Westminster Hall Sitting of 4 December 2002

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Nuclear Test Veterans (Compensation)
Motion made and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Caplin.]
9.30 am
Mr. Mark Todd: The opportunity to hold such a debate is fairly rare. I shall not give an account of the illnesses suffered by people who attended, witnessed and took part in the preparations for nuclear tests on behalf of this country. Instead, I shall focus on some of the ways in which we can remedy grievances. Those who took part in the tests as well as their children and grandchildren feel that the men who had often risked their lives in war prior to the tests—in which they took part at the behest of the Government—have been poorly treated in the past 50 or so years.
I do not intend to criticise the present Government heavily. Successive Governments have taken the same stance towards claims for compensation or improved pensions on behalf of the service men who took part in the tests. It has been argued throughout that there is no overwhelming medical evidence—it is only marginal—of a link between participation in the tests and particular illnesses. Such matters were revealed in the analysis of the test outcomes by the National Radiological Protection Board and, in some cases of leukaemia, a war pension was granted when a link to the tests was demonstrated. That is based on a slightly increased likelihood demonstrated in the data that have been analysed to date. The Government have taken that position throughout.
We need to create an atmosphere of greater objectivity and consensus building. Research has demonstrated that many of those who took part in the tests have since suffered terrible illnesses; there have also been cases of illness among their offspring. We must consider how to attribute that information to the circumstances of their lives; what they did in their lives when they were service men and later. So far the Government have commissioned work through the NRPB, which is currently undertaking its third study of the data produced by the examination of the records of 20,000-plus service men who attended the tests at various times during the 1950s and early 1960s.
I am worried that there is no proper consensus on whether that is the correct basis for research into illnesses. I note in particular the approach to similar circumstances taken by other countries. We are not alone in having carried out nuclear tests involving our service men. At that time we had a Commonwealth on which we could call, and some Commonwealth countries provided men. I draw attention to the example of the New Zealand Government, who have grant-aided the New Zealand Nuclear Test Veterans Association to provide a basis for that organisation's own research. That is a positive idea for two reasons.
244WH
First, the test veterans argue that they are overwhelmed by the scale of a large and understandably secretive Department—the Ministry of Defence—and the weight of the scientific establishment, against which they must contend purely with voluntary funds. The New Zealand Government have set a good example in choosing to grant-aid their veterans so that they can buy their own research. That provides a proper balance with the science of the matter. Secondly, we should genuinely consider whether there are different ways of looking at how to research the issue.
Thus far, our approach has been to take account of the scale of the issue—more than 20,000 people were involved in tests—without, perhaps, always recognising the different circumstances of individual test veterans. Some people were clearly exposed to a greater risk than others. The Sunday Mirror has carried many stories about the issue. By simply taking the group as one swathe, without sufficient differentiation of either the test or the circumstances of the military operation in which a person was involved, the precise circumstances will be concealed by the sheer scale of the data which the NRPB will be examining.
At the end of my speech I will call for far finer slicing of the data, to attribute the data to individual operational circumstances and particular tests. If we did that, we would be able to identify whether pockets of occurrences might be concealed in the overwhelming evidence of a large number of people who may have had little exposure to danger during an operation.
The United States has had an extensive programme of tests and it operates a policy for veterans for whom there is a presumed cause for one of 15 illnesses from which they may suffer. If a person can demonstrate that they were involved in a particular test and developed one of those illnesses, there is a presumption, which does not require a test in court, that they should be compensated for that experience. I do not understand why we choose not to follow a similar path to the one taken by the United States; that great Government are prepared to take such a step.
The Australian Government have also, to a lesser extent, adopted a presumed cause approach. In my correspondence with the Minister—I always appreciate the courtesy and the length of the answers that he has given to me on the various questions that I have asked—he hints at one possible reason, which is that factors such as the small size of the nuclear test participant group appear to be relevant. That suggests that we can take a straightforward approach to the issue because some countries say that only a relatively small number of people were affected. It also suggests that the British Government are apprehensive about a large number of claimants and, therefore, the substantial cost associated with dealing with the problem. That does not reflect well on our integrity and honesty. Surely, damage is the same whether it is done to a citizen of New Zealand, Australia or America, or to one of our own citizens. We should be prepared to take the experience of other countries into account.
Some of the New Zealand Nuclear Test Veterans Association's research has been commissioned in this country. We welcome that because it provides us with greater opportunities to examine different dimensions of the problem. Research is being undertaken in Dundee and I am aware that the MOD has taken a particular

245WH
view of the work of Sue Rabbit-Roff. It has also been commissioned in the university of St. Andrews. The other research that I am aware of is that at Massey university in New Zealand.
I should hope that we are fully engaged with the New Zealand Government on what they have set off through their approach, although I have not been reassured by the answers that the Minister has given me. I have asked whether we have made representations to the New Zealand Government and the answer was no. I have asked whether there has been any substantial engagement with the issue, and was told that there has not. I hope that we are aware of the research activity, and that we are engaged sympathetically in trying to understand what that research is seeking to achieve and in liaising with those who commissioned it.
I come to the rather legalistic way in which the issue has been addressed. I represent a former mining constituency, in which miners had to fight for many years to demonstrate the damage caused to their health by coal dust in their lungs and the use of vibrating tools. That culminated in a successful action in 1997, and gradually and painfully, in the drawing down of compensation for the people involved.
I am well aware of the lengthy civil process that can be involved in pursuing such claims, and I would not wish that on anyone, particularly not on a voluntary organisation. The one advantage that mine workers had was a well resourced trade union to fight the case on their behalf and to commission the best possible legal advice. I note that civil cases are being considered at the moment, and I would not wish that process on those pursuing them; it would be long, painful, and might, if the case is eventually proved, lead to a large class action.
There are far better ways of pursuing such issues, and one can see that even in the mining industry. In the early 1970s, the Government correctly understood that pneumoconiosis was a major disease in mining, and that there should be a straightforward compensation scheme available to people who could demonstrate that they had experienced it in their lives. I recommend a simple process, and the presumed cause approach that I have suggested would provide that simplicity.
If a case went to court, one would have to demonstrate negligence, and consider the advice that was available. We must recognise that our knowledge is much greater than it was then, and some of the precautions that, frankly, we ridicule now may well have seemed to be the best ways of protecting people. We would also have to show whether there was intent, and that causes concern. I have received correspondence from the Minister that says that there was no intent to test the effect that the weapons had on human beings. In a quotation from the Sunday Mirror, there is a reference to a declassified document, dated 20 May 1953. The article says:
"A report to the Chiefs of Staff, headed 'Atomic Weapons Trials' states: 'The Army must discover the detailed effects of various types of explosion on equipment, stores and men with and without various types of protection.'"
I do not know whether that approach was adopted.
I ask the Minister to consider whether we can release the full public record of those tests now for proper scrutiny. The bits that have crept out show that part of
246WH
the purpose was indeed to understand what happened when nuclear weapons were exploded and a person was in reasonably close proximity to them. Certainly, the evidence shows that there was the intention to understand how equipment reacted to weapons, and human beings then had to clean down that equipment. They were exposed to the risk partly through that. If that was part of the purpose of the tests, there should now be candour about it.
I have talked to my father—who was a career naval officer—and my mother about that time, and it is clear that their generation's attitude towards risk was very different from ours. People had lived through a world war in which they had seen friends die in violent ways, and many of them were trained to say, "Well, it is our job to take risks." That might have been the case, but people who are placed in harm's way deserve to know something about what that harm might be and what the exercise that they are involved in might achieve.
I see no evidence of such candour towards service men at that time. It appears that advice and information were minimal and perfunctory. It is worth reflecting on the culture of the time, which is evidenced by the recent disclosures at Porton Down that service men could be used legitimately as guinea pigs; they were given minimal information, and sometimes—one hopes in extreme cases—they were deceived. That that was the concept of a service man's role at that time in our country's history should be addressed honestly.
It is easy to make judgments now about attitudes then, and I am not seeking to do that. I merely think that we should be honest about what might have happened, and about the contexts of these tests. Therefore, I hope that as part of this exercise, we can be open with people about the purpose and meaning of these tests, and about how we communicated what they were about to those who participated in them.
First, we should consider the basis of presumed cause in dealing with certain kinds of illnesses where they occur among nuclear test veterans. Secondly, we should re-examine the test data and seek to differentiate it with regard to the circumstances of the operation in which people were involved and the individual test in which they participated. Thirdly, we should look at empowering the test veterans associations by providing them with resources so that they can commission their own research and vigorously question the science of all of this. The Minister will almost certainly respond by discussing the science as it is perceived by the Ministry of Defence. I want there to be proper engagement with that subject; we should debate that science in a fully informed way and with a greater degree of consensus than has been achieved until now. Fourthly, I want a proper disclosure of the purpose of these tests and how we communicated what they were about to the service men of that time.
We should give respect to those who participated in these tests and followed the orders that they were given. They did their duty. We have a duty to act with integrity towards them and their families.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I plan to start the winding-up speeches at 10.25 am. Five hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I wish them to think of their

247WH
colleagues; if each of them were to speak for roughly seven minutes, that would enable everyone to contribute to the debate.
9.48 am
Mr. Francis Maude: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), and I congratulate him on securing the debate. The matter is of great importance to a relatively small number of people, but the issues that the debate raises are of wide importance. He has done the House and the public a service by raising this subject.
I want to centre my remarks on the case of my constituent, Mr. Derek Fiddaman. He was serving on the guard ship HMS Cossack as part of Operation Grapple X when the fourth British nuclear test at Christmas Island was carried out on 8 November 1957. The ship sailed to the west of the island after the explosion, and it is argued that it became contaminated as the wind carried radiation from the site of the explosion to where it had sailed to. Eighteen years later, in 1975, the first symptoms appeared of the basal cell carcinomas from which Mr. Fiddaman still suffers today.
After the contamination of nuclear test veterans came publicly to light in 1980, Mr. Fiddaman contacted a radiologist in Guildford. He was diagnosed as suffering as a result of over-exposure to radiation. He had been undergoing a course in radiotherapy for the basal cell condition; but that course was ceased immediately. Since 1980, he has undergone more than 100 operations to remove malignant tumours. He will attend a further clinic tomorrow.
Mr. Fiddaman has stressed that his case is by no means the worst. He is not whingeing or complaining; he says that many others are much worse off than he is. However, he has suffered enormously from his condition for more than 27 years. In 1980, when the source of his illness was first properly diagnosed, he applied for a war pension. Two years later—the process was not rapid—an initial decision was reached and he was offered £2,000. On appeal, that was upgraded to a 20 per cent. pension entitlement. Eventually, after a series of grudging decisions to upgrade the entitlement, he was awarded a 60 per cent. war pension. Getting that level of pension sounds like a long and painful process, but Mr. Fiddaman, again, is comparatively one of the lucky ones. Out of 1,228 claims for war pensions from the test veterans up to March 2000, only 467 resulted in awards.
As we know, until 1987, service personnel were prevented from pursuing claims for compensation from the Ministry of Defence by the Crown Proceedings Act 1947—now, happily, repealed. Between then and May 2000, 144 claims for compensation were made; none has been settled. In other words, fewer than 500 of the perhaps 20,000 veterans who witnessed the tests have received any kind of recompense. In no case has it been recognised that people suffered as a result of inadequate precautions when the tests were carried out. The onus for proving entitlement to a war pension is placed entirely on the veterans. As Mr. Fiddaman's case illustrates, the process is long and tortuous. More than half of the cases have resulted in outright failure; in many other cases, only a partial award has been made.
248WH
In the meantime, the continuing struggle to establish a right to compensation has left the veterans in a state of great uncertainty. It is now 45 years or more since the tests took place and many people were—arguably; this is the issue that must be resolved—exposed to the radiation that has harmed them.
This is not a partisan issue. I am conscious that it is the kind of issue that parliamentarians tend to take up in opposition and then drop when in government. I hope that the tone of this debate will be non-partisan. I understand why Government Ministers and the MOD take a slightly different view today from that taken by the Labour party when it was in Opposition. The MOD has a history of being very reluctant to accept liability; I am not talking only about this issue but about other issues as well. As we saw with Gulf war syndrome, when any such suggestion is made, the MOD tends immediately to deny any possible connection between what was done and the illnesses that transpired. The issue is then obscured and even obstructed. That is very unfortunate and very bad for the reputation of the MOD. The House will appreciate that I am not one of those who routinely attacks the MOD. I am a huge admirer of our armed forces, which are the finest in the world. I have no animus at all against the Ministry of Defence. However, its Ministers and officials must understand that a lack of straightforwardness has caused distrust of the MOD. People do not feel that they have been treated fairly, openly and straightforwardly on this issue and, indeed, others. I urge a different approach most strongly.
I was a Treasury Minister many years ago. I am very conscious of concerns that are raised in the Treasury on any issue of this sort. The same old phrases always emerge: "Floodgates opening"; "The thin end of the wedge"; and "If we accept liability in one case, the whole thing will be opened up." I am one of nature's Treasury Ministers. I am not an enthusiast of the reckless spending of public money. However, an injustice has been done and people have been subjected to danger and suffering as a result of what the Government asked them to do.
That is especially true of our armed service men, who were national service men who had no option about what they did or where they went because they were under military orders. They were subjected to danger as a result of the Government's actions. If it is probable—it does not need to be established beyond peradventure—that what they went through caused the pain and illness that many have suffered, the Government should pay up because that is required for justice.
There has been a lack of openness and straightforwardness. In 2000, the Government said that test veterans would have the right to request access to their official service records, including their medical records. It was said that they would be entitled to have access to any information held relating to their exposure to radiation while participating in the nuclear test programme. The situation has not quite worked out like that. Despite repeated attempts, Mr. Fiddaman has still not been able to view his service records. During a meeting with an MOD official, it transpired that radiation readings carried out among servicemen at the time of the tests appeared not to have been properly logged in several cases. That puts people at a major

249WH
disadvantage. Some information seems to have been withheld, some seems to have been destroyed and some was never recorded.
Indeed, it was left to Mr. Fiddaman to prove the positioning of the HMS Cossack on the day of the test. Using his training in navigation, he reconstructed the ship's course on charts held in the Public Record Office. It is fair to say that he was a bit offended by the justification that the MOD eventually used for awarding him his 60 per cent. war pension. The MOD said that it was offered to him on the basis of his "over-exposure to brilliant sunlight" while on active duty. We all know about the risks of skin cancer due to sunlight, but that way of denying liability for something that seems increasingly likely is mildly offensive. Mr. Fiddaman continues to campaign despite the fact that his position is better than that of many others.
I am following on from what the hon. Member for South Derbyshire said. I urge the Government to be very open, to lay the records bare and to allow completely open scrutiny of everything that happened. The Government and the Ministry of Defence should not fear such openness and scrutiny. If there is nothing to hide, there is, by definition, nothing to fear from the most open scrutiny that can be imagined. If there is something to hide, simple, straightforward equity and justice require the course that I urge the Government to take.
9.59 am
Dr. Ian Gibson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on securing this debate on an issue that will, clearly, not go away. I am pleased to be here to support him and the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude). They clearly elaborated the issue from the veterans' point of view.
I wish to discuss an issue raised in a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister to a member of the veterans association in which he describes the Ministry of Defence view being established and supported by "sound scientific analysis". I am slightly sceptical whenever I see phrases such as that one or "evidence-based medicine". It is not that I do not want to achieve that, but there is always another view. A view is only as good as the evidence that is available today. Further research often shows that there is another explanation.
Indeed, science is based on quarrelsome individuals who hardly ever agree with each other. There are still people who do not believe that prions cause BSE and some who believe that AIDS is not caused by a virus. There are others who, with little scientific evidence, believe that telecommunication masts cause childhood leukaemia. Such issues are concerned with more than just straightforward, scientific and medical evidence. The public must also be convinced that the expertise and knowledge is convincing and can be supported.
We live in a world that is rapidly changing. On the issue of genetically modified crops, for example, people do not necessarily believe the evidence of experts. We should be sceptical about whether the sun will rise tomorrow morning in the east. I am 99 per cent. sure, but part of me says, "Well, it might not." Our views and legislation should operate on that basis.
250WH
Much evidence has been produced that will no doubt be disparaged, such as the work of Dr. Rabbit-Roff, or by John Urquhart, who addressed a meeting of MPs and veterans in Westminster Hall last week. The Sunday Mirror contacted the 350 families from the original study and 300 responded. Among those, the number of cases of Down's syndrome was significantly greater than the national average.
Mr. Urquhart is a brilliant statistician. I know that, in epidemiology, statistics are all—with chi-squares and T-tests and so forth. However, it is not necessarily an exact science. It is hard to get the evidence, but it is based on good statistics. Mr. Urquhart has researched child leukaemia and has found that, in the families studied—although it could be argued that the study is selective—there are above average rates of cancer and Down's syndrome.
Dr. Rabbit-Roff and others claim that the incidence of multiple myelomas—a type of blood cancer arising in the bone marrow—is way above national levels among veterans. When I looked it up in the medical books that I occasionally pull off the shelf, I found that one cause of multiple myeloma is exposure to nuclear explosions. That is what young medical students are now told. When one looks at death certificates, such sophisticated knowledge is not always there. Any analysis based on a death certificate that says "heart failure" must be absolutely right because everybody's heart fails when they die. Death certificates can be filled in quite easily. They are not a good parameter for examining the issue.
There are tests available that veterans could now use, such as cytogenetic tests that examine chromosomes, the deoxyribonucleic acid and so forth. They would clearly show that there had been minor damage to chromosomes in the genetic material that had been caused by radiation. Nobody would deny that radiation causes genetic damage. The subject is crying out for new research to examine the whole process of what has happened. There are individuals who are prepared to play a part in that, and I hope that the Government will, now take a good solid look at all the evidence available, pull it together and give us the final judgment.
10.4 am
Siobhain McDonagh: As I am conscious of the time, I shall concentrate on the case of a constituent. I am not someone who is necessarily drawn to the work of the Ministry of Defence or to defence matters, but I was particularly shaken by a meeting with my constituent, Shirley Denson of Morden. It was towards the end of 1998 when I first heard from her and became aware of the tragic life of her late husband, Squadron Leader Eric Denson, who committed suicide in 1976 after a long struggle with health problems.
Some 40 years before my first meeting with his widow, the 26-year-old Flight Lieutenant Denson captained one of the three Canberra aircraft deployed to fly a nuclear cloud-sampling mission through the mushroom cloud created by the three-megaton Grapple Y air drop detonation on 28 April 1958.
The planes were collecting samples while in the cloud. In the process, Flight Lieutenant Denson and his crew would each have collected 13,000 rads, which is the equivalent of 6,500 full body X-rays. Flying into the

251WH
cloud 49 minutes after detonation, Flight Lieutenant Denson was ordered to keep the plane inside for six minutes; four minutes longer than the aircraft should have been inside because of a fault on one of the dosimeters. When the plane landed, the ground crew said that it was the hottest aircraft they had ever handled. As well as receiving massive radiation in the air, the crews would have been exposed to the radiation fallout on the ground, as they drank water, ate shellfish and caught fish in the sea around them. I understand that Eric Denson's eventual dosage could have been the equivalent of 40,000 X-rays.
Eric Denson was sent home after that flight and told that his dosage exceeded the legal limit, thus excluding him from participating in further tests. His vomiting started almost immediately, and became so severe that he was forced to delay in Fiji for a further three days. Great emphasis was placed on the imposition of strict orders of secrecy concerning any discussion of events going on in the south Pacific. Be that as it may, after Eric Denson's return in obvious ill health, no medical checks or follow-up—in fact, no duty of care of any reasonable kind—were provided that could have alerted him to the probable cause of his progressive medical problems. Significantly, no mention was made in his medical records of his activities in the south Pacific in 1958.
Squadron Leader Denson ended his life in 1976 at the age of 44, after 18 years of breathing difficulties, acute sinusitis, mood swings, anxieties and depressions. He was the father of four children. His widow had no idea at the time of his high dosage of ionising radiation, which he acquired through his participation in nuclear tests almost two decades earlier. Another 20 years passed, during which Shirley Denson brought up four daughters on her own, three of whom were born after 28 April 1958. All three have experienced lasting health problems.
In 1997, Shirley was alerted to the latest scientific evidence about the Christmas island tests, and started her own investigations into the events there, with a growing realisation of the true effect of radiation poisoning on her husband. Such is the case of my constituent, and I pay tribute to her energy and tenacity. It has been strongly suggested to her during meetings with officials that her late husband was sickly and unbalanced from boyhood, and that his suicide was somehow inevitable and nothing to do with Christmas island. That is not an image of Eric Denson that squares with the fit Yorkshireman who joined the RAF to serve his country, and who was pronounced among the fittest of his peers, an expert pilot and a credit to the squadron that he would eventually lead.

