternity leave. As the father of a nine-week-old child myself, I find that entirely understandable and I wish him the best of luck. As a reward at the end of his paternity leave, I invite him to come to Gloucester to visit the projects I am talking about and to meet representatives of the Gloucester Heritage Urban Regeneration Company to talk through some of the issues I shall describe in the debate.

We have done very well out of the regional development agency in recent years. We must not forget that a Labour Government created the RDAs. The Conservatives want to do away with them because they see them as among those quangos that are unimportant. We have also done very well out of the creation of an urban regeneration company. Some of the gratitude and tributes deserve to go to a gentleman named Ian Knight, who works for the RDA. I remember having a chat with him back in 2001, soon after my election to the House, when he talked about urban regeneration companies generally. I said, “Wouldn’t it be a good idea to have one in our area?” We agreed on that, and my very first question at Prime Minister’s questions was to Tony Blair, urging him to set up an urban regeneration company. I am proud to have been one of the founding members of the urban regeneration company, which has gone on to do great work, with the backing of the RDA.

Since 2002, we have had £17.3 million in capital funding through the RDA. We have had a further £9.5 million in revenue funding. Before 2002, we had £9.2 million of funding. We have therefore had about £35 million through the RDA. Much of the funding is now channelled through the urban regeneration company. This is not all down to Government. There is a partnership involving local and national Government, but also the private sector. Through the creation of RDAs and urban regeneration companies, the Government have created an environment that has got the private sector to invest.

In my constituency, we are, we hope, looking overall at a picture of £1 billion of investment. Already, £300 million has been levered in through the private sector. I know that the people from the private sector are delighted to be partners, because they will make a good deal of money out of this themselves. I am delighted that in just a few days’ time, a gentleman by the name of Gok Wan will open the new retail designer outlet centre. If there are any young viewers of this Adjournment debate in Westminster, they will be aware who he is; not everyone in this place will be, but you may be, Mr. O’Hara. We are talking about 100 units—100 retail designer shops—in the Gloucester docks. There has been £120 million of investment. Just the other side of the docks, the new Sainsbury’s is due to open as well. Some 1,000 jobs are being created in the heart of the Gloucester docks area. Sitting opposite is the further education college, Gloucestershire college, where there has been £35 million of investment. I am delighted to say that the urban regeneration company was involved in that as well. It was driven largely by the hard work of a gentleman named Greg Smith, principal of the college and chair of the company, who did sterling work to help to ensure that it happened.

What we need in Gloucester is the opportunity to finish what we have more than started. That is what we want. I accept that there are real difficulties at a time of economic downturn and recession, and that new challenges face regeneration companies and particularly RDAs. RDAs across the south and east of the country are somewhat under the cosh at the moment. Understandably, the Government have looked at their budgets and dipped into them for important measures to fight the recession—to keep people in their homes and to create jobs. We understand and respect that, but let me just explain the situation with regard to the South West of England Regional Development Agency.

SWRDA spends £180 million a year and it expects £26 million of its budgets to be raided in the course of two years for some of the recession-busting projects. That will hit the agency particularly hard in 2010-11, when it will lose £20 million for some of the other measures—largely the HomeBuy Direct scheme, which is focused on trying to keep people in their homes. I understand that £6 million will go to support small businesses as well. I say to the Minister that we understand that—it is important to do that at a time of recession—but let us balance it. It needs to be balanced with those priority areas, which Gloucester is in the south-west and the urban regeneration company is in my constituency, where a great deal of investment is beginning. Some agreements have been made involving the public and private sectors and local government, and we are making real headway. Let us ensure that when the RDA board meets on 18 May, it is in a position to continue the investment in the key projects. I shall describe those in a moment.

The other problem that SWRDA is dealing with—this is not the fault of the Government or anyone else—relates to the £30 million that it gains from receipts. Land value going down has had a huge impact on the capital receipts that it can claim. RDAs are very good at buying land, investing in it and getting housing on areas of derelict land, and as a consequence, they gain capital receipts. The estimation in the south-west is that the expected £30 million of receipts for 2010-11 is now likely to be only £14 million. The rest may well be recovered later, when the market turns around and land values change, but at this time there is a significant additional pressure on our RDA and possibly, as a consequence, on our urban regeneration companies as well. Hence we have had a letter from the chief executive of SWRDA. Indeed, all urban regeneration companies have received a letter, asking them to focus on their priorities. I shall say a little about the priorities in Gloucester.

