Westminster Hall Sitting of 27 April 2004

Preamble
[SIR NICHOLAS WINTERTON in the Chair]

Deepcut Barracks
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Margaret Moran.]
9.30 am
Lembit Öpik: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to discuss this issue in a Adjournment debate, and I thank the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, for his constructive approach in the run-up to the debate. I know that the timing of today's debate was exceedingly difficult for him, because of other unmoveable commitments—in Afghanistan, I think—so I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for Defence for agreeing to respond today. That is generally appreciated. In that spirit I assure him that my aim is not to find villains in the Department, but to find answers. I am increasingly optimistic that answers can be found in partnership with the Ministry of Defence.
I am asking for an independent public inquiry into the four unexplained deaths at the Princess Royal barracks at Deepcut in Surrey. Between 1995 and 2002, four soldiers died at Deepcut: Private Sean Benton died on 9 June 1995, Private Cheryl James died on 27 November 1995, Private Geoff Gray died on 21 September 2001 and Private James Collinson died on 23 March 2002. All were members of the Royal Logistic Corps and were in phase 2 training. All died from gunshot wounds.
The first three deaths were investigated by Surrey Police and inquests were held. Open verdicts were given in the cases of Privates James and Gray. The Surrey coroner's opinion was that Private Benton took his own life. Private Benton was shot five times, Private Gray was shot twice and Privates James and Collinson were found with one gunshot wound each. During their investigations into Private Collinson's death, Surrey police decided to reopen the three previous cases. The report on the deaths went to the Surrey coroner on 19 September 2003 and a further report was published on March 4 2004 outlining the police's concerns about the apparent lack of safeguards built into the Army's care regime and about wider cultural and organisational issues in the Army. The police called for a broader enquiry.
I shall illustrate the case for that inquiry through the example of the late Cheryl James. Cheryl was the daughter of my constituents Des and Doreen James. She died, as I said, on 27 November 1995. In our view, to this day her death remains unexplained. Cheryl died armed and alone, guarding an internal gate. She should never have been armed and alone. Army regulations state:
"Servicewomen may be armed and employed on the same basis as adult male soldiers. The only proviso is that, where possible, armed Servicewomen should be accompanied by male personnel. If this is not possible, Servicewomen are to he employed in 'pairs'."
To the board of inquiry, the Army admitted that
184WH
"the unit was mistaken in believing it could employ Servicewomen, armed and alone, on guard duties".
It also acknowledged that recruits are not made aware of those regulations during phase 1 or phase 2 training, so the onus is very much on the Army to ensure that the regulations are observed. Despite the clear-cut guidance and the evident breach, the Army found that it was not culpable. The matter could not be clearer: Cheryl was armed and alone when she died, which was clearly contrary to regulations.
On further inspection, we find that, prior to Cheryl's death and afterwards, Army procedure and regulations were flouted again and again. The Army did not insist that Surrey police adopt primacy for the investigation into the death. The special investigation branch did not mark off the scene to prevent evidence being destroyed or lost; the barracks was not stood down and closed to those arriving or leaving, contrary to stated Army procedure following a death. No ballistic evidence was taken, so one cannot be sure that the bullet found in Cheryl came from her SA80 rifle: there is no evidence to ensure conclusively the connection between the weapon and the death. Amazingly, it seems that the bullet was recovered and then lost. A witness who attended the post mortem alleged that the bullet was put into a specimen jar and then discarded. The list goes on, and none of those actions have been accounted for. Was it incompetence, negligence or cover-up? Furthermore, one cannot know whether the Ministry of Defence officers who investigated Cheryl's death are still operating in the same manner today.
The details regarding Cheryl's death only emerged from the Surrey police re-investigation completed in September 2003. That alone would warrant an independent inquiry into her death, but it is just the start. The day Cheryl died an Army officer from a local barracks in Wrexham informed Mr. and Mrs. James of their daughter's death. He told them that Cheryl had "taken her own life" but could not answer any further questions. The Jameses were not contacted by any Army or Ministry of Defence official between her death on 27 November and her funeral on 4 December. After that, the Jameses had no Army or MOD contact—official or otherwise—for seven years, and then did so only as a result of the Surrey police investigation.
Back in 1995, Mr. and Mrs. James did not feel like questioning the facts. They felt isolated and distressed about the way in which the Army handled their daughter's death. Understandably, the lack of compassion was underlined when some of her property was returned by courier and the driver—not knowing any better—merely got the Jameses to sign for what felt like their daughter's life, as one would sign for office supplies. Some items, such as her mobile phone, were missing—her belongings had evidently become separated. Things were randomly posted back to Mr. and Mrs. James, pretty much out of the blue with no explanation, marked simply "the late Cheryl James", and the Jameses still do not know if everything was returned. Such insensitivity in the approach of the Ministry of Defence and the Army to bereaved families sadly continues. Reg Keys, whose son Lance-Corporal Thomas Keys died in Iraq on 24 June 2003, reported