There are several questions concerning that case, and there are many scientists here today who know a great deal more than I do. In the couple of minutes that I have left, I should like to ask the Minister some questions. I should be grateful if he explained why UK pilots such as Eric Denson and his peers were ordered to fly into experimental thermonuclear detonations without radiation protection. Will the Minister also explain whether the Government have any intention of following the lead taken by the Labour Government of New Zealand and instituting a medal—posthumous in too many cases—to commemorate the sacrifice of British test veterans?
252WH
Successive Governments have kept up a studied policy of denial, which today is clearly at odds with those of most western and NATO countries. Will the Minister explain why Britain persists in pursuing such a strange strategy? In doing so, the Minister might also explain why that policy of denial relies on a 1993 National Radiological Protection Board study that clearly found that UK test veterans had an excess of four major types of leukaemia, as well as excesses of bladder and liver cancers compared to a similar control group of veterans who did not participate in the tests.
I have many more questions, but I do not want to take up any more time. I want to allow everybody to have their chance to speak. Many people have questions that they want answered, and they deserve answers. Those responsible should be more straightforward than they have been.
10.9 am
Mr. Brian Jenkins: First, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on securing the debate. I should also like to welcome my hon. Friend the Minister. He is a gentleman, and we can expect him to take copious notes and not just to read out the carefully crafted brief from his Department. If he is unable to answer some of our questions, no doubt he will write to us.
I am going to tell a story, which some people may not appreciate. The issue is shrouded in deceit, deception and duplicity—the stuff of politics. Many people do not know that Britain never developed an independent H-bomb. The Minister and his Department will know that the first time we tested a bomb it was unsuccessful. In the middle of the cold war, however, the Government's policy was to sit at the top table with the H-bomb countries. They wanted parity with America and an independent deterrent, and they wanted to defend certain colonies and ex-colonies.
The Government concocted the biggest hoax in this country's history. They exploded an atom bomb that contained so much uranium that it caused a 750,000 tonnes explosion, which made the Americans think that we had an H-bomb. The Americans admitted us to the top table and gave us access to their secrets. Later, Britain managed to clone an American bomb, but we had, of course, created some difficulties. An atom bomb is dirtier, more dangerous to personnel and more radioactive than a hydrogen bomb. We could not allow that fact to be revealed in the form of extra protection for our service men. We therefore sailed our service men close to the explosion, and did not give them the protection that they needed.
Worse than that, the British did not record the radiation readings in case they fell into the hands of a clever American observer who would have noticed that the radiation levels did not coincide with the explosion of an atomic bomb. All the readings were faked and fixed in the interests of national security. However, we need not have bothered because the Americans knew that the dosimeters did not work. Once we had started our great lie, however, we had to continue it.
One incidence of the great lie concerns a friend and constituent, Ron Coates. He was told that he could not have been issued with a dosimeter because his duties did not concern radiation. Unfortunately for the

253WH
Department, Mr. Coates has a photograph of himself wearing a dosimeter. The Department claimed that the dosimeter must have been issued in a simulation or exercise, but Mr. Coates has a photograph of the exercise. It shows four young men standing on the deck of a ship and there is a giant mushroom cloud behind them; some simulation!
What were the duties for which Mr. Coates did not need to be issued with a dosimeter? He was a member of the Fleet Air Arm, and his job was to maintain aircraft and, in particular, helicopters. Britain might not have had an H-bomb, but we must have had a world lead in helicopters. Apparently, we had a helicopter that could land on an island one hour after an atomic blast without raising any dust or having any dust sticking to it. Apparently, it flew back to its ship and was perfectly clean. Supposedly, Mr. Coates was not exposed to radiation and his meter showed no radiation. The fact that after handling the helicopter, he had to go through the scrubbers and down the dirty trail has been totally forgotten.
I shall tell hon. Members the history of the four men in that photograph. Pete Cutforth has cancer; John Carr has diabetes, plus several other ailments; and Ron Coates has cancer. They have lost touch with the fourth man, a Mr. Rowlands, so they do not know what happened to him. That is some record. At least two of the four have certified cancer, despite the claim that they were not exposed to a sufficient level of radiation.
Mr. Coates, after many struggles—and having gone through all the hoops to gain the war pension for which he thought he was eligible—was told, believe it or not, that he had to prove that he would not have contracted cancer had he not been exposed to the radiation. How can anyone prove that? A person would have to go back to a point prior to the explosion, create two of themselves, and allow one to go through the explosion and one not to do so in order to see whether the one who had not gone through it developed cancer. What a stupid thing to say. It is as bad as asking a service man who has been shot on active service to prove that he would not have been shot while walking the dangerous streets of Britain. Anyone who did that would be laughed out of the tribunal, but that is what was said, in effect, to that group of servicemen.
All they are asking for is fair treatment. I know that it is difficult for the Department, but the cat is out of the bag. The Americans now know that it was a con and a hoax. We do not have to keep up the pretence any longer. All we need to do is to quantify the cost to us. The first part of the claim is to secure a recognition of what these people went through; what we put them through. After that, we should ensure, like the Americans, that there is an easier trail for such people to claim war pensions and thus compensation. They were there when their country needed them; please let their country be there when they need it.
10.16 am
Mrs. Janet Dean: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on securing this important debate. I want to raise the concerns of my constituent, Mr. Prescott, who
254WH
served on Christmas island in 1962. Mr. Prescott has suffered from ill health for many years and, five years ago, at the age of 57, he was diagnosed with diffuse ideopathic skeletal hyperostosis; a disease that is usually found in very old people. He told me that changes were first noticed on X-rays that he had in the early 1970s. He also has other conditions, including diabetes. My constituent served on Christmas island at the time of operation Brigadoon. One of his concerns is that although the 1993 report by the National Radiological Protection Board stated that there were 350 participants in operation Brigadoon who were mentioned in the health physics records with non-zero doses of radiation, operation Brigadoon is not included in the analysis of the results of that report. It appears that the NRPB did not include the veterans of Brigadoon in its study because the Ministry of Defence did not believe that those involved had been liable to exposure to radiation.
Whatever the results of the NRPB studies in 1988 and 1993, since 1998 an increasing number of pensions have been awarded to UK veterans for conditions recognised by the United States as radiogenic. Sadly, those pensions are not being granted by the Veterans Agency, but are being won on appeal to pensions appeals tribunals. The British Nuclear Test Veterans Association estimates that the Veterans Agency regularly spends £50,000 on trying to reject such awards—10 times the amount that non-officer ranks could expect per year for a 100 per cent. war pension. It will always be difficult—in fact, probably impossible—for test veterans to prove conclusively that their medical conditions are caused by their service.
Many veterans have had many years of ill health. Indeed, as we have heard, some have already died. They feel a strong sense of injustice that they were used as guinea pigs. They have lived in fear for the past 40 to 50 years. Is it not time for the United Kingdom to adopt a formula based on a presumptive principle similar to that of the United States? If what we asked our servicemen to do was so harmless, my constituent, Mr. Prescott, asks,
"Would Ministers be happy to see thousands of service men witnessing nuclear explosions today in the way they did in the 50's and 60's? Would they watch the footage of young men with their bones lit up in front of each other through the x ray effect caused by such a detonation on the burning of the skin, loss of eyebrows, the panic and fear spread amongst the men as the heat from the blast passes through their bodies?"
I hope that we will reconsider the way in which we treat our veterans and recognise that we owe them a debt of gratitude for the service they have given to this country.
10.20 am
Mr. Colin Breed: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on securing the debate, not least because of my constituent, Mr. Tom Clarke, who lives in Blunts. I shall not repeat what Mr. Clarke has been telling me, because we have heard so many good accounts of veterans' stories. I shall instead concentrate on a few extra questions. The Minister has already heard many questions, so if he does not get around to answering all of them, I hope that he will respond in writing, as it is important that our constituents hear as many answers as possible.
On medical issues, I understand that the National Radiological Protection Board has launched a further study. We hope that its results will be available next

255WH
year. What contributions are the Government making to the study, and does the Minister have any idea when it will be available?
How, if there were insufficient records on veterans—we have heard much about the way in which data were or were not taken—could the 1998 and 1993 studies claim any accuracy? Why do the Government continue to ignore the medical conclusions reached in other countries, such as America and Australia, and maintain such a distinct position?
I shall consider some legal aspects. The Minister will be aware that the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights criticised the Government's reluctance to provide comprehensive information about tests and medical details, and concluded that it constituted a breach of human rights. What is the Government's response to that? Have they given an official response, or will they respond today?
I have written to the Minister on other issues, such as asbestos, relating to the effect of the repeal of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, which bars retrospective claims by law. Does he intend to continue to invoke that, so that legally, even if the Government are persuaded that there are compensation requirements, they will be barred from seeing them through?
In today's state of heightened tension over Iraq and so on, the public are looking to the armed forces as they do not usually do. Surely it is of paramount importance that we are seen to treat them in the very best way. We have seen not only how successive Governments have treated the veterans under discussion but how they have decided to treat Gulf war syndrome, unlike America, which has accepted that the syndrome may exist. It is important for the Government to recognise that if we want men and women to join the armed forces and put their lives on the line, we should show them some respect if things go wrong and unintended consequences come back to haunt us.
There seems to be a prevailing ethos in the Government of closing down any thought of proper investigation and introducing new regulations to ensure that they do not have to meet legal responsibilities. If we are asking people once again to go and fight for their country, the background of how the armed forces are being treated will have an effect. In today's climate, we need to give tangible assurances of the real commitment to treat service personnel as they ought to be treated.
Valid and transparent research, which is required for monitoring veterans' conditions, is crucial to past and present members of the armed forces and to the public, who are beginning to be uneasy. They think that the Government are continuing to absolve themselves from any responsibility towards them—in relation not only to the armed forces but to other areas, such as mining—and that they are trying to avoid paying compensation. That is in stark contrast to the way in which other countries have been prepared to accept certain responsibilities. Is it not now time for the Government to consider presumptive principles? It would be a matter not of blame but of recognising that many people who have served their country now need the Government's support.
10.26 am
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I join everyone else in congratulating the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on having secured this important debate, in which many interesting contributions have been made.
I echo the words of the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed). This country owes a great debt of gratitude to its service men. The issue is particularly apposite at present because so few citizens of this country are members of the armed forces. It is not like during the second world war and its aftermath, when the entire nation was involved. From time to time, we call on a tiny proportion of society to lay down their lives for their country. I have just returned from the Falkland islands, where acts of great heroism were carried out. Sometimes the warfare in which the armed forces are engaged is similar to the warfare that was seen during the first world war, yet the rest of the nation is watching television, going to the pub and playing football. We owe a great debt of gratitude to those who serve and have served in Her Majesty's armed forces and we should take their concerns and concerns about them seriously.
The independent nuclear deterrent provided security for the peoples of these islands for a generation. If it had not been for that deterrent, who knows what might have happened? These people were involved in testing the weapon that went on to keep the peace in Europe. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who said that he was ever a Treasury man, commented that even if the tests were the probable cause, Her Majesty's Government should pay up. I have to tell him that even as an Opposition spokesman I am not in a position to write a blank cheque, and if he were in the position of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), as he previously was, he would certainly slap me down if I were to do so. I recognise the difficulties.
We need to take a new look at how we treat veterans in the United Kingdom. When I went to the United States with the Select Committee on Defence in February, I noted how different the approach was there.
I know that the Government have set up a Veterans Agency, but it is a fairly limited operation. The time has come to examine where the burden of proof should lie. However, if there is to be an increase in public expenditure arising from such a change, it is perhaps not fair that that burden should fall on the Ministry of Defence. The crux of the issue is whether there is a causal link between participation in the nuclear test programme and any subsequent illness. As hon. Members said, successive Governments have commissioned scientific investigations to establish whether such a link exists.
The 1983 National Radiological Protection Board report was mentioned. That study compared the rate of mortality and the incidence of cancer in more than 22,000 men who took part in the tests with those in a similar group of men and civilians who were not involved. The results were published in the British Medical Journal and concluded that participation in the tests had no detectable effect on the participants' life expectancy. The study also failed to establish a causal relationship between the incidence of cancer and

257WH
participation in the nuclear test programme. In particular, there was no evidence linking an increased incidence of any cancer with an increase in radiation dose, contrary to what might have been expected if the cancers were radiation-induced.
The 1983 report recommended that there should be further observations on groups of participants, that controls should be maintained for a further 10 years, and that a further report should be commissioned in 1992. The Conservative Government kept their word and commissioned that report. In December 1993 the then Minister, Jeremy Hanley—now quite rightly Sir Jeremy Hanley—confirmed in an answer to a parliamentary question that the follow-up report had reinforced the original report's conclusions. It had established that no case had yet been found that proved a causal link.
In May 1995, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, reaffirmed the Government's position when he said:
"Over a period of more than 40 years from the atmospheric nuclear tests in the 1950s and early 1960s, up to the end of 1990, there has been no overall excess of death and malignant disease among British nuclear test veterans. Out of over 20,000 veterans studied by the National Radiological Protection Board, more than 3.000 would have died, over 900 of them from cancer, if the veterans had suffered the same death and cancer rates as members of the public in the same age groups. In fact, fewer than 2,800 veterans died, fewer than 800 of them from cancer, these figures being no higher than for the matched control group in the NRPB study. These facts do not sustain a case for compensation."
When the Conservatives left office in 1997, we were committed to offering compensation to anyone who could be
"shown to have suffered injury or illness as a result of radiation from the nuclear tests."
No causal link had been proved, although independent scientists had recommended that further studies be undertaken, and we were bound to abide by their findings. The Conservative Government had made all decisions strictly in accordance with the recommendations of the independent scientists at the NRPB.
Recently, the debate has been enlivened by a newspaper campaign. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who I believe presided over a meeting here with the veterans, said that the veterans had no confidence in the NRPB. Indeed, he told us this morning that people were sceptical about scientists and, by implication, that he tended to agree with them. However, he holds a bachelor of science degree in genetics and I hope that he would feel that the public had some confidence in his views on genetics.
The NRPB has consistently found no causal link. We are making a serious charge when we say that we do not trust those scientists. Applying that distrust across the board undermines any study that the Government commission, and by extension undermines the evidence that others submit. It would be a grave crime against the people of this country if the NRPB had systematically
258WH
engaged in a cover-up or a deceit that was not a cover-up but more a manipulation of the statistics to achieve a desired outcome.
Dr. Gibson: The hon. Gentleman is over-egging the pudding. That was not what was being said, which was that different people can assess scientific evidence in different ways. It depends on the questions asked. I made the point that it is a very difficult field in which to acquire hard evidence. It is difficult to determine that one factor in the environment is causing a problem when people are subjected to all sorts of assaults from their environment. No one is saying that the matter debases science itself. The argument is about the interpretation of scientific results.
Mr. Howarth: I am sure that everyone will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for expanding his point. I have a great deal of time for him, as he knows.
It would be easy for the Opposition to jump on the bandwagon in support of a newspaper campaign, but I do not intend to do that. I will, however, have a little fun at the expense of the Minister, if I may. In 1986, a Mr. Neil Kinnock, whom some hon. Members in the Labour party might remember, wrote to Ken McGinley—then chairman of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association—saying:
"The next Labour Government, as a matter of urgency and priority, will set up a full judicial inquiry."
Four years later, Bob Clay—a Labour MP—promoted a private Member's Bill calling for compensation for the veterans. The Bill had the support of the current Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, Leader of the House, the former Secretary of State for Scotland—the late Donald Dewar— the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the current Secretary-General of NATO, and others. That was a strong supporting cast, yet the Government have not offered a judicial inquiry.
I stand by the pledge that my predecessors gave when the Conservatives were in office. The Ministry of Defence owes a duty of care to everyone serving in the armed forces and a duty to compensate those injured in the course of service. If the Sunday Mirror has produced evidence that strongly asserts a causal link between participation in the test programme and any form of injury or illness, the Government should properly assess the validity of the new claims. I understand that the Legal Services Commission recently awarded the veterans funding to undertake a further review. I hope that that will be forthcoming and that the MOD will approach it in the spirit that both Government and Opposition Members would like it to have.
I have spelt out the Opposition's principled position, but add a qualification: despite the conclusions of many rigorous scientific investigations, anecdotal evidence remains to suggest at least the possibility of a link between participation in the programme and various examples of long-term injury. Anyone who has seen pictures on the television of the mushroom cloud and men standing there with their hands covering their eyes must feel discomfort at the apparent lack of protection that those men were given.
No matter how strong the statistical evidence to the contrary, we must be absolutely certain of it before we dismiss the claims of ex-servicemen who believe that