There are four particularly key schemes that my local authority and the urban regeneration company have written to SWRDA about. I want to elaborate on the importance of those schemes. The Minister will be right, when she responds to the debate, to refer to the importance of the work that Departments want to do to keep people in their homes and in work, but all these projects make a difference. That is why I hope that SWRDA will prioritise the projects, ensure that the money keeps coming in, and work with the Government to ensure that the money is available for it to continue to do that. As I said, the Labour Government have a very proud record of having done that in recent years, after having created the RDAs in the first place.

The first very important project is on economic linkages—linkages between the Gloucester quays development and our town centre. For many years, people have been coming up to me and saying, “Parmjit, what’s going on in the docks is fantastic. We’re really pleased with what you’ve been doing to help drive things forward there. It’ll be really good for us. But what about the town centre? Will it die as a consequence of that?” It will not, but one of the provisos is that we get the £7.4 million that SWRDA had promised in order to help ensure that we have good, strong public realm linkages from the town centre to Gloucester docks. That will mean that people come in on the train or bus. They can go to Gloucester cathedral, to the docks, visit the new designer outlet centre and use Kings square and the other shops in the town centre.

It is important to get the linkages right. As a result of the project and the economic linkages, we will be getting 4,000 sq m of improved public realm works; 10,000 sq m of new office floor space; 1,900 sq m of new retail floor space; 9,000 sq m of improved public realm in the Kimbrose triangle and Southgate street area; and 1,900 sq m of refurbished A3 units. An estimated 100 jobs will emanate from that development.

The second key project is Kings square, a 1960s-style piece of architecture that I think Prince Charles might describe as a carbuncle. It is in the heart of our city. I probably receive more complaints about the state of Kings square than about any other site in the city. Local authorities may try to cover themselves in glory by making pledges just before local elections that they will bring in the JCBs to do the work within a few weeks, but it never happens.

However, the project will materialise with the support of £1.75 million from SWRDA. That money has been earmarked to help us redevelop Kings square, turning it into a top-notch, top-quality square, with many new retail opportunities. There will be 29,500 sq m of retail floor space, 257 new residential units and a new bus station. The old bus station is dilapidated. The Gloucestershire women’s institute was here yesterday to complain about it, and they were right to do so.

If we get Kings square right by turning it into a modern, popular square, people will want to use it and visit it with their families. Making a pleasant place in the heart of our city for people to sit and spend their time, as well as improving the bus station, will make a huge difference.

The third priority is Blackfriars. It is on the site of a special Dominican priory—the best-preserved priory in the country. It is a wonderful historic quarter and a very peaceful part of the city. However, it is also a large area that needs work to be done on it. At present, it is not much better than a concrete car park. It is in the heart of the city, and links the docks area with the city centre.

SWRDA has earmarked £8.865 million for that project, which will deliver a lot. There will be a new concert hall and conference and exhibition area, with space for 200 people; a new city centre police station; a 150-bedroomed four-star hotel, and all the jobs that will go with it; 650 sq m of business incubator space; a 450-space multi-storey car park; 12,000 sq m of office or residential floor space; and 2,600 sq m of specialist retail floor space. It is an important project. I know that the university of Gloucestershire is interested in using the old priory as a place for learning, and it would be a wonderful opportunity to tie that work in with higher education. The RDA is behind that important project; we do not want to lose it because of changes to the funding allocations.

Regeneration should not be only about steel and glass and beautiful buildings. There must also be a social aspect. The Westgate ward in my constituency is one of the poorest areas in the south-west. Considering all the indicators, it is the poorest ward in Gloucestershire. We want to build the Four Gates centre there. It will be community focused and will provide crèche facilities; it will also provide training facilities for unemployed local people. It will be a real community hub that will also be able to provide medical facilities. It is an important project, and I know that SWRDA was thinking of putting some £2.8 million towards it.

Having heard a little about those projects, I hope that my hon. Friend will persuade the Minister responsible for these matters to visit them, and that she will actively encourage SWRDA, at its board meeting on 18 May, to ensure that the tap is not turned off and that the money continues to pour in for those projects. It is important to Gloucester for that to happen.

I have two questions for my hon. Friend. I hope that she can respond, but I know that it is not her area of expertise. If she cannot respond now, it would help if she responded in writing. First, I would like the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to work with other Departments to consider closely the consequences of dipping into the RDA budgets. We do not want a counter-productive measure that involves taking money out and then realising that big projects such as those in the new designer outlook centre at the Gloucester quays will create hundreds of jobs. Those projects will also create hundreds of construction jobs, and many housing projects are entwined within them.

Creating homes and jobs are the priorities of the urban regeneration company. We do not want to lose money to other projects, worthy though they may be. We have to strike a balance. A key part of that is the meeting on 18 May. I would be interested to hear what my hon. Friend has to say on the matter, but it is imperative to continue what we have begun—and more than begun—by maintaining investment through the RDA for the coming comprehensive spending review.