259WH
they have suffered terribly as a result of the tests. I therefore draw hon. Members' attention to a speech made some years ago by the now Minister for Transport, then a Defence Minister, in which he said:
"The vast majority of personnel who were present during tests were mustered in areas that were known to be safe from the effects of blast, heat and any prompt or residual radiation. At Christmas Island, for example, the muster points were in the areas of the main camp and the port, each of which was some 25 miles from the detonations."—[Official Report, 4 February 1998; Vol. 305, c. 1009.]
I do not doubt the truth of that statement, but I emphasise the first three words: "The vast majority" of personnel were in safe areas. Will the Minister assure us that all personnel were safe, or is there a chance that some were not? Although the vast majority undoubtedly were safe, reports from a number of veterans suggest that a very small minority may not have been. Is there a chance that some veterans are suffering as a result of their participation, but that their numbers are too small to show up in a survey that encompasses all 22,000 personnel who took part? If the vast majority were safe, that raises a question about why all the personnel were included in a survey that was intended to show up any differences between the mortality rates of the veterans and of the civilian population.
If it is possible to separate out those veterans who may have been exposed to a higher risk during the programme of tests, that group should be analysed relative to the control group. Obviously, it cannot be a self-selected group of veterans who took part in the tests and subsequently fell ill. As I mentioned, from a group of 20,000 veterans, more than 3,000 would have been expected to die in any case. However, I remind the Minister that even if only a handful of veterans have suffered as a result of their participation, we owe it to them to find that out and compensate them if possible.
I was very touched by the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). To the layman, it must seem almost an open-and-shut case that a pilot flew through a mushroom cloud and subsequently developed various ailments. That also points to a new development: the genetic effect on subsequent families since the tests of 1983 and 1992. The Minister might like to address that. I shall conclude my speech now to give him a chance to respond to the many points that have been made.
10.41 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) has secured the debate. I cannot answer today all the detailed questions that were asked, but I promise that every hon. Member who asked a question will receive a full response as soon as possible.
Nuclear testing is a deeply emotive subject. Recent articles in the Sunday Mirror that coincided with the 50th anniversary of the first test conducted by the United Kingdom, which took place on 3 October 1952 at Monte Bello island off the north-western coast of Australia, have once again provoked much debate, some of which is clearly ill informed. I therefore welcome this opportunity to restate the position of the Ministry of Defence on this important matter.
260WH
The UK conducted a total of 21 atmospheric nuclear tests in Australia and at Malden island and Christmas island in the 1950s. Some 28,000 UK service personnel were involved in the test programmes, the majority in logistic support. Service personnel from Australia and New Zealand also took part.
For some years, a number of veterans of the test programme have claimed that their health was damaged by deliberate or accidental exposure to ionising radiation. However, my Department has consistently rejected those claims, on the basis that stringent safety precautions were in place at all times. Film badges were issued as necessary to some personnel to record radiation dosage, and environmental monitoring was undertaken. The majority of the service men involved were mustered at safe locations and advised as to what precautions they should take. Obviously, that means that some who took part in the tests were mustered at less safe locations. I think that they made up some 8 per cent. of the 1,800 in total who were issued with film badges. Obviously, there were degrees of exposure. No one, certainly in modern times, has denied that.
In response to concerns about the health of British service personnel who participated in the UK's test programme, my Department commissioned a comprehensive and independent epidemiological study by the National Radiological Protection Board and staff from the Imperial Cancer Research Fund in the early 1980s. The study—based on death certificate information and data from the national cancer registration scheme—cost £540,000 and an additional £160,000 was spent on a subsequent follow-up study. A variety of sources were consulted and, in order to secure accuracy. more than 100,000 records were examined.
The studies involved tracing the service records of 22,000 participants and identifying an equal number of servicemen matched for age and experience but who had no involvement in the test programme—the control group. The results of the study were published in 1988 and a follow-up study was later conducted and its findings published in 1993. Both studies showed conclusively that participation in the test programme had no detectable effect on the participants' expectation of life or on the risk of developing cancer or other fatal diseases.
Leukaemia and multiple myeloma were particular concerns. The 1993 report stated that the possibility that participants in the tests experienced a small risk of developing leukaemia in the first 25 years could not be ruled out. The same report also stated that the possible multiple myeloma noted in the previous 1988 report was not confirmed. A third analysis by the NRPB into the incidence of multiple myeloma, other cancers and other causes of death among test veterans was commissioned by my Department. The results of that study, which has undergone peer review, are expected to published next year. Funding of £30,000 per annum is also being provided for the maintenance of the database of veterans, which has been used during the compilation of these three studies.
I should point out that the earlier studies were reported in the British Medical Journal in January 1988 and December 1993.
Mr. Todd: Can the Minister provide more detail about how the studies examined individual

261WH
circumstances and the particular tests in which the service men participated? I raised the issue, and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) confirmed that examining 22,000 individuals might conceal a significantly greater degree of exposure among smaller groups who conducted particular operations in a particular test environment.
Dr. Moonie: Without having the substantial study in front of me, I cannot reply now other than to say that we would be prepared to consider the possibility of examining the health experience of a sub-group that received slightly higher than average doses. One has to be careful not to bias epidemiological studies; the greater proportion of the group that is separated out, the more likely the bias. The studies were paid for by the Ministry of Defence, but were constructed on the most rigorous scientific methodology available. People who know what they are talking about have held them up as models of how epidemiological studies should be carried out. When we are debating scientific research, it is important to recognise that, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) would agree.
Informed criticism and debate of scientific studies is always welcome. Having been responsible for a programme of work on Gulf veterans, I know that procedures have changed over the years and that further studies are carried out in the light of criticisms of previous ones. We maintain an open mind and want to people to be as well informed as possible about what is going on. We recognise that the over-secrecy of the past is counter-productive to honest debate.
Mr. Jenkins: Is the Minister saying that the 1,800 servicemen who were issued with film badges were not separated out and did not become part of the population to which the tests were directed? Were they lost in the greater number of 22,000, so that the figures were subsumed in a greater population than the one that we should have been assessing?
Dr. Moonie: No, that is not the case. If my hon. Friend were to examine the records of the people claiming to have suffered effects, he would find that they are not all members of that sub-group. If we want to study the effects on the group as a whole, we must study the group as a whole and not select out and bias the results. If the results are biased, the research is valueless. Frankly, speaking as a scientist and someone who was an epidemiologist in the past—if not a terribly good one in comparison with Sir Richard Doll or other such luminaries—I know that we have to be careful when constructing the population from which we draw inferences about the incidence of diseases.
There is no doubt that those who are complaining of being ill are ill. They have our greatest sympathy. After all, they are people who have served us. Sad to say, illness comes to us all with increasing age. However, where people are attributing an illness to a particular condition, we must be able to show that it is reasonable to do so.
I will return to my brief because I have a lot to cover in a short time. The British Nuclear Test Veterans Association has recently submitted a dossier to my
262WH
Department, which includes the Sunday Mirror study of the health of the grandchildren of test participants. Clarification of the methods used has been sought. Because the study has not been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, my Department will look for a source of independent review. However, it is doubtful whether such studies can be regarded as scientifically valid epidemiology. That is because they are generally based on a self-selected sample of a few hundred families with medical problems—out of more than 20,000 participants—and because there are no controls.
Obviously, we are sympathetic to those with health problems, but the seventh report of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, which was published in August this year, has dismissed ideas of a general link between preconceptional exposure to radiation and cancer in offspring. The report states:
"A number of epidemiological studies have failed to find evidence for a general PPI"—
parental preconceptional irradiation—
"effect either among … survivors of the atomic bombs in Japan or of workforces exposed to radiation."
Current information on radiation health effects suggests that studies of cancer among people who have been exposed to radiation are likely to provide a more sensitive means of detecting such effects than studies of their children.
There is no current scientific or medical evidence to show that the health problems, or other physical problems, suffered by the children or grandchildren of test veterans could be attributed to the veterans' participation in the test programme. If the nuclear test veterans have further new evidence that supports their case, I invite them to present it for independent scientific review.
Mr. Todd: Confidence in the science has been part of this debate. That confidence would increase if sufficient resources were provided to the nuclear test veterans so that they could commission their own scientific advice to input to the debate. What is the Minister's reaction to that proposal, bearing in mind the fact that the New Zealand Government have adopted such an approach?
Dr. Moonie: That is a matter for the New Zealand Government. I have studied this matter both as a Minister and as a professional in the field and I am confident that rigorous standards have been applied to the work that has been done and that no back-up is required in the form of further studies. Such studies would use essentially the same test base.
I want to comment on other studies and, in particular, on the work of Sue Rabbit-Roff, who is a medical sociologist at the University of Dundee. My Department is fully aware of her work, which is supported by the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, an organisation that covers about 10 per cent. of the known test participants. Her study is mainly descriptive and is based on the death notifications of 608 test participants, provided by the BNTVA. That figure, of course, has to be compared with the figure of more than 21,000 in the National Radiological Protection Board studies. Her study is therefore of a self-selected

263WH
population. We do not consider it to be fully representative. As her study does not use a matched control group, its methodology is open to question. She makes no attempt to compare the figures in her study with national statistics. That is in contrast with the NRPB studies, which have been fully independently reviewed and have stood up to scientific scrutiny. I should point out in passing that her work has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, as is the case with the NRPB studies.
Two test cases against the United Kingdom Government were brought before the European Court of Human Rights by the BNTVA in November 1997. The first concerned allegations that veterans were being prevented from obtaining documents required for applications for pensions. The second involved the daughter of a test veteran who was diagnosed as having leukaemia at the age of four.
The court ruled in favour of the UK Government on both occasions. In the first case, it decided that the Government had neither denied access to documents nor falsely denied the existence of related evidence. In the second case, the court found that there was no reason to suppose that the veteran in question had been exposed to dangerous levels of radiation and that there were no grounds on which the Government should have taken positive action by warning of or monitoring a risk to his daughter's health.
Those veterans appealed against the findings on the grounds of alleged new evidence. However, the European Court of Human Rights rejected their request for a revision of the judgments.
Mr. Todd: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Moonie: No, I do not have sufficient time.
Turning to the matter in hand—and to repeat what I said at the outset of my speech—there is no evidence to support the test veterans' claim that their participation in the tests has had a detectable effect on their life expectancy or their risk of developing cancer or other fatal diseases. Consequently, grounds do not exist for compensation to be paid.
However, my Department's Veterans Agency makes provision in the form of war pensions and associated benefits for ex-service personnel who suffer from an illness or injury that is attributable to their service. Over the years, many war pensions claims have been made by ex-service men who participated in the nuclear test programme.
Based on the first National Radiological Protection Board report of 1988, the normal policy was to award war pensions for claims for leukaemia—other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia—and multiple myeloma, as well as for some other illnesses such as polycythaemia. The second NRPB report led to a revision of that policy. Since its publication, on the basis of presence at atmospheric nuclear test sites, new claims for multiple myeloma are not accepted, but awards continue to be made for leukaemia—other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia—and for primary polycythaemia rubra vera that has clinical onset within 25 years of first presence at the test sites.
The reports did not causally link development of those conditions to ionising radiation exposure. Therefore, the policy is not an acknowledgment that
264WH
those present at the sites were exposed to harmful levels of ionising radiation. The accepted service link is purely presence at the test sites.
The reports do not provide reliable evidence to raise a reasonable doubt that other cancers—such as liver and bladder cancer—might be attributable to service in the armed forces because of presence at the sites. Consequently, awards are not made for solid cancers on the basis of presence at atmospheric nuclear test detonations or clean-up operations alone. However, an award of a war pension for cancer may be made in any case where there is reliable evidence of service exposure to a sufficient level of ionising radiation and a recognised causal link between the claimed condition and such accepted exposure.
Compensation to service personnel of other states who participated in the UK nuclear tests has been the subject of some debate, particularly with regard to the Governments of Australia and New Zealand. In 1983, the results of a study commissioned by the Australian Government into the health of Australian participants in the UK tests that were conducted on Australian territory indicated no increase in adverse health outcomes.
It has often been claimed that, in 1993, the UK Government were prepared to pay £20 million in compensation to Australian nuclear test veterans at the expense of their own test veterans; although that claim has not been made today. That sum was paid to the Australian Government, but it was a contribution towards the clean-up operation at the Maralinga range in South Australia, which is now complete.
In Australia, military nuclear test veterans can apply for an award through the military compensation and rehabilitation scheme in respect of injury and disease resulting from their participation in the British nuclear tests. Where it is confirmed that a claimant has been exposed to ionising radiation and they present with a disease that is characteristic of such exposure, claims are accepted without further investigation and compensation is paid. That is similar to the process that is followed in the UK.
I understand that nine payments have so far been made to Australian service men, and that several other cases are under consideration, with each case being decided on the basis of available evidence. The health disorders for which payments have been made include malignant neoplasms and skin conditions.
In New Zealand, veterans who participated in the British nuclear tests are eligible for full coverage under the Pensions Act 1954. A veteran may lodge a claim for any disability. Acceptance of the claim is subject to medical verification of the disability and acceptance that the condition is attributable to the veteran's service. Benefit of the doubt is exercised in favour of the veteran if there is any uncertainty as to whether a disability is attributable.
As in the United Kingdom, the war disablement pension is tax-free and, once awarded, paid for life in weekly payments. There are no known cases of nuclear test veterans having been paid compensation by the New Zealand Government. Four nuclear test veterans

265WH
have lodged claims for damages against that Government in the High Court. The claims are current, so obviously I cannot comment on them.
Mr. John Cummings (in the Chair): Order. We must now move to the next business.

Scottish Fishing Industry
11 am
Mr. Alan Reid: I would like to thank the Speaker for choosing Scotland's fishing industry as the matter for debate today, at this critical time for the industry.
There is absolutely no doubt that our fish and fish processing industries are facing a crisis. If the European Union's current recommendations were put into effect, there would be devastating job losses, not only in fishing communities but in the fish processing industry, and those industries are often scattered throughout the country.
Angus Robertson: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Is he as surprised as I am by the article written by the Prime Minister in this morning's Daily Record, in which he estimates that more than 14,000 jobs are connected to the industry? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there are far more than 14,000 jobs at stake in the current crisis?
Mr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Yes, certainly the figures that I have seen show that there would be far more than 14,000 jobs at stake. The Prime Minister, in those comments this morning, underestimates the scale of the crisis that the Scottish economy faces.
Although fish processing factories throughout the country would suffer losses, the weight of the losses would mainly fall on fishing communities where the bulk of fishing is for white fish. Such communities are, by their very nature, isolated, and there is therefore little prospect of replacing the jobs lost in fishing with jobs in other sectors. Make no mistake: the loss of the way of life in those fishing communities and the destruction of jobs would be for ever. The 80 per cent. cut that the European Commission is proposing in the white fish fleet would bankrupt the industry. The loss of the infrastructure would mean that even if quotas were restored in several years, there would be no vessels left, no processing industry, and no skills left to restart the industries.
The Commission's reason for the shutdown is supposedly to save cod, but its proposals are based on dubious science. For a start, the scientific data on which the proposals are based are a year out of date. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea report does not take into account many things that have happened in the past 12 months, such as the 2002 decommissioning schemes, under which 100 vessels in Scotland, and 70 each in Denmark and England, were decommissioned. As well as that decommissioning, licences have been sold to the pelagic fleet, and boats have often been sold to other countries. That would take the real reduction in fishing effort in Scotland to well over the 100 vessels decommissioned.
The effect of decommissioning was a reduction in effort of 8.6 million kW days in Scotland alone. We have to add to that the extra losses because of vessels sold elsewhere. Also, the ICES report does not take into account the technical measures introduced at the beginning of the year, such as the increase in mesh size in the EU sector of the North sea north of Newcastle.

267WH
Scientific research commissioned by the Scottish Executive shows that those technical measures are working. They are allowing the small fish to escape. However, the best evidence that the cod recovery plan is working comes from the ICES report and I quote its figures. In the North sea in 2001, the spawning stock biomass for cod was 30,200 tonnes. In 2002, that went up to 37,600 tonnes. That increase is not far short of the 30 per cent. target set for the current cod recovery plan. There are even larger increases in the Irish sea and off the west coast of Scotland. That is hardly evidence of a species in decline and it is absolutely no justification for the draconian action that Franz Fischler is proposing.
I shall summarise the scientific position. During the past year, Scottish fishermen have implemented decommissioning and technical measures. Cod stocks have risen during the same period. That is surely evidence that the present cod recovery plan is working and it does not support bringing the plan to an end and wiping out the industry.
The ICES report that recommended the draconian action was published only at the end of October. However, the European Union Fisheries Council will meet in a couple of weeks, in the middle of December, to discuss shutting down the industry. The six-week period between publication of the report and the meeting is not nearly sufficient time to discuss the evidence and to reach a proper and considered conclusion.
Ann Winterton: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has thought that the conservation issue is being used as an excuse for integration within Europe? That is the reason why so many Scottish fishermen, in particular, have to go—to accommodate others who are coming in.
Mr. Reid: I have no evidence to support conspiracy theories; I would rather stick to the facts.
The cod recovery plan is working, but discussions will be held soon to shut down the whole industry without proper consideration. The sensible course of action would be to continue discussing the measures while allowing a proper assessment of the situation and a discussion of proper alternatives. It is important that the fishing industry is properly involved in the discussions because the livelihood of people in that industry is at stake.
Most of the fishing off my west-coast constituency is for nephrops—or prawns, as they are more generally known. The way in which the nephrops quota for next year has been handled is another example of just how confused the EU Commission is. I suspect that there is more confusion than conspiracy.
Everyone agrees that nephrop stocks are strong, but European Commissioner Franz Fischler threatened nephrop fishermen with extinction, all in the name of saving the cod, because he believed from the report that there was significant cod by-catch due to nephrop fishing. When the ICES report was published, Franz Fischler said in a press release:
"Our own scientific and economic committee is currently evaluating the ICES advice and will give its own opinion on II November. Unless it says anything different, which is very unlikely, I can see no other solution in the short term than to propose for 2003 … substantial reductions for … nephrops."
268WH
Two weeks later, he did not propose what he said that he intended. Instead of proposing substantial cuts for nephrops, he proposed a 5 per cent. cut. We can assume only that his scientific advisers advised him that the ICES report was wrong about nephrops.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): From the UK position, we can claim some credit for that. We sent detailed scientific advice to demonstrate to the Commission that cod by-catch in the nephrop sector was minimal. That shows the advantage of making a case based on a good, logical and scientific background. It also demonstrates that change can occur if a good case is made.
Mr. Reid: I am grateful to the Minister. I was planning to deal with that later. I agree that UK scientists did a good job on nephrops and that the Minister did a good job when he argued the case at the Council.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Given that encouragement, would it not be a good idea for the Commission to have scientific assessments of the changes with regard to 110 mm nets, square mesh panels and the impact of 20 per cent. of decommissioning during the past year? If it had received that timeously, it would not have had only the past few days, as it said this week, to look at the substantial body of evidence that was ignored in the ICES assessment.
Mr. Reid: Yes, it is important that everything is taken into account. I believe that that scientific analysis had not been prepared at the time of the ICES report. Now that that information has been published, it is important that it is fully taken into account by the Fisheries Council before it makes a decision.
That the Commission got it badly wrong over nephrops and United Kingdom scientists got it exactly right—something that the Commission has now accepted—shows the fallibility of the ICES report. If it was fallible with regard to nephrops, there is a good chance that it was fallible about cod. I am grateful to the Minister for sending me the graph that shows that reducing catches of nephrops may be bad, not good, news, for cod. The figures show that there is a negative correlation between landings of nephrops and landings of cod, whereas the Commission was arguing the opposite. They show just how little scientists understand how different species of fish inter-react with one another.
Published scientific data give us a reasonably good estimate of the size of stocks at a particular time, but not what is happening regarding the interrelation between the different stocks and why such changes are occurring. However, we can speculate about that and one reason for the reduction in cod stocks in the southern part of the North sea could be global warming. Scientific data show that cod are far healthier in the northern part of the North sea than in the southern part.
Prawns eat cod spawn. It is possible therefore that cutting prawn catches could be bad for cod—the opposite of the Commission's original proposals. We all agree that the cod by-catch from prawn fishing is

269WH
insignificant and that the Commission's 5 per cent. cut should be resisted. The United Kingdom was successful in resisting the 25 per cent. cut last year and I hope that it will be successful in resisting the 5 per cent. cut this year.
Although the nephrops fishery is not threatened with anywhere near the same disaster as the white fish industry, prawn fishermen on the west coast of Scotland are worried that if Franz Fischler's draconian measures are put through, their livelihoods could be threatened due to displaced effort of the white fish fleet fishing instead for cod. I hope that the Government will put in place measures to stop that displaced effort and that small, local prawn fisheries will be protected from the threats posed by larger boats.
The Clyde Fishermen's Association already operates conservation measures. For example, a box is closed between February and April to protect the cod and there is a 70-ft limit on white fish vessels in the Clyde. The association has proposed further conservation measures. It suggests, for example, that the 70-ft limit should apply to all fishing vessels and that an engine size limit would be a better guide than the 70-ft limit.
Local fishermen's observations are also important and should be taken into account. They have told me that the area of seabed in the Clyde that is covered with mud has increased over the years and that the area covered with sand and gravel has decreased. Given that prawns favour a mud bottom and that cod favour sand and gravel, that could be another explanation for the fall in cod stocks. The Clyde Fishermen's Association has commissioned research into that phenomenon. There should be conservation measures, and scientific research with fishermen, scientists and Governments working together is how the whole fishing industry should be managed—by regional management committees, not by panic-stricken draconian edicts from the Commission with which we have been threatened recently.
Andrew George: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a sound case. He responsibly emphasised the importance of sticking to sound science and the responsible approach taken unilaterally by fishermen in Scotland to attempt to manage their fish stocks themselves. Does he agree that the United Kingdom must make a strong case to the European Commission not to have regional advisory committees, but to have strong, regional management committees with real teeth so that fish stocks can be managed more effectively within fishing regions?
Mr. Reid: My hon. Friend is right. That is how the common fisheries policy should progress. The regional advisory committees that are proposed by the Commission certainly provide a step in the right direction, but they do not go far enough. They should be given real teeth and real management powers.
Another area of concern to fishermen on the west coast is the proposal to change the scallop-testing regime. It is important that the Food Standards Agency works with the fishing industry to devise a scheme that is viable for the fishing industry and ensures safety for consumers.
In two weeks, the European Fisheries Council will discuss the reform of the CFP and the total allowable catches for next year. There is little, if anything, that I
270WH
would disagree with in the Government's proposals regarding CFP reform. Many of the Commission's proposals provide steps in the right direction and it is important that many of them go through. What is most important of all is that the present six and 12-mile limits should be made permanent. It is vital that that is agreed in December.
The Minister has a good case to put to the European Fisheries Council against the Commission's proposal for an 80 per cent. cut. We all know, however, that when it comes to meetings of the Council of Ministers science often goes out of the window and horse trading is the name of the game. Britain lost out during the horse trading earlier this year on the allocation of deep sea quotas off the west coast of Scotland. The original scientific proposal had recommended effort control and specifically rejected TACs. At the Council of Ministers meeting, however, that recommendation was overturned. We do not know exactly what happened at that meeting, since one of the many ways in which the Council is wrong is that it meets in secret. It certainly appeared that a political fix was proposed by the Spanish presidency and that the Dutch and the Irish, who originally opposed the Spanish proposal, were bought off by the promise of increased quotas. At the last minute the Spanish proposal was accepted. That meant that the Fisheries Council adopted a proposal that flew in the face of scientific advice and which also gave a miserably low quota to Scottish fisherman, who are based the closest to the fishing grounds. That example shows what is wrong with the way in which the CFP operates at present. It appears that the United Kingdom was outmanoeuvred in the negotiations. I hope that that will not happen at the December Council meeting, because the stakes will be much higher.
It is vital that the United Kingdom succeeds this time. The Government must make it clear to other countries that we are serious and that we are determined to win the argument and save the fishing industry. It is not good enough to huff and puff, bang the table, make a lot of noise about sticking up for the industry and then lose the argument. It is vital that we negotiate seriously and win. It is important that the Government send a high-powered delegation. Other countries will send Cabinet Ministers—the Scottish Executive will send one. I have every regard for the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), but, unfortunately, he is not in the Cabinet. In order to send the right signal a Cabinet Minister should attend. A solution would be for the Prime Minister to promote the Under-Secretary of State to the Cabinet—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear!"] I see that that has widespread support. I hope that the Prime Minister is listening. It is important that we send the right signals and a high-level delegation.
The Government must do all that they can to resist Franz Fischler's draconian cuts. The scientific evidence that I outlined earlier indicated that the present cod recovery plan is working and that should be allowed to continue. The Government must enter the negotiations determined to succeed and they must succeed, otherwise our fishing communities will be devastated for no reason.
11. 18 am
Miss Anne Begg: I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) on securing the debate. It will give us all a chance to contribute to the debate on what is happening in the Scottish fishing industry. This time of year is always a worrying time, although this year seems to be even more worrying than past years. I get a sense of having been here before. This is like "Groundhog Day". Each year, the same crisis and the same problems seem to arise. Here we are again.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is present when the Government send their delegation to the European Commission to argue on behalf of the Scottish fishermen and United Kingdom fishing industry. I do not want to be too sooky to him, but he knows more than any other Minister in Westminster or the Scottish Parliament—or the rest of Europe—about the needs of the UK fishing industry and the importance of the Scottish fishing industry to the Scottish economy. He is extremely well versed in all of the arguments about that. I do not want to put pressure on him, but I will do so; it is now up to him to speak up on behalf of the Scottish fishermen and to ensure that there is a resolution to this crisis.
The fishing industry is very important in my constituency; there are still some fishermen who live in it. Although the port is just outside it in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran), most of the fish houses are in my constituency. In Aberdeen alone, at least 2,000 people work in the fish processing industry and half of them are my constituents. I say that despite the fact that I am sitting with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge). Because of the geography of my constituency, a lot of the workers in the food processing industry are my constituents and more than half of the workers in that industry work in my constituency—they travel to it every day. Therefore, it is an important industry.
I appreciate the fact that Scottish fishermen have strong feelings about the fact that their livelihood could be decimated if the proposals from the EU Commission are implemented. However, there are onshore repercussions too and I hope that hon. Members will not mind if I concentrate on them, as I am sure that many contributors will talk about the offshore side of the industry.
As they stand, the Commission's proposals are unacceptable—I think that everyone agrees that that is the case. Any attempt to ensure that the cod stocks recover—or to prevent any cut in the cod stocks—will result in the closure of the white fish fisheries. All hon. Members who are present know—because they constitute a more knowledgeable audience than most in this House—that if fishermen are not allowed to fish for cod they will not be able to fish for haddock or whiting either because we are discussing mixed fisheries.
In effect, what is being proposed is closure; that is unacceptable. Even if it were possible to fish for some cod, the amount of haddock and whiting that could be caught would not sustain the industry. Any major cut in the amount of white fish that can be fished would have a devastating effect on all of the communities on the north-east coast of Scotland.
272WH
Sometimes it is said that that would be all right for the fish processors because they could import white fish—frozen or not—from around the world. That might be true for some of the bigger fish processors, but I recently heard an estimate that if no white fish was fished in the North sea we would be lucky if two or three of the very large processors in Aberdeen survived. Moreover, most of the fish houses are fairly small businesses and it would be devastating to them if no local fish could be landed and processed.
Therefore, the key issue is not just the amount of fish that is available for processing; it must be local fresh fish, as any dependence on imports would be devastating to the community. In most fish houses in Aberdeen, less than 40 per cent. of the fish that is processed is imported. No company could survive the loss of 60 per cent. of its production. Many fish processors operate on narrow margins as things are. As I said, we have been here before—we have had crises upon crises and therefore several of the processors are already highly indebted to the banks. Obviously, they are concerned that any reduction in their throughput could be the final straw that will lead to their closure.
I would be concerned even if there were to be a short-term closure. The proposal states that if cod stocks recover, we can return to fishing for cod, haddock and whiting. That was tried with herring in the 1970s, and the skills that were needed to process herring were lost. Such jobs are highly skilled. I know that people do not think of fish processors as particularly highly skilled, but they are. It takes several years to become a skilled gutter. It is not the most glamorous of jobs, or popular, but it is a job in which many take great pride. If we find that there is not enough haddock and cod to be processed and if the fish houses close, even temporarily, people will find other jobs. One young girl told me recently that she was going to become a care worker, for a lot less money than she would receive working as a fish processor. She did not want to smell of fish any more. For some people that is quite a nice thing, but she thought that she was not going to get a boyfriend while she smelled of fish, and becoming a care worker was attractive to her.
Fortunately, most people who work in the fish processing industry do not think like that, but if opportunities come up, and they find themselves out of work, they will find other jobs. They will not sit and twiddle their thumbs waiting for the fish industry to recover.
Mr. Peter Duncan: Does the hon. Lady share my concern that not only is there a possibility that people will leave the industry, but there is a specific risk that they will leave rural Scotland? That is one of the most substantial risks in the whole process.
Miss Begg: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Being an Aberdeen Member of Parliament, I suppose that I tend to look at things from an urban perspective. I would hope that because people like living in Aberdeen, they will continue to live and work there. He is absolutely right. If one considers the smaller communities throughout the north-east of Scotland, whether it is Johnshaven, Gourdon or those further north, there are no other jobs for people to take. I appreciate that in Aberdeen, where there are other jobs

273WH
available, we are in a slightly better position than that of many fishing communities. The hon. Members who represent those communities will put their cases forward this morning, and the sense of crisis and fear is much greater in those communities than in Aberdeen.
That is not to say that that feeling is not present in Aberdeen, as is the fear that an industry could be lost as the result of even a temporary closure. My appeal to the Minister is to ensure that that does not happen. We must retain the skills, and the people working in the industry, to ensure that they are not lost. During a temporary closure, the infrastructure is lost, and markets can be lost, which happened to herring in the 1970s. The public taste for herring disappeared and that market has never properly recovered. It is not as simple as saying, "If we do not fish for cod, the cod stocks will recover." What is the point of their recovering if the taste for cod has gone and the processing skills and fishermen have gone as well?
There has been much argument about the reliability of the science. I am not going to get into an argument today about how reliable the science is. If the Commission is proposing any action, it has to be convinced that that action will work. If the proposal is to ensure that the cod stocks recover, the Commission has to be sure that that will happen. I have it on good authority that when there was a moratorium on cod fishing off the coast of Canada, the cod stocks did not recover because cod is one of the fish that is preyed upon. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute mentioned that prawn feed on cod spawn. The very action that the Commission is proposing may decimate the cod stocks further, rather than leading to their recovery. Hopefully, one of the arguments that the Minister will take to the Commission is that its proposal will not have the end result for which it is hoping. Apart from the devastating effect on the communities, it will not help the cod to recover.
When we discuss what we do not want the Commission to do, we also need to come up with solutions. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute that the cod recovery plan has been working because cod stocks have, to some extent, recovered. Measures that Scottish fishermen have already taken, such as decommissioning—there has been a great deal of decommissioning—increased mesh sizes and the introduction of square mesh panels, are beginning to show results. I appreciate that the results are fairly new, but I hope that the Minister will take them to the Commission to ensure that the measures that Scottish fishermen have introduced are taken into account. Progress may have been slow, but it has been made. The proposed draconian measures would set that progress back and would not achieve the Commission's objective.
Ultimately, we have to look at the reform of the common fisheries policy. It seems like "Groundhog Day" as we lurch from crisis to crisis, which is not the way to maintain a sustainable, long-term industry. We cannot have a yearly round in which the Commission makes a proposal to which everybody in the Scottish fishing industry reacts adversely. Since I was elected, I seem to have delivered almost the same speech every year about the need for sustainable fisheries. The
274WH
solution is the reform of the CFP and zonal management, which would make people responsible for the areas in which they fish. That would turn fishermen into harvesters rather than hunters, as they are at the moment. There would be an incentive to ensure that stocks were kept high because they would be the fishermen's future, their children's future and the Scottish fishing industry's future.
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute for giving me the chance to speak this morning. I hope that the Minister is taking seriously the plight of not only Scottish fishermen but the onshore, industry. I hope that he delivers a tough talk to the Commission to ensure that it changes its plans.
11.32 am
Mr. Michael Weir: I also congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) on securing the debate, which is important. It is particularly timely because tomorrow there will be a mass lobby of the Scottish Parliament in which a petition against the European Union proposals will be presented to the Public Petitions Committee. Make no mistake, the issue is causing great alarm and fear in north and east Scotland.
Unfortunately, there is little fishing left in my constituency, although there was once a busy fishing port in Arbroath. There is, however, a large fish processing industry, which the proposals from Europe would destroy along with many jobs. In the town of Arbroath, we have collected some 4.000 signatures to the petition to the Scottish Parliament in just a few days, which amply demonstrates the concerns felt for the future of the fishing industry in one small town.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute also highlighted the problems facing the prawn fishery in his area. Boats from Arbroath, which is in my constituency, mainly fish for prawns. They used to fish for haddock, but earlier cuts have all but destroyed that fishery. They changed to prawns to survive and if the EU proposal goes ahead we have to ask whether many more boats will try to move into the prawn fishery, which would cause problems for it. In the future, we may be back here discussing European Union proposals for drastic reductions in the prawn fishery.
Perhaps the greatest irony is that the recommendations have come about because of the alleged state of the cod stocks. The vast majority of Scottish boats target other stocks, with which it is generally agreed that there is not such a problem. However, the Scottish fleet will be destroyed by the proposal. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea recommends the closure of all fisheries where cod may be caught, even as a by-catch, which would obviously result in the complete closure of the haddock and whiting fisheries. Such a move would immediately result in a drastic reduction in Scottish fisheries. Even the alternative proposals from the Commission for an 80 per cent. reduction in the total allowable catch for white fish would be little better than total closure because the industry could not survive such a reduction.
Much has been said about fishermen's attitude to the matter. Indeed, during the previous debate on this subject accusations were made that many fishermen

275WH
were trying to get round measures to conserve fish. Specifically, it was alleged that higher mesh sizes would have no effect because some fishermen were using their nets upside down. I want to quote from a letter from a fisherman, John Clark of Macduff, which appeared in this Monday's edition of The Press and Journal, in which he describes fishing in such a way. He says:
"on top of a net there are normally an average of around 60 floats to keep the net open. On the bottom of these nets are heavy rock hopper discs which weigh around one or two tonnes, so letting a net out upside down would mean the heavy rock hopper discs would have to be at the top of the net. I have been a skipper … for nine years and I can assure"—
you—
"that if you were to do this you would not catch one single fish, and probably your net would be torn to shreds."
Why do some people believe all ill of our fishermen and their efforts to conserve stocks in the North sea, yet remain unwilling to tackle some of the real problems with the North sea fishery—especially the impact of industrial fishing on fish stocks?
Some of the Minister's colleagues have been attacking fishermen, but he seems to have united them—if only, for the moment—against himself. I stress to him that Scottish fishermen have accepted many measures to deal voluntarily with stocks in the North sea. They have accepted larger net sizes and used them properly. They have accepted voluntary tie-ups. Boats have been decommissioned. Yet they are not given credit for that; they are attacked in the manner that I described. As the Minister well knows, the original proposal made to the Commission did not take into account those measures taken by Scottish fishermen, and the Commission had not even received the research commissioned by the Scottish Executive. Can he assure us that all that information has been put forcibly to the Commission and that it will be taken into account in the discussions at the Council? When Scottish fishermen visited Brussels, they were given the impression that the Commission was not in the least bit interested in the measures that they had taken.
Despite what has been said about them and what happened at the Commission, Scottish fishermen by and large accept that to do nothing is not an option. However, they believe, as I do, that any action plan should look to maintain the integrity of the industry, with the long-term objective of developing and maintaining a sustainable and viable industry for catching and for processing. The Scottish Fish Merchants Federation has put forward proposals including zonal management, central to which would be the establishment of exclusive zones favouring cod. In other areas, fishing would be permitted, including, for example, a haddock quota—although we would have to accept that that might be reduced in the circumstances—and a cod by-catch.
The federation's information is based on research by Professor McIntyre of Aberdeen university. It believes that it may be possible to achieve a two-thirds reduction in cod catch, combined with only a one-third reduction in haddock and whiting catch. Other sensible measures such as real-time closures have been proposed as practical ways for the industry and the Commission to work together. The fishermen are willing to work on this, but are the Government and the Commission willing to show the same commitment to the North sea?
276WH
Why are we rushing into this disaster? Given the seriousness of the situation for the Scottish fishing and fish processing industries, it is not unreasonable to ask that we stop and draw breath—that we have a short moratorium on a decision before condemning whole industries and communities around the north and east of Scotland.
The EU Commissioner has stated that the industry will not be expected to bear the burden alone. Fishermen and companies directly disadvantaged by the primary cuts in the cod quota should expect appropriate compensation. Indeed, to be fair, the Minister has hinted that in the event of a closure or a very substantial reduction there may be decommissioning schemes. That is all very well, and it would help to some extent those engaged in fishing and fish processing—although in Scotland the bulk of the cost would probably be borne by the Executive, not the UK Government—but it will not protect jobs for the future in the rural communities of north and east Scotland. Boats that are decommissioned or a plant that is shut cannot employ people in the future. Inevitably that will lead to further, perhaps drastic, economic decline in many fishing communities in Scotland.
Today, we heard about the article in the Daily Record by the Prime Minister, which said that some 14,000 jobs are dependent on fishing. That is a gross underestimate of the total. The Scottish Executive figures refer to 44,000 jobs being directly or indirectly dependent. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) noted that in the town of Fraserburgh in his constituency some 55 per cent. of those in work depend on the fishing industry. It is a huge industry in Scotland and it is despicable that the Prime Minister does not seem to understand the scale of the problem that is facing north and east Scotland.
Mr. Morley: No one underestimates the scale of the problem for the Scottish industry, but it is important not to talk it up to sections of the industry, such as those dealing with nephrops or the pelagic fishing and other sectors that are not facing as severe a situation as the white fish fleet. The figures are taken on the basis of those people who are directly involved. No one is being complacent about the situation or underestimating its impact, but we must try to be as accurate as possible about everything.
Mr. Weir: The 44,000 figure comes from the Scottish Executive and a large percentage of those people are directly involved in the white fish industry. We are not being alarmist: there is a serious problem. Scottish fishing has for many decades been sold out in European negotiations. We seem to have reached an impasse. If that happens again, it may mean the death of the white fish industry.
Mr. Salmond: I happen to have the Prime Minister's article here. It clearly states:
"More than 14,000 jobs are connected to this industry",