My final question is on the role of the new Homes and Communities Agency. If there are gaps that cannot be filled or are not filled by the RDA, we need to see more joint ventures. We need the HCA, with its huge budget, to step in and say, “We appreciate that there are other priorities and projects, and other things that the Government have to do at this time of recession, but we will work more closely with the RDA to support the priority projects of urban regeneration companies across the country”—including in my constituency.

I would be interested to know what my hon. Friend’s officials think. She might need to grab one or two of them by the scruff of the neck; I recognise some of them, as I worked with them when I was a Minister. They are good, but I want them to work closely with Department for Communities and Local Government in order to ensure a good link between the RDAs and the HCA.

People used to say that it would never happen, but during my time in Gloucester I have been lucky enough to see the regeneration of so many aspects of my city. We will have a £30 million new hospital, with another £30 million for a new birthing unit and women’s centre at the hospital; university status, with a £20 million campus; £35 million for the further education college that I mentioned earlier; and £20 million for the new police headquarters.

On top of that, we will be able to build on some of the regeneration sites—places that have remained dilapidated for generations. That will be more than icing on the cake. It will help people such as, Chris Oldershaw, the excellent chief executive of the urban regeneration company, to deliver the projects. Together, the urban regeneration company, SWRDA, the local authorities and I, the local MP, will work to create a city that is worthy of and fit for the 21st century.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) on securing this Adjournment debate. I credit him for his efforts in support of his constituents. He is an assiduous Member, who always fights for more investment in Gloucester. The detail that he has given today shows how much his constituents have benefited—not only from having a Labour Government, but from having a Labour Member of Parliament.

My hon. Friend referred to the fact that I am standing in for the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. McFadden), who commences his paternity leave today, and we all wish him well.

The subject of this debate is very important, both in the context of the current economic climate and in reflecting the challenges faced by businesses and communities up and down the country. Over the past decade, Gloucester and its hinterlands have made a significant contribution to boosting and underpinning economic growth in the south-west region. It has led the way in developing a high valued-added, advanced technology and manufacturing base, which has driven up skill levels and provided well-paid jobs for the local community.

I recognise that Gloucester—in particular, its advanced manufacturing sector—has been hit particularly hard by the economic downturn and recession, and my hon. Friend has worked closely with many businesses to help them through these difficult times. It is vital that the Government and their economic development agencies do as much as possible to help to mitigate the immediate problems faced by local businesses and individuals and to secure the skills base that has been developed so successfully. For example, several high-tech firms—in aerospace engineering and motor manufacturing, for instance—in the county are being impacted on through the supply chains.

The situation is being monitored closely by the regional economic taskforce, led by the Minister for the South West and including the RDA. Gloucestershire First, too, has set up an economic taskforce to deal with the business issues associated with the downturn, and the local authority has undertaken work to support local people affected by the downturn. The focus is on better information. The Federation of Small Businesses will survey banks in Gloucester to ensure that they are following the national criteria. The support packages announced by the Government will ensure that the national measures are working on the ground and that the information is getting out through the banks and various agencies. We all hope that that will happen in all our constituencies.

I cannot pretend that there are any easy solutions or quick fixes to these significant problems. The global downturn requires global solutions, and I am proud of the way in which the Government have led the way in developing ideas and practical actions aimed at mitigating the effects of the recession and preparing for the recovery. The current economic climate means tough choices on public spending. Like other parts of government, businesses and households, RDAs nationally have had to face budget reductions and declining capital receipts.

SWRDA must work within its financial allocation, and re-prioritise its investment plans and existing financial commitments, to ensure that funding is directed in the most efficient and effective way, to help the regional economy and businesses to survive and recover. The agency is re-prioritising its spending programmes and looking for further efficiencies in its own operations. Inevitably, that will impact on some of the work that it has planned. It has informed its partners and stakeholders in the region that it will make announcements about the outcome of its re-prioritisation exercise in June, after its board meeting later this month, and it will consider recommendations. I am sure that officials will draw attention to the strong case that my hon. Friend has made on behalf of his constituents, businesses and developments in his constituency.

Naturally, concerns have been raised locally, but SWRDA has been extremely responsible in keeping its partners and stakeholders informed of its plans. However, it has signalled that, as part of its refreshed corporate plan, priorities will include planning for a sustainable recovery and longer-term economic prosperity; supporting businesses through the recession; and setting the foundations for a low-carbon economy. SWRDA is playing a key role as part of the Government response to the recession, as set out in its publication, “First Steps: Action for Recovery”, launched in November 2008. The Government have worked with, and through, the RDAs to give help to businesses in the south-west. I shall return to that a little later.