277WH
meaning the fishing industry in Scotland. The article is absolutely clear. If the Prime Minister, six weeks into this crisis, realised the scale of the industry—44,000 jobs throughout Scotland—perhaps he would be three times as concerned as he seems to be.
Mr. Weir: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.
Ann Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for supporting the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) in his attack on the Prime Minister. The fact is that the Prime Minister has only influence, not power. The Scottish National party however stands for an independent Scotland and it believes that if Scotland had true independence it would have the power to control Scottish fishing policy. It is sadly mistaken. The leader of the SNP has said that such policy would be part of the EU—the acquis communautaire would be signed and Scotland would be in exactly the same position that it is in today.
Mr. John Cummings (in the Chair): Order. Interventions should be brief.
Mr. Weir: I do not agree with the hon. Lady at all.
Ann Winterton: Of course the hon. Gentleman does not.
Mr. Weir: Tory conspiracy theories about the EU abound, but when the Tory party was in power, it sold out the Scottish fishing industry on successive occasions —[Interruption.]
Mr. John Cummings (in the Chair): Order. Hon. Members must obey the Chair.
Mr. Weir: All the blame cannot be put on this Government, although they are not blameless.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) mentioned the herring industry. That is a measure of what could happen. Although herring stocks are now increasing according to the ICES report, little expertise exists for dealing with herring, nor is there much of a market for it, because of the previous closure of the fishery. If the white fishery were closed, is it not the case that the same would happen to the Scottish fleet and the processing industry? Even if stocks were to recover, Scotland would not receive the benefit and our fleet and industry would have long gone.
As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South said, the fish processing industry is irrevocably linked to the fate of the fishing industry. If the white fish fishery is closed or severely restricted, it will devastate the fish processing industry. The large processors—the Young's of this world—may well survive, because they will have the economic power to import fish from overseas. Indeed, I suspect that some of them already do so. The small producers do not have that option; they rely exclusively on fish landed at Scottish ports. Small fish processors in Arbroath in my constituency buy their fish from the fish markets in Aberdeen and Peterhead. They do not have
278WH
access to fish from overseas. They do not require the quantities and therefore do not have the economic leverage to import fish.
Arbroath has a specific problem because it requires haddock. There are many small family processors in the town and they produce the world-famous Arbroath smokie, which relies on a steady and reliable supply of haddock. You cannot make smokies from other types of fish. The supply is now in doubt and the future of the smokie hangs in the balance. Make no mistake, if the haddock goes, the smokie goes with it and the smokie is part not only of Arbroath's heritage but of its potential future. Only a few months ago, there was an Adjournment debate on attempts to have the smokie protected under European regulations. Now it appears that we have to try to protect it from the European Commission. There were high hopes that the smokie could find new markets and help the economic recovery in Arbroath, but all that could now go.
Processors and fishermen cannot understand why only last year there was an increase in the haddock quota and smokie production was able to increase. For a short time, the Minister was even a hero among those in the fishing industry. Yet this year we are talking about complete closure and the devastation of an industry as a result of what appear to be panic measures to protect cod. Fish processors cannot make plans because they do not know from one year to the next what fish they can have. One processor told me that he did not know whether to buy a new van to go to the fish market in Aberdeen because he did not know whether there would be a fish market to go to by January.
I do not question the science, but I question the way in which the European Commission has interpreted it. If the science was wrong last year in relation to the quotas, can we be sure that it is correct this year, without taking into account all the matters that have been referred to? Are we on the point of destroying a major industry and bringing untold misery to the north and east of Scotland for nothing? The Minister should be in no doubt that the issue is vital in Scotland. A poll by System Three showed that 73 per cent. of Scots consider the future of the fishing industry to be very important and a further 21 per cent. consider it to be quite important. I hope that Ministers will give the matter the same priority when they go to Brussels.
11.47 am
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I also congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid), not only on securing this debate but on giving a balanced speech. This has generally been a well-balanced discussion.
At the last Scottish Office questions, I raised two important points. It is important that the science is accurate. That point was well made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute and by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) and I think that it has also been raised by the industry. Questions about the science relate to the fact that the mathematical model is new and it is untested at present. We need to be certain that our decisions are made on a sound and accurate basis.
At Scottish Office questions, I also raised the importance of conserving not only the fish but the catching and processing sides of the fishing industry. My

279WH
right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland gave a very satisfactory answer to my question. I reiterate the compliment that has already been paid both to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the Minister. I agree that he is well worthy of Cabinet rank. There is a general recognition that we are well represented not only by Ministers here but in the Scottish Executive.
On the whole, the debate has shown that there is good all-party co-operation on the issue. I was a little sorry that, in an otherwise good speech by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), we entered into a rather sterile debate about whether the words in a newspaper article referred to the most directly affected—
Mr. Weir: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it important that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom knows the full extent of the damage to Scotland? There is a huge difference between 14,000 and 44,000.
Mr. Savidge: The difference lies in whether one is talking about people involved in part of the fishing industry or in the fishing industry as a whole. We know that tabloid articles simplify things, so it is silly for us to get involved in sterile party political point scoring when the parties share similar feelings about the matter and the industry wants us to work together on its behalf.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Let us leave the job figures aside for a moment. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister gives another so-called fact in the same article. He says:
"North Sea haddock is well down too."
The Prime Minister should be aware, as the hon. Gentleman is, that the spawning stock biomass for haddock is at its highest level since 1971. Will the hon. Gentleman explain that?
Mr. Savidge: I agree that haddock stocks are well up. I am not prepared to analyse the text of the article in the Daily Record, which I have not read.
I want to move on from party political point scoring to the importance of the industry. Global warming has been a contributory factor in the reduction of cod stocks for two main reasons: it is believed to have an effect on breeding patterns, and cold water fish tend to swim further north. I have been told that the fish used to be full of roe, but now they appear to lack it. We must also recognise that over-fishing has contributed to the problem. In part, we can blame foreign and factory fishing, and it is reasonable for us to say that factory fishing should be curtailed. Fishing for sand eels also affects the food chain for cod.
There is also the problem of the by-catch of small fish. It would be reasonable for us to ask for far stricter inspection of factory ships and for them to be banned from sensitive areas. There is also a strong argument for the total decommissioning of fishing for Norwegian pout, which is largely a mixed catch of fish containing a large amount of small fish. Scotland has had to accept a great deal of decommissioning, so we may reasonably ask Denmark—Norwegian pout is caught mostly by Danish fishing—to decommission its vessels.
Mr. Salmond: I very much agree, but the question of industrial fishery relates not only to the white fish that
280WH
get caught up in it but to the removal of the food source from the sea. There is anecdotal evidence of a substantial recovery in certain stocks in areas such as the Wee Bankie after they were closed. Does not the hon. Gentleman find it remarkable that we have not scientifically analysed and made the connection between allowing more food in an area and having more fish?
Mr. Savidge: I have disagreed with the hon. Gentleman's party in the past, but I am glad to agree with him now. His point was exactly the one that I was making. If sand eel fishing is to continue, we should be able to say that certain sensitive areas should not be fished, because fishing removes a basic food resource from the food chain, as the hon. Gentleman says.
In Scotland, we have already taken action on decommissioning, as I said. It should also be recognised that we have taken action on mesh size and square panels. If we are facing a crisis, we should insist on the early introduction of the appropriate mesh size and square panels for fishing in sensitive areas.
As we said, cod stocks are down. Most of the fish that tend to be part of the same mixed fishery are haddock, whiting and saithe, stocks of which are currently up, as far as we can tell. Incidentally, because of their life-cycle, cod tend to predate on nephrops and herring, which are both up at present. The cycle is counter-balancing because, at different stages, they, in turn, predate on cod. An excessive reduction in the domestic fishing catch would certainly have a devastating effect not only on the catching but on the processing industry.
To back up my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South, representatives of the processing industry recently told us that many firms in Aberdeen—it is even worse in other north-eastern areas—are between 40 and 90 per cent. dependent on domestic fish. It is untrue to claim that they can rely solely on imports: some can, but others would go to the wall. Knock-on effects would also harm employment outwith the fishing industry.
We should continue to examine decommissioning throughout Europe. I prefer long-term to short-term solutions such as tie-up, though there might be a case for considering days at sea again. On decommissioning, we should consider not only owners but trawlermen and workers within the industry. The Government's recent action on compensation in respect of the Icelandic cod wars provides a good example of assessing impacts on everyone in the industry—not just those at the top. It is vital to recognise common interests and the industry needs to co-operate. We must encourage co-operation between organisations representing the catching side of the industry, those on the processing side and the trade unions. We need more dialogue and co-operation across the industry during this crisis.
Finally, we must cut out cheating. Arguments about others cheating—whether in other parts of Europe or other parts of the industry—can always be heard. At a time of crisis, the temptation to cheat is always greater, but it is vital to eliminate it. It is in the interests of all to have improved surveillance and enforcement. Satellite surveillance is already present, but it is in the industry's own interest to increase it. We need greater stringency of inspection and the registration of buyers and sellers.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South said, in citing one of the processors, we need to move from a hunter-gatherer industry with a plentiful supply

281WH
to one based on a farmed and harvested resource that must be conserved for the long-term interests of the industry. I repeat that we often end up in a panic at this time of year, so it must be possible to work towards longer-term planning in Europe.
11.58 am
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I, too, join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) on securing this debate. It has often struck me as a parliamentary curiosity that we congratulate each other on winning a raffle, but on this occasion I congratulate my hon. Friend not just on securing the debate but on delivering a well balanced and thoughtful speech, which was commendable for its detail and handling of the issues. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) knows that I was born and brought up in his constituency and it is satisfying to see that my own family's concerns remain in good hands.
The other great cliché of Westminster Hall debates is that the debate is timely. It is difficult to imagine a more timely debate in view of the present position of the Fisheries Council. However, I did not realise just how timely it was until I picked up my copy of the Daily Record this morning over what became a rather spoiled breakfast in the Tea Room. I do not know whether that is your paper of choice, Mr. Benton, but if it is not, I commend it to you. I certainly commend its, "Save our Supper" campaign. That is an excellent example of how a responsible tabloid can campaign for an industry that is crucial to parts of Scotland beyond those that are represented here today.
Unfortunately, like other hon. Members, I have been less than impressed by the Prime Minister's article in that paper. Reference has been made to the 14,000 jobs and I find that situation difficult to explain. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North was asked to explain the Prime Minister's assertion that haddock stocks were down, given that the spawning stock biomass, which is the important indicator for fish stocks, is manifestly up.
Mr. Morley: I gave those hon. Members who met with me the clear figures relating to the North sea. We have had one of the best spawning years for haddock for a long time, which means that there is a lot of haddock in the sea, but recruitment in the past few years has been poor, so there will be a decline in the overall haddock stocks. That cannot be ignored.
Mr. Carmichael: I certainly do not ignore that issue, any more than the Minister or the Prime Minister should ignore the fact that the SSB is at an all-time high. Having read the Prime Minister's article, I am afraid that I am left with the image of a world war one general sending his infantry men over the top, while carefully crafting a plan to blast them with their own heavy artillery, machine guns and tanks from behind.
The Minister may be able to assist us on one point. Incidentally, I presume that the Prime Minister wrote the article because it says that he did. I am sure that he would not have let anyone else write it for him. I did wonder whether someone from a school on work experience at No. 10 Downing street had written it for him, but no. The Prime Minister says:
282WH
"I met with Mr Fischler. We—"
whoever that is: it was the Prime Minister who met him—
"made it clear any EU emergency plan must take into account steps already made by Scots fishermen."
Will the Minister tell us more about the Prime Minister's meeting when he sums up the debate? What did he tell Commissioner Fischler and what response did he receive?
As I have found and others have said, the response from Brussels has been rather less than encouraging. The Prime Minister need not take my word for that; others have corresponded with me on the issue. The local branch of the Federation of Small Businesses in Shetland recently wrote to me to express its concern. It identifies the fishing industry as one of the main drivers of the Shetland economy. Picking up earlier points from the debate, it said that implementing the closure plan would have the serious effect of speeding up the train towards population decline, thus killing off our communities.
If the Prime Minister is looking for useful information for future articles, I will be more than happy to send him a copy of the document from the Shetland Oceans Alliance—SHOAL—which is a partnership between Shetland Islands council and the Shetland fishing industry. The document's title refers to the future of Shetland's white fish fleet. I do not know whether the Minister has seen a copy of it; I have only one. It has what we used to call marginal annotations when I was a solicitor, and is an excellent piece of work.
I place on the record the document's estimate, based on a fair amount of local research and calculation, that the loss to the local economy in Shetland in the event of the closure of the white fish sector will be some £43 million. That is considerably larger than the figure of £28 million, which was simply taken from multipliers. I am talking about some 25 per cent. of Shetland's productive economy and a loss of 531 jobs, representing 17 per cent. of full-time employment in the productive economy and 7 per cent. of the total full-time employment in the wider economy. Over four years, it is expected that the loss of the demersal fleet would remove approximately £170 million from the Shetland economy.
In the past, others have suggested that I tend to be emotional in dealing with this issue. I make no apology for being emotional when I see the potential effect on the communities that I represent. Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), there is nothing else to keep people in Shetland. If the white fish fleet goes, the people will follow. Once the critical mass of the population in a community such as Shetland goes, it is gone for ever. There will be no return.
There are various other management measures for the North sea fisheries promoted in the SHOAL document. In the short time that remains to me, because I am keen to allow the Minister as long as possible to respond. I will ask for some consideration to be given to those measures.
The question of tie-up would have to come with funding, but would have to be part of measures related to the reduction of fishing effort. The Shetland industry believes that it is preferable to have a limit on the number of days at sea and an extended tie-up.

283WH
The industry in Shetland, and throughout the rest of Scotland, is concerned that the innovative measures that it has taken—not particularly welcome in Brussels, for some reason—including the use of larger mesh cod-ends and square mesh panels, should now be implemented in other areas. Although the white fish industry is located predominantly in Scotland, those measures should also be implemented south of the border. Will the Minister comment on that?
In connection with the implementation of new technical conservation measures to reduce the capture of cod and juvenile fish in mixed fisheries, a great deal can be done with measures such as separator trawlers. I hope that something along those lines is being devised in the Minister's Department in conjunction with the Scottish Executive.
I have spoken for nine minutes—
Ann Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Carmichael: I am reluctant to give way to the hon. Lady at this stage. I will cheerfully speak to her later, as she knows, but I am anxious to allow the Minister as long as possible.
12.07 pm
Mr. Peter Duncan: With my slightly croaky voice, I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) on his good fortune in securing the debate at such a critical moment for Scotland's rural communities.
During the debate on 21 November, I said that it was unfortunate that Members such as the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute and I, who had a critical interest in the future of Scottish fishing, were restricted to brief remarks at the end of the debate, because of its nature. The debate today has provided a useful additional means of raising the pressure.
I should say to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) that I am a supporter of the "Save our Supper" campaign.
Mr. Carmichael: We can both claim that.
Mr. Duncan: Yes, we can.
This debate cannot be understated. Several hon. Members on both sides of the House pointed out that it requires passion. Without exaggeration, the debate is about the future of substantial areas of rural Scotland. It is not about a small factory closure in one area, but about significant rural employment. It is several Ravenscraigs. Even on the figures given by the Prime Minister, who has substantially torn the rug from underneath much of the case that has been made on both sides of the House in the past couple of weeks, this is two Ravenscraigs. We all know that the real figures from the Scottish Executive demonstrate that 44,000 jobs are at risk in Scotland.
It is worth examining some of the other factors that have not been considered. This is not purely a fishing issue. Only 8 per cent. of fish mortality is due to fishing for human consumption. The effects of the discharge from the Ruhr valley in Germany and of global
284WH
warming are well known, and I know that the Minister understands them. Those factors have a major impact on fish stocks: indeed, it is as big as, if not bigger than that of all North sea fishermen. There is substantial resistance and resentment because the industry is being threatened with the imposition of control measures when fishermen are responsible for only a small proportion of the impact on fish stocks.
On factory fishing, the Danish fleet is hoovering up much of the fish in the North sea in a very inefficient process, which, as the Minister knows, requires 8 lb of raw soup from the ocean floor to provide 1 lb of farmed salmon. In many respects, that process is insane, yet it accounts for much of what we are discussing. The issue has not been explored as widely as it could have been.
The scale of the problem cannot be underestimated. We are talking about the future of 800 vessels, out of a Scottish fleet of 2,500. Those vessels represent the most substantial part, or the core, of the fleet. For every offshore job that is threatened, four or five onshore jobs are put at risk. In that respect, I would slightly chastise the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), who concentrated on north-east Scotland. The problem affects the whole of Scotland. As the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) mentioned in the debate on the Floor of the House on 21 November, Annan is one of the communities that is critically affected. Who would have thought that a rural community in Dumfriesshire would be one of those most at risk? The present proposal could sound the death knell of communities the length and breadth of Scotland—in the south-west as much as in the north-east.
Mr. Salmond: It emerged from that debate that Scottish Executive research showed that 35 per cent. of employment in Annan was fishery related because of the two major fish-processing factories there. That demonstrates that the problem's impact is being felt from the Shetlands, through the north-east and right down the west coast to south-west Scotland.
Mr. Duncan: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's clarification. What is more, the processing industry in Scotland is geared to a great extent towards a domestic catch. On average, 80 per cent. of the fish is Scottish caught, but the figure in England is regularly as low as 40 per cent. That implies that the industry will be incapable of adjusting in the short time that remains. I repeat that that is madness. We are contemplating the end of an industry between 26 October and the end of the year. That is no way to go about things. We all know that it is crazy, but we are going ahead with things yet again. I take the Government's point that this has happened under successive Governments, but the common fisheries policy has presided over the industry's decline and it will continue to do so. It is failing our fishermen.
Although the science is regularly quoted, the fact is that this is about politics. We need only look at the settlement in the west coast deep-sea sector. Scotland has an historic claim to that area, but it now faces an allowable catch of only 2 per cent. Eighty per cent. will go to the French, while the rest will be split between the Irish and the Spanish. The Minister knows that because he corrected me in the Chamber when I got the figures the wrong way round. What makes the situation totally

285WH
crazy is that the Scottish are expected to police the arrangement. That is madness, and any pretence that the present approach revolves around the science flies in the face of our experience of the CFP over many years. Such claims also ignore fishermen's real, justified concerns about deals being done behind closed doors and about the fact that they know little about them until they happen.
To conclude, I share the concern of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that the Minister should have as long as possible to respond to the debate, because many questions need to be answered.
We cannot leave the Minister in any doubt on this matter. One of the most depressing aspects of the article in today's Daily Record is the implication that the Government are doing what they can to minimise the spin on the problem. That is an appalling travesty. The Secretary of State for Scotland regularly accuses us of talking down Scotland whenever we present a critical analysis of what is happening. Now we are accused of talking up the problem in Scottish fishing. That is crazy. The figures are the Scottish Executive's own. There are 44,000 families in Scotland facing oblivion.
We want distinct action from the Minister in the next couple of weeks. We also want the Prime Minister to take up the invitation that has come from both sides of the House, and to act with the same determination that he has shown in other matters. In other areas of foreign policy he has been the most determined person. He has access to the top, around the world. Now is the time for him to act, and not to let down Scotland's communities, because we shall not stand for it.
12.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) on securing the debate and on a balanced and reasoned speech. He made some good points.
I also welcome the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) on what, I think, is his first outing on the Opposition Front Bench. I also greatly appreciate being joined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Her presence is an indication of how united we are, at all levels of the Government, in our approach to and concern about the problem in Scotland.
I do not think that it would be helpful to dwell on the figures, but the Sea Fish Industry Authority figures for employment in Scotland give the number of people employed on the catching side as about 6,650 and the number employed in processing as 7,900. There are, of course, associated onshore jobs. I might also mention the shellfish, nephrops and pelagic sectors, as well as those processing sectors that import fish for processing—which, I accept, is not all. Of course, many of them depend on the haddock fishery in particular and face problems. However, it is important to try to be accurate. There are many jobs at stake in Scotland and
286WH
the rest of the United Kingdom and we should focus on how to tackle that issue in relation to the proposals that have been made.
Mr. Salmond: The text of the Prime Minister's article speaks for itself, and people will draw their own conclusions from that. The point that hon. Members were trying to make was that an appreciation of the Scottish Executive figures, showing that the entire industry employs at least 40,000 people in direct, indirect and related jobs, might concentrate minds at the highest level in Government. That is why we find it difficult when we see figures that minimise the industry's importance. All we want is Government understanding that a huge industry, with 40,000-plus jobs connected with sea fishing, is involved.
Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman knows that I exactly understand the implications for the Scottish industry and that there is an important regional dimension to the issue. As we have heard, there are parts of Scotland, in particular, with very high levels of unemployment connected with the fishing industry. In Orkney and Shetland, of course, there are often few other opportunities. I understand that. I have met representatives of SHOAL several times and I congratulate them because they have tried to deal in a thoughtful and pragmatic way with the current circumstances. Not all of the suggestions are practical, but some are worthy of consideration and SHOAL sets a good example in recognising the problem. That is the point: we have a real problem with the state that the stocks are in and we cannot ignore that or wish it away.
As hon. Members have said, we need careful and critical analysis and interpretation of what the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and the Commission say. The Commission recommendations must be justified. My Scottish Executive colleagues, my right hon. Friend and I have made it clear that we do not think that it is realistic to close down the North sea. I made it clear at the Fisheries Council last week that the suggested alternative of an 80 per cent. reduction is not very different from complete closure. It is not a realistic option.
Mr. Peter Duncan: Has the Minister reflected on the experience in Canada, where the Newfoundland Grand banks were closed 10 years ago to restore cod stocks, but nothing happened to regenerate them. Fishermen are now, I understand, fishing for plentiful snow crab and shrimps, but there are no cod there after 10 years of closure.
Mr. Morley: The Canadian situation is at the back of all of our minds. I met with the Canadian Fisheries Minister not long ago, and have spoken to Canadian scientists. They have told me two things. First, both the industry and politicians were denying the scientific assessments right up to the bitter end until the cod fishery collapsed. That is worth remembering. Secondly, while the Canadian cod situation is not fully understood, there is a scientific theory that the stock was fished below a crucial, critical level, which meant that its

287WH
spawning biomass was not in a position to recover. Those issues are debatable in relation to the results, but we cannot ignore them.
Mr. Salmond rose—
Mr. Morley: I have only nine minutes left, but I shall give way briefly.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is very generous. He will accept that the aim is not to preserve one species of fish but to preserve an industry. If he had total control and could make a decision without going to the Commission, what would be his policy and approach? Secondly, given that anything that comes out of this effort is likely to be a disaster, is there not an overwhelming argument for trying to delegate it to the states concerned—rolling over? Is he aware that Commission officials said this week that they are waiting for such an option to be proposed by a member state?
Mr. Morley: I shall certainly go through what I think should be done. I shall talk about the issues that I have discussed with the industry, for which I shall argue in the Council. They are measures that, if we had complete control in UK waters, I would apply within UK waters—perhaps in different ways and at different times. However, I believe that the principal measures represent the right way forward.
Ann Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Morley: I cannot give way as I have many points to get through in eight minutes, but I apologise to the hon. Lady because I respect the interest that she takes in the issue.
I should like to stress what the industry has done to reduce effort—that is important. ICES will not take that into account in its brief, because it looks at the present state of the stocks and makes recommendations to the Commission accordingly. The Commission has to decide how to respond to that.
The scientific measure of the reduction in effort necessary to have an effect on stocks must be considered. We can debate what is realistic, what is reasonable and what will have an effect. Once a credible level is identified, we can also consider what the industry has done in the past two years in terms of decommissioning, bigger mesh sizes and the move of licences from the white fish fleet to the pelagic fleet. Those points constitute a strong case. I have discussed them with the Commissioner and with the presidency and I assure the House that we will ensure that they are taken into account, in the same way that we have already succeeded in having account taken of the work that we have done on nephrops and the fact that the original proposals were entirely unjustified. We have made progress in that respect and I have every confidence that we shall do so in relation to the industry's effort reductions. That will move us a long way from where we are at present with the Commission's suggestions, but more work is to be done. Although our scientists made a case—we could back it up with justification—to exclude nephrops, they are not challenging the thrust of the ICES findings on present fish stocks.
288WH
The news is clearly bad for the industry, but it is not in anyone's interests to ignore it. Nor would it be in anyone's interests, and it would be impossible, for me to take a populist position that was not credible given the science and the terms of the case. Our position has to be seen to be credible. That does not mean that we will not support the industry, or that we underestimate the impact of the recommendations on it. Everyone—me, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Scottish Executive, right up to the Prime Minister in No. 10—is committed to making the case.
When I go to the Council, I will be joined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. My discussions and negotiations have the authority of the full Government and the devolved Administrations. There is a team approach. In that way, I speak with some authority, with the full clout of the full machinery of Government behind me, including up to the level of the Prime Minister. I have talked to No. 10 almost daily since the most recent Council about the problem and the issues that we want to raise. It is important to stress that.
Ross Finnie and I have been attacked by some sections of the Scottish fishing industry, but we cannot take a fundamental decision by denying that there is a problem. I have had responsibility for fisheries for some time and the job is not for the faint hearted. On occasion, Fisheries Ministers have to act as a lightning rod for the industry, especially when it is under stress. However, some of the attacks—they have tried to exploit divisions and play petty politics—have not been in the interests of the industry at the moment. It would betray the industry if we were distracted from the need to unite on the impact on catching, processing and onshore jobs. We must think about what we need to do to mitigate the problem and ensure that the industry is not destroyed in the way hon. Members have described.
We recognise the severe short-term problem, but we must consider longer-term issues as well. I do not want to stagger from crisis to crisis. We have done so, partly because choices on reductions in fishing efforts have been ducked by the Council of Ministers as they were difficult for the fishing industry, which was against it, and unpalatable for Fisheries Ministers from various countries. That is one reason why we find ourselves where we are at present. We must take short-term action. I do not disagree with the idea that it will be painful and we must think about the consequences. However, the action need not be what the Commission proposes, as we can make a credible case for changing that.
We need to consider closer relationships between fishermen and scientists, reform of the common fisheries policy, and research into long-term environmental change such as global warming. The rise in sea temperatures cannot be ignored, especially in relation to cod. We need effective control and enforcement, as misreporting and misinformation helps no one. It certainly does not help scientists in their assessments. Control of effort, gear, technical measures and closed areas are also important.
We must acknowledge the role that the industry has had. On Friday, there were discussions about some of the issues that have been mentioned today—how we could argue for certain measures and how we could apply them to benefit fish stocks and the long-term

289WH
sustainable management of fisheries. The work of the industry was also recognised. There is an alternative case to put to the Commission about its proposals, and we can make that case.
We must tackle short-term and long-term issues. We as a Government are committed to defending the interests of the whole United Kingdom industry. The debate is on Scotland, and rightly so. As a result of the scale of its involvement, the implications for the Scottish white fish fleet are severe. It is right to focus on that, but I emphasise that all levels of Government are committed to defending the industry's interests in a credible and effective way to minimise the impact of the proposals and ensure long-term sustainable management.

Transco
12.30 pm
Mr. Barry Gardiner: There is a joke currently doing the rounds in one of the synagogues in my constituency: what is the difference between a Rottweiler and a Jewish mother? The answer is that the Rottweiler eventually lets go. I do not know whether I more closely resemble a Rottweiler or a Jewish mother—[Interruption.]
Mr. Joe Benton (in the Chair): Order. Would hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly?
Mr. Gardiner: Thank you, Mr. Benton.
For more than four years, I have refused to let go of the issue of regulation of the gas industry, in particular the risk posed to public safety by the actions and failures of Transco. I am confident that, in preparing a response to the debate, the officials of my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Construction will have taken the prudent step of checking whether any questions remain unanswered following my Adjournment debates in June 1998 and July 1999. They may even have checked my examination of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets regulator at the Public Accounts Committee hearing three years ago. Let me start, however, with those easy questions to which the Minister will no doubt have the answer.
Before the establishment of Transco in 1994, British Gas responded to more than 99.9 per cent. of uncontrolled gas escapes in one hour. The response rate varied during the following five years, but dropped to as low as 92 per cent at one time. Given that there were more than 1 million calls each year to attend uncontrolled escapes, that means that, in some years, 80,000 uncontrolled escapes were not responded to within the target response time. Can the Minister tell us the current target rate and the actual percentage for attendance at uncontrolled escapes within one hour? Furthermore, can he assure the House that nothing has been done to modify the smell of gas so that the incidence of emergency call-outs, rather than the incidence of leaks, is reduced?
In Feburary 1999, in response to repeated representations by, and on behalf of, my constituent, Mr. Andrew Duffield, Ofgem took the unprecedented step of making an order against Transco. The background to that order is as follows. The Gas Act 1986, as amended in 1995, introduced competition into the business of connecting premises to the mains gas network. Before that, the market had been a monopoly controlled by British Gas Transco. In January 1997, my constituent, who had been a senior engineering manager at Transco, left to set up a specialist gas connection company known as EGS, which competes directly against Transco for business under the Gas Act. However, Transco is charged with custodianship of the gas mains network and all competitors such as EGS must apply to Transco for a quotation for the final connection to the mains when laying the pipe system for any new scheme or development.
Until it has obtained that costing for the final connection from Transco, EGS cannot provide its customer with an accurate quotation for the total cost of

291WH
the work. Clearly, if Transco were to abuse its position and delay the provision of that information or inflate the price of final connection, it could make EGS look inefficient and expensive by comparison with its own connections team, competing for the same business. For that reason, Transco has a statutory obligation not to abuse its position as final connector to the mains. Transco broke that statutory obligation four years ago. I am sorry to tell the Minister that it continues to break it now, and that
"there have been unacceptable delays in Transco's quotations for connections, that there has been overcharging and that Transco's behaviour is anti-competitive".
Those words are not mine; or, at least, not mine alone. I use them to refer to the current anti-competitive practices adopted by Transco against EGS. They are taken directly from a decision document issued by the Office of Gas Supply when it investigated Transco's behaviour four years ago. It concluded:
"There is a likelihood of continuing breaches, if action is not taken".
Most damningly, it stated that
"information provided by Transco in the course of the investigation has proved to be untrue".
Hon. Members must always seek to use most carefully the privilege that speaking in the House gives, and must not make reckless statements under the protection that they are afforded. I therefore assure you, Mr. Benton, that I do not lightly say that those speaking on Transco's behalf were found then to be liars, and that Transco was found to be acting illegally and anti-competitively to try to bully a small competitor out of business. Transco has not changed: it is still acting illegally and anti-competitively, and it is still lying and bullying.
One thing has changed, however—Ofgem, the regulator. In 1999, it was never dynamic or proactive in its enforcement of the regulations, or in its interpretation of them. Now it is positively spineless, failing to act when there is a clear track history of anticompetitive behaviour, and seeking to hide behind any legalistic cover, rather than perform its duties to regulate the market properly and to stamp out anticompetitive behaviour. Worse than that, it has maintained a stunning silence since 24 April this year over fundamental issues of public safety. If Ofgem is the guardian of the gas industry, I ask the Minister, "Quis custodiet custodes?"—who will regulate the regulator?
I have made some serious allegations, and I must now back them up. On 7 November 2001, Transco wrote to EGS with calculations purporting to show its performance in response to EGS's connection inquiries during September 2001. That was the result of the order made against Transco in 1999. That order required Transco to introduce a scheme of liability payments that were payable whenever Transco failed to meet its own published standard response times to requests for connection quotations, or where it supplied false information.
Hon. Members may find it strange that Transco is charged with monitoring its own compliance. They may find it even stranger that attachment 2, paragraph 7, subsection (ii) of the order provides that
"If, before the expiry of five working days from the submission of the claim the quotation is adjusted by Transco so that the reason why it was thought to be excessive has been addressed to the reasonable satisfaction of the person who submitted the claim, no compensation shall be payable by Transco".
292WH
The effect of that provision is to provide a perverse incentive to Transco to continue overcharging, secure in the knowledge that if it is challenged, it has five days in which to amend the price to the proper level before any penalty or compensation becomes payable to its victim.
So much for the robustness of the order. On the basis of that order Transco wrote to EGS, explaining that of the 43 quotations that EGS had requested in September 2001, 34 had been provided within Transco's agreed time and price standards. As a result of its 79 per cent. compliance, and in accordance with the order, it offered EGS compensation of £790.
That was a pretty normal month—or so Transco thought. In fact, EGS had long suspected that Transco was substantially overestimating its own performance. Put more accurately, it was substantially underestimating its service failures; hence, it was substantially under-compensating EGS. Despite repeatedly challenging Transco on that point, EGS was not able to persuade it to deal with the problem. During September 2001, therefore, EGS took the highly unusual step of logging and analysing all its dealings with the company. I need hardly mention that it was an extremely costly exercise.
EGS's analysis showed that there had been 47 quotations, not 43, during that September, and that only 57 per cent. rather than the 79 per cent. claimed by Transco had been provided within Transco's agreed time and price standards. The analysis showed that Transco had failed to record four quotations for which compensation was due to be paid, and that Transco had stated that a further seven quotations had met the standards when they had not and should have generated substantial compensation.
Transco now accepts that EGS's analysis was substantially correct and that almost twice as much compensation as it first offered is in fact due. EGS has extensively documented similar failings and passed them to Ofgem. Ofgem accepts that Transco has over-quoted by 78 per cent. at a development called La Formair; by 900 per cent. at Ossington buildings; and by a staggering 1,683 per cent. at Pennyfan road.
Given the scale of overcharging, and given that it was precisely to stop such anti-competitive practice that Ofgem put the order in place against Transco three years ago, it seems reasonable to expect Ofgem to take positive enforcement action against Transco. In its response of 2 October to EGS's complaints, however, Ofgem concludes that Transco is not in breach of the 1999 order. Again, it tries to hide behind a legalistic loophole. It states:
"The 1999 Order was made in relation to Transco's connections operations. The 1999 Order was made following a finding that Transco was in breach of Section 9(2)(a) of the Act and standard condition 11 of its licence condition 4D".
It goes on:
"Transco has introduced the systems and compensation schemes provided for in the 1999 Order. In each case, the scheme introduced covered at least those matters set out in attachments to the 1999 Order. Ofgem does not consider that on a strict interpretation the 1999 Order requires Transco to update or amend the schemes made to comply with the 1999 Order."
Ofgem's conclusion that there had been no breach of the order is based on the fact that the order required Transco merely to introduce systems and compensation

293WH
schemes. Ofgem's position is that those systems have been set up, that that is therefore the end of the matter, and accordingly that there is no breach. It cannot be sensible to interpret the order as meaning that, as long as a system is set up, it does not matter whether Transco in fact operates that system or the schemes, or whether such systems or schemes work at all. On that basis, Transco would not fall foul of the order in circumstances where none of its quotations within a given month is within standard. The order must be construed against the factual background that gave rise to its making in 1999 and of the mischief that it was designed to prevent.
The Transco connections investigations document from Ofgas, which accompanied the original order in February 1999, stated that the order was made because of Transco's appalling performance in relation to connections. The document states:
"The responses to the consultation confirmed the findings of the investigation that there have been unacceptable delays in Transco's quotations for connections, that there has been overcharging, and that Transco's behaviour is anti-competitive in effect."
It added that
"the proposed order should have the effect of securing compliance".
In its interpretation of the order, Transco has patently failed to secure compliance.
Even if that were the sum total of my complaint against Transco, I am sure that the Minister would take it seriously. However, it is not. On 24 April this year, EGS sat down with Miss Karen Briggen of Ofgem and explained not simply the problems of anti-competitive behaviour but fundamental problems affecting public safety. Transco is required to notify EGS of the pressure of the connection valves that it uses. As hon. Members will appreciate, it is absolutely vital that the correct pressure of those valves is notified to EGS. They can be high, medium or low-level pressure valves.
Problems have arisen when Transco notifies EGS that a pressure valve at the connection point to the system is at a different pressure to the true one. I know of three cases in the past two weeks involving incorrect notification, and I will refer them to the Minister so that they can be investigated. Problems were found at the IMEX Spaces business centre, unit 77, Station lane, Birtley, County Durham; at plot B, Twelvetrees crescent, Bromley-by-Bow; and at the Academy of Light at Whitburn moor in Sunderland.
On each occasion, EGS was notified that there was a low-pressure connection valve connecting to the mains network when in fact all three valves were of medium pressure. If an incorrect valve is fitted at that point, it may function for a while before eventually having a catastrophic failure. The consequences of such failure are clear.
On 24 April, EGS outlined to Ofgem other problems that it had experienced. All self-lay providers must give Transco a copy of the as-laid drawings showing the new mains network that Transco then adopts. However, Transco's system of recording digitised plans is a catastrophic list of errors. On one particular development—the Brook Street business park in
294WH
Tipton—six months after Transco was contracted to lay a service pipe, it provided a digital version of the plans that EGS had submitted to Transco. Half the network that EGS had laid was not shown on Transco's digitised plans. The other half bore little relation to that which had actually been laid. EGS gave Transco a further copy of the plans so that it could adapt its plans and get it right. Still later, that had not happened.
Mr. Joe Benton (in the Chair): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the debate is to conclude at 1 o'clock, and there will not be much time for the Minister to reply.
Mr. Gardiner: I appreciate your guidance, Mr. Benton. I am just bringing my remarks to a close. However, it is absolutely critical that the Minister should appreciate that this is not simply a commercial spat between two companies. This is a grave issue of public safety. If Transco does not properly record the as-laid drawings, cases will occur such as that at Larkhall in Lanarkshire, in which a family was tragically killed. It is suspected that the drawing that covered the part of the network responsible incorrectly showed a pipe of cast iron as being made of polyurethane.
I shall not go into the details of the case; the Minister will know that it is subject to a court case that is yet to be heard, so it would be improper for me to do so. However, I believe that a family of four was killed in that explosion as a direct result of the sort of incompetence that Transco is showing in the recording of the gas mains system. It is vital that Ofgem, as the regulator of the industry, takes firm and swift action to put Transco's house in order.
12.51 pm
The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on securing the debate. He has pursued the matter tenaciously and acquired a lot of information on it. On this occasion, it is quite useful that he took up more time than I will because, as he will appreciate, I cannot give a detailed response to many of the issues that he raised.
My hon. Friend made extremely serious charges, which is a legitimate use of such debates as long as the charges are backed up with hard and specific evidence. He has certainly set out to do that. I am sure that Ofgem, Transco and others will read what he has said with the greatest interest. For my part, I shall want an equally detailed rebuttal—or acceptance—of the charges that he has made and the actions that flowed from them.
The public safety issues are of great importance. If there are concerns on safety grounds, it is completely proper that they should be raised in Parliament. On the other hand, no one wants to start scare stories about the general nature of the gas infrastructure, because the subject can cause some alarm. We must get that balance right. It is important in such a case—my hon. Friend has been specific in the charges that he has made—that evidence is pinned down for every example given, particularly those that affect safety. I give him an assurance that that will be done, and that I will pursue the matter.