Nationally, supporting businesses is at the heart of the package of measures developed to support what are, in effect, the lifeblood of our economy—small and medium-sized businesses—through this difficult period. The package of support, delivered through the RDA-run Business Link networks, provides practical solutions to help businesses to secure credit and finance, to plan for managing day-to-day operations through these difficult times and to plan for future investment priorities. That includes several different schemes.

Under the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, the Government have provided £1 billion of guarantees to support up to £1.3 billion of bank lending to smaller firms. Under the working capital scheme, the Government have provided banks with up to £10 billion of guarantees, covering 50 per cent. of the risk. That will secure up to £20 billion of working capital credit lines for companies and free up capital that the banks will use for new lending. Under the capital for enterprise scheme, we have set up a new £75 million fund—£50 million of Government funding and £25 million from the banks. Professional fund managers are providing equity investment, which can be used to pay off existing debt, to free up capital for day-to-day cash flow and for future investment for viable companies.

Working with the European Investment Bank, the Government have helped UK banks to negotiate credit lines of more than £4 billion to provide loans to small and medium-sized businesses.

I return to my point about the capital for enterprise scheme and the fact that the Government have been working with the European Investment Bank to help UK banks negotiate new credit lines. Under the “more time to pay tax bills” scheme, the new business payment support service sets out an affordable timetable in which viable businesses in temporary financial difficulty can pay their tax bills to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. In Gloucestershire, more than 1,800 businesses have been given agreements to delay the payment of tax worth some £27 million. That will help businesses deal with any cash-flow problems.

The Government have provided all sorts of other help through a range of different agencies. It is vital that businesses continue to invest in skills to survive the recession and prepare for the upturn. To support that, the Government have expanded apprenticeships; there will be more than 250,000 starts nationally next year. The Government have increased the training support available to unemployed people. They have provided £100 million for 40,000 extra places on employability programmes for those who are unemployed or under notice of redundancy; and £83 million for 75,000 high-quality training places for those claiming jobseeker’s allowance for more than six months to help them back into sustainable employment. Train to Gain also provides continuing support, with £925 million invested for 2009-10, and new support for small and medium-sized enterprises only. In respect of Train to Gain and the Business Link, as part of the Government’s Solutions For Businesses initiative—

I am grateful for the detailed information about some of those training exercises and the things that are available to keep people in work—they are very important—but I would be interested to hear the Minister’s answer to the question about gaps. What if the RDA does not find the money for the projects that I was talking about? That is really important.

I should also like to use this opportunity to get a message to Sir Bob Kerslake of the Homes and Communities Agency. There should be greater joint working between the agency, urban regeneration companies and the RDAs to plug any gaps that arise. Can the Minister do anything through her good offices to help that to happen in places such as Gloucester?

My hon. Friend has made his interest in the issue clear. He made some good points about the need for local and regional powers to work together as effectively as possible to plug those various gaps. In a sense, he was saying that we need one vision for local areas, and for people to bring as much to the table as possible to help to deliver those things. He is keen to be part of any agencies, groups and organisations that will help, which the Government want. The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill, which is in the House of Lords at the moment and due to arrive in the Commons, will help. I am also sure that officials have taken his point about the need for the HCA to work with the RDA—the message was loud and clear.

The national assistance that is being provided, including health checks for businesses and Business Links, will help many of his constituents. Other things are helping in the Gloucester area that are to do with partners other than the RDA. For example, a grant to improve the city gateway into Gloucester has been set up by the city council. The funding will be aimed at improving the look of businesses in lower Eastgate street, from which about 30 businesses are in line to benefit from improved shop fronts and reinstated architectural features. In addition, nearly £15 million of Government money has been awarded to Cinderford in the Forest of Dean to aid its regeneration, some of which will be used to decontaminate former mining land for redevelopment and to build a new road. A central feature of that redevelopment will be the Steam Mills lake, around which planners hope to attract a hotel. Perhaps that is a little off to the side of my hon. Friend’s area, but it will have a positive impact on Gloucester.

I am grateful for all the investment throughout Gloucestershire. I appreciate that the Minister is concluding her remarks, but after the debate, will she nudge my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs, when he comes back after his well deserved two weeks’ paternity leave, to arrange a visit, so that he can see some of the local projects that she mentioned and to follow up matters with our local urban regeneration company, which would be keen to see him, especially following the 18 May meeting?

I would be happy to ensure that my right hon. Friend the Minister is aware of the kind invitation that my hon. Friend has extended to him. I will strongly advise him to take it up—as his Whip, I will do whatever I can to support and encourage him. My hon. Friend has done as much as he possibly can to support some of the projects that he would like my right hon. Friend the Minister to visit, such as the latest business centre—