295WH
Much of what my hon. Friend said related to a company in his constituency, Exoteric Gas Solutions, and that company's complaints against Transco. For the benefit of other hon. Members, EGS is an engineering company that, among other activities, designs and installs, or oversees and procures the design and installation of gas pipes and arranges for connection to a local distribution zone owned and operated by Transco. I understand that the company recently moved into the metering market, and that it installs meters that are supplied by Transco and oversees meter installation. My hon. Friend has vigorously championed the company's cause for several years and I commend him for that. I recently corresponded with him in response to his latest concerns expressed in his letter dated 14 November. I have offered to meet him to discuss those concerns, along with a representative of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. I am sure that he will wish to take advantage of that meeting and to ensure that EGS's concerns are fully represented to Ofgem, preferably in advance of the meeting.
I understand that inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive's hazardous installations directorate have recently investigated a series of complaints made by Andrew Duffield of EGS to Ofgem on 8 July. The complaints concern six premises—I guess that they are the same ones to which my hon. Friend referred—and include a list of alleged deficiencies at each. I am told that Transco has taken corrective action and that HSE has sent Ofgem a detailed response to the complaints. Mr. Duffield has raised further unrelated safety issues with Ofgem, which will also be followed up by HSE.
The director general of HSE, Timothy Walker, wrote to Mr. Duffield as recently as 18 November emphasising the seriousness that HSE attaches to Transco's safe operation. The letter explained that a further inspection visit to examine Transco's record keeping for newly
296WH
installed plant and to consider specific complaints about operating pressure errors would take place on 21 November. The visit did take place and, as a result, Transco has been asked to commission an independent audit of its systems to ensure that it better manages safety-related information in future. HSE has promised to write to Mr. Duffield to let him know the outcome of the meeting on 21 November. I hope that that illustrates the thorough and professional approach that we would all expect when safety complaints are made to the regulator. My hon. Friend might see that as evidence that what reaches us is taken seriously and acted upon.
I shall address briefly the day-to-day handling of safety responsibilities for gas transportation. The responsibilities rest with the gas transporter—in this case, Transco—but regulation is carried out by the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive. Ofgem's health and safety function is dealt with under section 4A of the Gas Act 1986, as amended. In order to meet those requirements, a memorandum of understanding has been agreed with HSC and HSE, which are responsible for the regulation of most of the risks to health and safety that arise from work activities in Britain, including the regulation of the gas supply network. Structures are in place to deal with safety issues, and Ofgem handles complaints. It recently reviewed all the complaints that were raised and how they were dealt with. My lion. Friend raised serious points about how Ofgem's complaint-handling procedures have operated and the effectiveness of its responses.
I do not want to pretend that what I am saying responds to the detail of my hon. Friend's speech, which was unusual in the sense that it was very specific and included serious charges. I have no doubt that he believes that he has evidence to back up the charges and that it is in the public interest for them to be investigated transparently to reveal the justification for what he said.

Police Funding (Bromley)
12.59 pm
Mr. John Horam: Antisocial behaviour and crime are important issues for my constituents, and I welcome the opportunity to air their concerns and to bring the situation in Bromley to the Government's attention.
The exact figures on the funds for policing in the London borough of Bromley were given to me in a written answer. In 1997–98 funding was £27 million; in 1998–99 it was £26.4 million; in 1999–2000 it was £22.9 million; in 2000–01 it was £23.7 million; and this year it was £24.6 million. Tomorrow, we will know next year's figures, although we are just ahead of the point at which they are traditionally announced. The Minister will recognise that his figures show a decline over the past five years, although I agree that there has been a small upturn in the past two or three years.
The decline in funding has been reflected in the number of police in the London borough of Bromley. In December 1996, for example, there were 471 police officers in the borough. That figure declined steadily to 432 in December 1999 and fell further to 412 in December 2000. In January 2002, the figure rose to 424, and I believe the current figure to be about 427, a figure with which my local police officers would agree.
A comparison with nearby boroughs is interesting, and shows the unfairness to Bromley. Bromley's official crime rate is 29,196 crimes per year. The figure for Lewisham, 29,173 crimes per year, is almost exactly the same. Whereas Bromley has approximately 427 police officers, however, the London borough of Lewisham has 615 police officers. The number of officially recorded crimes in Greenwich, which has 588 police officers, is similar to the figures for Bromley and Lewisham. Given the number of crimes committed, Bromley is clearly disadvantaged by the present arrangements.
In terms of numbers of residents, Bromley is equally disadvantaged. There is one officer per 696 residents in Bromley; one officer per 366 residents in Greenwich, which is twice as many officers per resident as in Bromley; and one officer per 393 residents in Lewisham. Bromley records more burglary, criminal damage and theft than Greenwich or Lewisham, so it is not surprising that the people of Bromley feel hard done to by the existing arrangement.
It may interest the Minister to know that at a recent local residents association meeting, a gentleman who had moved from Catford in Lewisham to Biggin Hill said that he felt safer in Catford than he does in Biggin Hill, which is part of the alleged leafy suburbs of south London, because he observed more policing in Catford than in Biggin Hill. That is a consequence of the disparity in the number of police from which we suffer in Bromley by comparison with neighbouring London boroughs and the decline in police numbers over the past five years—I accept that there has been a small increase in the past couple of years.
The Mayor of London pledged that there would be another 1,000 policemen on the streets of London, but Bromley has seen none of them. Bromley is a fairly affluent borough that gives a huge amount through its
298WH
precept to finance the Mayor, the Greater London Authority and the Metropolitan police authority. We have got nothing back in terms of police numbers, which the Mayor indicated that he would increase.
Bromley put in for 10 community safety officers in the first tranche of requests and was turned down. Even a small request has been rejected by the Mayor's Office or the Metropolitan police authority—I am not sure which. To add insult to injury, the Liberal Democrat peer, Lord Tope, undertook about a year ago to revise the formula used by the Metropolitan police to allocate funds among the boroughs. The result would, unbelievably, have further disadvantaged Bromley. I understand that it has now been tweaked and the disadvantage might not be as great as was originally foreseen. None the less, that indicates how much Bromley has been disadvantaged.
Conservative councillors in the borough are, therefore, organising a petition. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) and I will join them in Bromley high street on Saturday morning when they will ask people to sign a petition to Lord Toby Harris, chairman of the Metropolitan police authority, which reads:
"We the undersigned, note with concern that Bromley with a higher crime rate and a larger population has only 427 police officers compared with Lewisham's 615. We call upon the Metropolitan Police Authority to review its current unfair funding policy and increase the number of police on Bromley streets."
It is not only a question of fewer police officers; there are fewer police stations. When I became the Member of Parliament for Orpington in 1992, there were three police stations in my constituency—St. Mary Cray, Biggin Hill and Orpington. Two of those have been closed to the public since then. The one in St. Mary Cray was only opened—by a Conservative Government—six months after I became the MP, and it is now closed to the public. We have only one operating police station. I accept the argument that it is sometimes a mistake to put the money into bricks and mortar rather than into people. I am sure that the Minister will make that point. Nevertheless, all the evidence suggests that the presence of a local police station diminishes crime in the surrounding area, and it is a means of getting a quicker response than might otherwise be the case.
Unsurprisingly, as a result of the declining support for funding in Bromley, declining numbers of police officers and fewer police stations, crime has increased. I shall quote briefly from the report that I received in September from the Bromley police community consultative group, which I attend as often as I can and certainly when it is in my constituency—it rotates between the three constituencies in the borough. It is a worthwhile organisation because it enables ordinary people to ventilate their concerns. The figures show that last year saw a 10 per cent. increase in burglary in the borough; the target for this year is a 2 per cent. reduction. In street crime—the number one target of the Metropolitan police service at the moment—Bromley saw a 49 per cent. increase. Disorder—measured by calls from the public about such things as disturbances, drunkenness in the streets and youths hanging around on estates and intimidating people—increased by 14 per cent. last year. Three problems that are of great concern to my constituents—disorder, street crime and burglary—have increased, some by substantial amounts.

299WH
I understand from my local chief superintendent that the trend has got better in the past two or three months. I welcome that and am delighted to hear it. I am very impressed by my local officers. Chief Superintendent Dillnutt, who looks after the whole of Bromley, and Inspector Tullett, who looks after Orpington, are excellent officers. I am impressed by their performance and that of all the Metropolitan police officers I have met. I went out on night duty with a patrol earlier this year and I was fascinated to see how they operate. Chief Superintendent Dillnutt rightly says that his job is to do the best that he can with the available resources and I fully respect that.
Relations between the police and my local council are good, partly because the cabinet member responsible for community safety is a former policeman and understands the problems very well. In addition, an active local newspaper, the News Shopper, has run a good campaign called, "Shop a yob", whereby CCTV pictures of youths involved in crime or antisocial behaviour are splashed across the pages of the newspaper. The campaign has led to arrests and charges and I am delighted that it recently won the Newspaper Society's community award.
As well as the "Shop a yob" campaign, the newspaper has run an airgun control campaign. Like me, a number of hon. Members from south London and north Kent—I am thinking in particular of the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw)—have supported measures to bring airguns under stricter control, particularly when they are being used by young people and teenagers. All too often, the guns are used for target practice not only on property but on people and pets.
I do not want to go down what I call the Dunblane route of heavy-handed control on such guns because that would disadvantage legitimate shooters. None the less, controls on that sort of activity by young people must be tightened. The Minister may be interested to hear that Bromley police and Bexley police have run a surrender policy over the past two weeks and that has led to young people surrendering a substantial number of airguns.
Despite efforts by the council, the police and my local newspaper, the figures are as I quoted. They have become worse. There is a slight trend showing improvements over the past two months, but the figures are still unacceptable to local people. In case the Minister regales me with official statistics, I point out that, as he will know from recent reports, the official statistics underestimate the amount of crime. Recent estimates by Civitas show that crime is running four times higher than official figures show. Mr. Simmons, the head of the Home Office crime statistics unit, has seen the figures used by Civitas, confirmed that they are accurate and said that he is content with the report's findings.
Often people are afraid to report crimes or do not report them because they believe that nothing will be done. Sometimes they try to report crimes but give up because of the difficulty of getting through to anyone who will respond sensibly to their concerns. In view of that, I was surprised that when Lord Toby Harris came to Bromley he made the following remark in a report that he gave to the council:
300WH
"Local surveys and crime audits regularly show that the fear of crime and the perception that crime is increasing are at odds with reality."
He is looking at the official statistics, but the people of Bromley are looking at what is happening on their doorstep and in their streets and they know that the situation is bad. Saying that all is well because the official figures do not show it to be too bad means that he is not facing reality. My residents are the people who are facing reality. I also notice that Lord Tope said at one stage during his investigation of the allocation formula that there could be too many police. Again, who is living in the real world? I suggest neither the Liberal Democrat nor the Labour peer.
The situation is well encapsulated by a series of letters that I received from a public-spirited resident in Biggin Hill—one part of the constituency, but it is representative of what is felt in other areas, which all report the same things. He was a victim of an assault in August when he tried to prevent some youths forcing a young mother with a child in a push-chair off a public path. He was beaten up and the youths said, "We do as we like. There is not enough of them"—that is, the police—"to do anything about it." Swear words accompanied that fusillade, which amounted to saying "I do not give tuppence for you." The Minister can well imagine the scene.

In September, there was another incident in the same area, which the resident gave me extensive notes about. On that occasion, nine homes were attacked by a gang of youths, who said the same things: "You can't touch us, the police will take ages to get here." They moved off. The police did come, after umpteen phone calls, but no one would give any evidence for fear of reprisals. That is the vicious circle in which people find themselves.
I cite the letter that I recently received from that resident about Hallowe'en and fireworks night, in which he reported an increase in police activity. The area was specially targeted by Bromley police, and as a result things were a lot better than they were on previous Hallowe'ens or fireworks nights. He is grateful for that, and asks me to record his gratitude for what Orpington police did. Of course, once fireworks night was over, the police presence was relaxed, and as a consequence the situation has become bad again, although it is not as bad as in previous years. He writes in the final paragraph of his letter:
"Surely this only goes to prove that a permanent higher level of policing in Biggin Hill"—
as I have said, for Biggin Hill, write the whole of Bromley—
"is warranted and I trust this information may assist you in your efforts to bring this about."
We all know that there are many causes of crime and antisocial behaviour, such as the role of parents, schools and television, but we have to start somewhere. In the case of Bromley and Orpington, I believe that it is necessary to have a fairer deal on resources so that more police are deployed on the beat in order to significantly reduce the level of antisocial behaviour and crime.
1.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) on

301WH
applying for and securing the debate, so that he could raise some of the issues that concern his constituents in the Bromley area. Similar issues could be raised by many other hon. Members throughout England and Wales. Despite the issues he raised, I am sure that he would not want the impression to go out that Bromley is anything other than one of the safest boroughs in which to live in the London area.
The Government are determined that the police service will have the resources it needs to provide the first-rate service that our communities deserve. We have already put significant levels of investment into the police service to bring about record numbers of police officers, and to underpin the programme of police reform that was taken through the House of Commons last year. The first ever national policing plan was recently unveiled by the Home Secretary. That set out the strategic direction for the police service and our priorities for policing during the next three years. Those include tackling antisocial behaviour and disorder, and reducing volume crime and street, drug-related, violent and gun crime, which is a particular problem in parts of the capital. We also need to concentrate on serious and organised crime, which operates behind the scenes and feeds so much of the front-line crime from which our communities suffer.
The policing plan crosses boundaries while leaving infrastructure in place to tackle crime effectively. It provides a national framework for raising the performance of all forces, and will form the basis of local plans to be drawn up by chief officers and police authorities to improve standards in their localities.
We recognise the continuing blight of antisocial behaviour. We are working across Government to address it. We recently announced our intention to introduce an antisocial behaviour Bill in this Session. The hon. Gentleman referred to a specific area of antisocial behaviour—the misuse of airguns. I do not know whether he was in the House the other day when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear that we were looking in exactly the direction that the hon. Gentleman indicated he would support. We want to clamp down on the abuse of guns, particularly that by under-age users, in a way that does not impose a huge bureaucracy on the police, move resources from other things that they should be tackling, or impinge on the lawful use of air weapons in sport and elsewhere. We seek a satisfactory route whereby effective measures are taken and the police are given appropriate powers to deal with abuse without unnecessarily burdening lawful users. If we do that, I hope that we will receive the hon. Gentleman's support.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that I cannot announce any of the figures for this year's spending before tomorrow. However, I can tell him that we will continue to build on the already significant investment in the police service over the past few years. Spending on policing, supported by the Government, rose by 10.1 per cent. in 2001–02, and this year it has increased by a further 7.3 per cent. to £9.117 billion.
There is a problem between some of what the hon. Gentleman says here, with which his colleagues agree, and what is said, quite rightly, in other forums. It is the Government's job to provide the money necessary to
302WH
fund the police force. However, it is not necessarily our job to get involved in the micromanagement of allocating resources. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want us to do that.
Much of the hon. Gentleman's anger was directed at the formulae that were being applied in the Metropolitan police force area. He has had the opportunity to have those arguments: the resource allocation formula governing the distribution of resources in the Metropolitan area was open for consultation. Everyone had an opportunity to have their say. The adjustments that were made to that formula following the review by Lord Tope made a positive difference for Bromley. There was not the fall in Bromley's allocation that there would have been with a pure allocation of figures.
Although the hon. Gentleman complains about the lack of an allocation of community safety officers in Bromley, I am sure that he accepts that the Metropolitan police have been at the forefront of using the powers and new staffing arrangements introduced by the Police Reform Act 2002. The use by that force of community safety officers to provide visibility in central London does not mean that there is no knock-on benefit for Bromley, as those people are doing jobs that would otherwise have to be done by constables employed by the Metropolitan police.
Mr. Horam: I accept that, but we too would like some community support officers, which have been provided in central London. The problem always seems to be that the suburbs get nothing, while central London gets it all. As regards Lord Tope, his initial views were disadvantageous to Bromley, and only the fact that some pressure was put on him created a situation that was at least no worse.
Mr. Ainsworth: I think that the hon. Gentleman accepts the thrust of what I said—that an alteration in the formula led to a better allocation for Bromley than that which was originally intended at one point in the consultation.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Lord Toby Harris's comments about recorded crime. Like hon. Members of all parties, I accept that there is considerable under-recording of certain categories of crime. However, no one would dissent from the proposition that, broadly speaking, whether measured by recorded crime over the years or by the British crime survey, most categories of crime are falling. The hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench learn does not argue with that, but he appears to be doing so. There is a discrepancy between what he says and what others generally accept. There are problems involved in getting people to report crime, in giving them the necessary confidence and in reducing the fear of crime in line with the falls that are taking place in recorded crime, but broadly speaking crime in most categories is falling.
Mr. Horam: One can argue about statistics endlessly and come to different conclusions, but the fact is that in

303WH
my area the fear of crime is now greater than I have ever known it to be during my time as Member of Parliament for Orpington.
Mr. Ainsworth: I understand that. Certainly, the fear of crime is not falling—that is a problem throughout the country that we need to address by building on confidence in policing within communities.
The Metropolitan police service revenue budget is £2.038 billion for 2002–03. That is an increase of £95 million, or 4.9 per cent., over last year. In addition to the £1.676 billion provided by central Government support from the principal police grant—including £197 million for the Metropolitan police service special payment to reflect the special position of the capital and the special responsibilities held by its police officers—we have provided many extra resources in the Metropolitan police area in the current financial year. Those include £62 million from the crime fighting fund to continue funding for crime fighting force officers recruited in 2000–01; £44.5 million in capital allocation for the Metropolitan police over the past year; £41 million in the capital for Airwave, the new radio communications system; and £1 million for two successful bids from the £20 million premises improvement fund. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the new police station that will open in Bromley in September 2003 as part of a private finance initiative that will also include new stations in Sutton and in Lewisham.
The hon. Gentleman said a great deal about comparisons with other boroughs. He mentioned Bromley's contribution to funding for the Metropolitan police service. This year, the borough will contribute £16.9 million, or 4.7 per cent. of police funding raised, through the police precept on the council tax. It comes as no surprise that Bromley, with a population of around 297,000, contributes more than the boroughs of Lewisham, whose population is 242,000. The population of Greenwich is 215,000. For a locally provided service, it is appropriate that police authorities should be allowed the flexibility to raise some funding locally. However, more than 80 per cent. of the funding comes from central Government. That will continue to be the case.

Post Office Services (Morden)
1.30 pm
Siobhain McDonagh: I am grateful to have secured the debate on an issue that is of great concern and worry to my constituents who live in and around Morden. I secured the debate to express as strongly as I can in this place the local anger that has been caused by the cavalier announcement by Safeway on London road in Morden that it will close its in-store post office. The closure threatens a vital public service in the centre of Morden.
The debate is not only about the future of postal services in Morden, although that is an important issue, especially on a day when the Communication Workers Union is lobbying the House. It is also about the future of Morden, its shops, services and civic identity, as well as the future quality of life for local residents, especially pensioners and those with limited mobility who rely on the services in Morden.
Post offices in town centres such as Morden provide an essential community service, and the council and local residents welcomed Safeway's request to include a post office in its in-store services when it opened in the mid-1990s. The in-store post office saved a postal service when the old Abbotsbury road post office closed. Incidentally, that building is still there and is empty.
One only has to look at the long queues that form whenever the post office is open to see how essential a post office is to Morden town centre. It is not slowness of service that causes the queues but the popularity of, and need for, a post office. People collect their pensions, pay bills, add to their savings, buy stamps and apply for licences. Each activity is essential to them; it is an essential part of a service that they have every right to expect. That service is in peril for no apparent reason other than Safeway's wish to maximise its floor space. The chain has given no rational justification for its decision, which appears to have been taken for national business reasons. It is blind to local need and its responsibility to a vulnerable town.
It is small wonder that people are cynical about big business and its so-called corporate social responsibility. I understand that a meeting is taking place this afternoon, during which the council intends to push for some answers. Morden's post office is being treated like redundant stock or a discontinued line. That is utterly unacceptable, and I would welcome the Minister's assurance that he will make strong representations to Safeway to change its decision. I have written to Safeway, and I urge him to do the same.
At a time when Merton council is striving hard to sustain shops and services in Morden and to attract new businesses to the area, it is totally counter-productive and shows a serious disregard for the needs of customers for a major trader such as Safeway to decide that it no longer needs to house a post office. I have received many calls, letters and e-mails from local people who have heard that the post office is to close. They tell me anxiously that they have heard that other shops in the town centre will soon follow suit. They ask me what will be left if such and such a shop goes, and what the Government are doing for Morden.
Rumours have a habit of starting when something as significant as a post office closes. That is understandable when people are worried for the future of their town

305WH
centre. In this case, I am confident that the rumoured closure of those other shops is just that—a rumour. However, as the Minister will doubtless agree, in high street after high street, in town or country, once a post office goes, that service vacuum sucks significant life out of the local economy. People start to go elsewhere, and the future of other shops begins to seem doubtful. As a sign displayed in the window of a furniture shop says, "Use us or lose us".
The rumour mill can have a damaging effect on the efforts of local authorities and other bodies seeking to regenerate an area and encourage new investment. It can have a demoralising effect on local people when they look around and see empty shops, pound shops or a proliferation of charity shops. Fantastic as the work of charity shops is, it must be said that they do not provide the sort of shopping opportunities that a town such as Morden needs to get back on its feet.
A domino effect starts when a post office closes—not an effect that the people of Morden want to see. They have enough to contend with. Antisocial behaviour and youth nuisance—graffiti, fly tipping, abandoned cars and the general lack of respect for the community—are giving the area, previously regarded as well-off suburbia, an undeserved bad name.
So far I have spoken about my local area. Many facts can be supplied to back up the emotion. I shall draw on the results of two surveys. The first, conducted by Merton council in 1999, comprised
"a strategic review of town centres in the Borough in order to inform the review of the Unitary Development Plan and to provide a robust basis for the preparation of new policies and development proposals to enhance their role in the future".
In seeking to define the catchment areas for Wimbledon, Mitcham, Morden and Colliers Wood, including the Savacentre based there, the study drew on earlier research into Wimbledon and a residents' survey of February and March 1999. The study reported a significantly high level of empty premises in Morden and showed that Mitcham and Morden displayed a relatively high number of convenience retailers, as opposed to comparison goods retailers, against the national average. It further demonstrated the limited investment in Mitcham and Morden, noted that shopping in those places was characterised by locally based comparison and discount retailers, and highlighted the lack of a critical mass and anchor store to support other multiple retailers.
Specifically focusing on Morden, the survey indicated that 20 per cent. of respondents had been using Morden town centre less often for shopping over the past five years. The main reasons provided by 52 per cent. of respondents for their declining use of shopping facilities were the quantity and quality of shops. The Savacentre in Colliers Wood, a huge pantechnicon of a hypermarket, opened some years before the five-year period started, drawing people away from Morden in the absence of much that would induce them to stay. We should not forget that that was before the other two local shopping centres in Colliers Wood—Tandem and Priory Park—were fully operational. The main destination for food shopping was Savacentre at Colliers Wood, used by 33 per cent. of respondents.
306WH
Twenty-eight per cent. used Safeway in Morden for their main food shopping. The majority of top-up food shopping was undertaken in Morden.
It was noted that the use of the town centre for shopping was declining and that the most desired additional facilities were better quality clothes shops, mentioned by 39 per cent. of respondents; shoe shops, mentioned by 33 per cent.; a cinema, mentioned by 22 per cent.; and a Marks and Spencer's, mentioned by 15 per cent. Interestingly, if we substitute the Co-op department store for Marks and Spencer's, those are the sort of shopping facilities that Morden used to boast of before its decline.
I have carried out my own survey in the Morden area since the beginning of autumn. From time to time, I carry out surveys in different areas of my constituency to ascertain what is concerning local people and to keep in touch with their worries. Hundreds of residents responded to my survey, either on the doorstep, on the phone or by freepost. I should take a moment to praise the valiant postman who delivers my mail to my constituency office. While he retains his job, there is hope for postal services in Morden.
Morden residents who responded named crime and environmental problems such as graffiti and fly tipping as their two major concerns, but almost without exception they were unsatisfied with the facilities and appearance of Morden town centre as well as the intimidating gangs of youths gathering outside the tube station. Though praising the excellent transport links that local residents have on their doorstep—the Northern line, the nearby tram, two Thameslink stations and the many buses running from outside the tube station—they virtually all commented on the unkempt nature of the town centre and the lack of adequate shops.
Merton council is working to cure the mismatch between excellent transport links and poor town centre services. As long as we protect essential services such as the post office, there is no earthly reason why Morden should not have a town centre to be proud of. I call on Safeway to live up to its much-vaunted corporate social responsibility by providing a post office service at least until a suitable new venue in the heart of Morden and a new postmaster can be found.
Given the strong local opposition to the proposed closure of the post office, I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the review of urban post offices, which has just begun. It has already caused disquiet in several corners of my constituency, and the visit by a local development manager was taken to be the death knell for the local post office. Given that all my constituents rely on urban post offices and that all the post offices in my constituency are to be reviewed, I would be grateful for my hon. Friend's assurance that the review will be carried out with due regard to residents' customer needs and to securing the future of communities. Can he tell me what safeguards are in place to ensure that the process is transparent and welcomes residents' views?
As I said, post offices are vital community services. The initial closure of Morden's purpose-built post office in Abbotsbury road and its transfer to under Safeway's roof, under the banner of Post Office modernisation, were greeted with scepticism, and it would appear that

307WH
local fears were justified. Once a corporate partner such as Safeway decides to operate a post office counter, it should not have the freedom simply to renege on its commitment, in the same way that it might randomly decide not to stock any more cans of beans. If there is such a thing as corporate responsibility—I presume that the Minister thinks there is, because it is part of his portfolio—it does not appear to have been worth more than a can of beans in this instance. I would welcome his comments on anything that he can do to encourage Safeway to take a more socially responsible look at its duty towards the people of Morden.
1.41 pm
The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhairi McDonagh) on securing the debate. She has a deep understanding of the issues that affect the quality of life of her constituents and, in particular, her elderly constituents. She also has a good understanding of the tough challenges facing the Royal Mail Group, and she has spoken about that on the Floor of the House.
I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about Safeway's behaviour and I well understand her concern. My understanding is that the post office franchise in the Safeway store formally came to an end on 1 November, and that the store originally proposed a closing date in January—that is to say, next month. I am told, however, that it subsequently moved the date to October 2003, not least in response to representations from my hon. Friend. She referred to a further meeting, which is due to take place this afternoon.
It is certainly the intention and the hope that Post Office Ltd., which is responsible for the post office network, will continue to provide a post office branch facility in my hon. Friend's area. It is continuing its search for suitable premises and for someone to run the business. I hope that delaying the closure until October will give it an opportunity satisfactorily to achieve that.
My hon. Friend asked me to comment on the process on which the Post Office is embarking in relation to the urban post office network. I assure her and the whole Chamber that we fully recognise the importance of the sub-post office network. We are committed to maintaining the network, because sub-post offices are very important. She made the point very effectively that they are important focal points for local communities That is well understood in the context of rural areas, but it needs to be understood equally in the context of urban areas. Post offices are very important for urban communities and, in particular, for the elderly and those who are less mobile.
The post office network serves 28 million people each week. It is the largest retail network in Europe. It has half as many branches again as all the banks and building societies in the country put together. It is precisely because it is so important that the Post Office needs to respond to the changing demands of its customers and to the opportunities arising from new technology. The truth is that people are not using post offices as often as they used to, and that presents challenges to Post Office Ltd., to the individuals who run post office branches and to us in government, too. Some 42 per cent. of benefit recipients now access their benefit
308WH
payments via bank accounts rather than by order books, compared with 26 per cent. in 1996. There has been a sharp drop in the number of people using giros and order books for reasons that we can all understand.
Over the past five years, the number of recipients of retirement pensions and widow's benefit payment has increased by 1 million, but the number of those paid by order books and giros has decreased by more than 1 million: from slightly more than 6 million to less than 5 million. Incapacity benefit payments at the post office have fallen even more dramatically, from more than 2.5 million to less than I million. Similarly, over the past five years, Girobank transactions at post offices have fallen by 37 per cent. and the number of stamps sold at post offices has declined.
Such changes create big challenges for the Post Office. Last year, it's overall operations lost £1.1 million per working day. A major process of change is now taking place. It is backed by substantial investment on the part of the Government to enable the Post Office to be renewed and to return to commercial good health. The problems in the network have affected the ability of sub-postmasters to sell on their businesses; they have taken a severe knock. A vibrant market in respect of the buying and selling of post offices is important to sub-postmasters who serve their communities.
My hon. Friend is familiar with the fact that the Prime Minister asked the performance and innovation unit to develop a strategy for modernising the post office network. Its report made 24 recommendations, all of which were accepted by the Government. Since that acceptance was announced, we have been working closely with Post Office Ltd. and the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters to implement the recommended measures. The PIU found that, over the years, the network of post offices had not kept pace with change, or built on its highly trusted status to develop a wider range of financial services. The Post Office is uniquely trusted; it is one of the most trusted brands in the country, which gives it huge potential. The unit found that it had lost touch with what many of its customers wanted; that it was losing business. As business people, sub-postmasters have found it increasingly difficult to make a living and have begun to leave the network in increasing numbers.
In many urban areas throughout the United Kingdom, there is too little business for the number of post offices that are operating. Of just more than 9,000 urban post offices, more than one in eight has 10 or more other branches within a mile and 155 post offices have 15 or more other branches within a mile. The volume of business is not sufficient to support so dense a network of branches. The Post Office is taking forward a programme that is intended to restore the urban network to commercial viability, restore the confidence of sub-postmasters and attract much-needed new investment so that customers can continue to enjoy access to a full range of services. It must be able to deal with problems such as that described by my hon. Friend when she referred to the decision by Safeway, and be willing to open and to run a replacement office.
My hon. Friend has asked me to set out some of the thinking behind the proposals that Post Office Ltd. has made for closures under the programme that I mentioned. Those proposals will be determined on the basis of the proximity of offices in a particular area, the

309WH
current and projected business volumes of each office and whether individual sub-postmasters have already indicated that they want to leave the network, which is important in the early days. Post Office officials will walk the streets in every area and make a careful study of the location of the offices relative to each other. Those officials will consider important factors for customers: the convenience of alternative branches nearby, if there are any; the availability of public transport links; the provision of access for the disabled and other facilities for people with mobility impairments; and the ability of branches nearby to absorb the extra work that may result from the closure of a particular branch. There may even be potential for expansion in such branches.
A formal consultation will be carried out before any changes are made, in accordance with the existing code of practice on post office closures. That is designed to meet the call for transparency that my hon. Friend underlined. In every case, that would involve consultations with local communities, interest groups, councillors and Members of Parliament. In every instance, there would also be extensive consultations with the consumer body Postwatch, which has taken seriously the importance of its role in the process. We have given that body additional resources so that it can do the job thoroughly and well.
One aim will be to ensure that, if a particular office needs to close, it is as easy and convenient as possible for customers to use other offices nearby. Another aim will be to maximise the amount of business from a closing office that can be captured by other branches nearby. It is, of course, in the interests of the Post Office to retain as much of the business from the office as possible. Equally, it is in the interests of all of our constituents that their concerns be taken fully into account. The programme will start with smaller urban post offices, in which sub-postmasters are under the greatest pressure. The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters has had a full discussion with the Department and the Post Office about how the process can be taken forward as successfully as possible.
There is, properly, a compensation process for sub-postmasters whose post offices will close. European Commission approval for Government funding of that compensation was received on 18 September. Parliamentary approval for the programme itself was gained on 15 October. Post Office Ltd. wrote to all hon. Members on 25 October with a full explanation of its objectives for the programme. When a sub-post office closes under the programme, the Government will meet the costs of compensation, which we expect will total £180 million over the next three years. In addition, a further £30 million will be available for modernising, adapting and investing in those post offices that remain. That will apply, for example, if it is necessary to add another counter to a post office so that it can handle the extra business that comes its way. The key to improving the standard in the offices that remain will be the increased volume of business that they can expect. There will also be grants of between £5,000 and £10,000 for each office that expects to take on a significant number of additional customers. That amount should be matched by the proprietor of the office. Those grants will also be an important boost for the offices that remain.
310WH
This is the first time that there has been a programme of Government investment in urban sub-post offices. That programme is an additional measure to those that were recommended in the performance and innovation unit report. The fact that investment is being made reflects the importance that the Government attach to the urban sub-post office network. The Post Office will generally require offices that receive trade from an office that has closed to improve their facilities and to increase their opening hours, so that increasingly sub-post offices will maintain the same hours as associated retail business. That will considerably improve access to post office services for customers in urban areas.
I think that my hon. Friend will agree that having a properly managed programme of the kind that I have described is preferable to the alternative, which would be unmanaged closures resulting from dwindling income. Without the programme, many more urban sub-postmasters would shut their business altogether—not for the reasons that applied in the case that she described, in which the decision was made by a big corporate organisation, but because the sub-postmasters felt that they could not carry on with such a falling off in business. Such a random process of unmanaged closures would cause much greater disruption to customers than the properly managed process that I have described.
Even after the changes, when whatever closures are needed have taken place, 95 per cent. of people in urban areas will still live within, at most, a mile of their nearest post office branch. The majority will, we expect, live within half a mile. I assure my hon. Friend that, other than in exceptional circumstances, the scope of the programme will not extend to post offices in the most deprived 10 per cent. of urban wards in the country if they are more than half a mile from the next post office. Indeed, we intend to improve and sustain post offices in deprived urban areas. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will shortly be announcing details of a programme of funding to support post office services and the development of associated retail facilities in those deprived districts, precisely because post offices have such an important role in struggling urban shopping centres of the kind that my hon. Friend described.
The programme to restructure the urban post office network will run for three years. It has only just begun. There is no predetermined list of offices that will close. Nor is any arithmetical formula being used to determine the number of closures in an area. Sub-postmasters have already been asked to express possible interest in closing under the terms of the programme, but initial expressions of interest are not binding either on Post Office Ltd., or on the sub-postmaster. Before any changes are made under the programme and before any closures can happen there will be meetings with sub-postmasters and full consultation will take place. Postwatch will examine every proposal and monitor the programme.
The performance and innovation unit suggested not only that the Government should help if the Post Office found that fewer offices were needed in urban areas but that we support the introduction of the concept of universal banking. That will be important for the future well-being of the urban post office network. The introduction of universal banking has been made

311WH
possible because the Government have made the biggest ever investment in the Post Office—£480 million for online computer systems for every post office in the country. We are making good progress on preparations to introduce universal banking services from next April The ambition is to build on the Post Office's uniquely trusted brand and to modernise and extend its commercial banking arrangements, so that it becomes the nation's leading provider of access to bank accounts—the universal bank. Increasingly, the message to be conveyed to my hon. Friend's constituents will be, "Do your banking at the post office." The Post Office has had some big successes with new products and services, including travel insurance and bureau de change services. We shall need more new
312WH
ideas and additional investment, so that post offices can thrive again by providing the services that people need. All the high street banks have now signed up to their part of the universal banking arrangements. Those will be in place from April through the basic bank accounts offered by all the high street banks and major building societies and through Post Office card accounts. Those will be usable only at a post office. Many people will want that simple form of account, so that they can receive their benefit payments.
Our aim must be to restore the urban network to commercial viability and to restore the confidence of sub-postmasters. That is critical if we are to attract much-needed new investment to the network.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.