185WH
experiencing the same attitude of indifference and lack of transparency just one month ago. Time and time again, grieving families are left to wait and wonder.
Mrs. Joan Humble: The hon. Gentleman is dealing with a very difficult issue. Does he recognise that there are many families whose children died in peacetime in UK barracks other than Deepcut? They, too, want an inquiry into their children's deaths. I am sure that he is aware of the Deepcut And Beyond campaign. Will he widen his call to include other families, so that they can have the answers that the Deepcut families want?
Lembit Öpik: Although I await the Secretary of State's response with interest, it would go beyond my remit to call for an inquiry into all the deaths. However, I agree absolutely with the hon. Lady. Many families throughout the UK are listening with great interest to what the Secretary of State has to say about Deepcut. I understand the Deepcut cases most clearly, and there are four specific cases—the four deaths—to which I can refer. 1 hope that the Secretary of State will make a start by saying that he will allow a full public inquiry in that clear, specified and objectively argued case, but I stand foursquare with the hon. Lady in supporting the Deepcut And Beyond campaign.
To return to the duty of care in Deepcut, Surrey police acknowledged the shortcomings of the original investigations into the four deaths. They apologised to families for not taking the lead in ensuring a thorough inquest at the outset. The Army wrote to Mr. and Mrs. James to say that it had
"misunderstood the regulations in place at the time".
In Des and Doreen's own words, they paid a big price for the Army misunderstanding its own regulations. Despite the apparent admission of negligence by the Army, no apology has ever been made and no one ever held accountable for the death of Cheryl James. Above all, and leaving aside their feelings of bereavement, the Jameses still do not know for sure what happened to their daughter.
Four further points underscore and bolster their doubts. First, an independent ballistics expert hired by the families has said that it is "highly unlikely" that three of the four deaths at Deepcut were self-inflicted. In layman's terms, there may have been third-party involvement. Let us not play around with words: that could mean manslaughter or murder. Regarding Cheryl's death, the expert said that if someone used the SA80 rifle to take their own life, it would be highly unlikely that the bullet was retrieved, as the gun is so powerful. Apparently, however the bullet was retrieved—and disposed of. None of that has been explained. He also said that the pattern of gunshot residue on her hand indicated that she was pushing the gun away from her face.
Secondly, the Army referred to Cheryl's death as suicide both prior to and after the coroner's inquest, despite guidelines saying that:
"it is not for the Army to reach any official conclusion as to the death of any Serviceman or woman; cause of death in such circumstances can only be established by Her Majesty's Coroner following the civilian police investigation and report."
186WH
Thirdly, one week before the coroner's inquest, the Army issued a document referring to Cheryl's death as "a tragic suicide". She is even included in the suicide statistics. However, the coroner returned an open verdict. Three weeks after the coroner's inquest, the Army conducted its own so-called board of inquiry, which concluded that:
"notwithstanding the Coroner's verdict, it is the opinion of the board that"
Private
"James shot herself and that the possibility of her action being accidental is negligible."
Where is the evidence? The parents have a right to know how and what the Army knows that draws it to that conclusion. Why has the Army never shared the evidence used to back up those claims? Let us note that a member of the board of inquiry registered a statement of discontent with the board's verdict. That should ring a loud alarm bell.
Fourthly, the hoard claimed that Private James
"apparently took 6 distinct and positive actions in relation to her weapon and ammunition which were clearly beyond her duty at the time, the omission of any one of which would have meant she may not have been killed."
Here are the six "distinct and positive actions". First, she removed a charged magazine of 10 rounds from her pocket. How do they know that? Secondly, she placed a charged magazine on her weapon. How do they know that? Thirdly, she cocked the weapon. How do they know that? Fourthly, she released the safety catch. How do they know that? Fifthly, she reversed the weapon so that it was aimed at herself. How do they know that? Sixthly, she pulled the trigger. How do they know that? No witnesses are cited. Where does the information come from? Such contradictions, assumptions and apparently unsupported claims add to the case for an independent public inquiry to resolve the unanswered questions.
Deepcut should want one too. After all, in just 19 weeks, two deaths and 10 cases of self-harm were recorded. No questions were asked, but the camp commander was moved just three days after the second death. The commanding officer never phoned or wrote to Mr. and Mrs. James. Interestingly, last year he was awarded an OBE. He has never been questioned publicly about what happened at the camp. Someone with such a noble record will, I am sure, want to help to clear up the matter, not least because he was responsible for the camp at the time when much of it occurred. Let us note also that the Army's Adjutant-General, Lieutenant General Sir Alistair Irwin, admits, the Army had "clearly failed" all four Deepcut soldiers, adding,
"they're not now alive and they should be alive."
However, by saying that Private Benton's death had been the first at Deepcut for 40 years, he defended the Army against police claims that the Army did nothing. After such a long record of calm, should not two deaths in 19 weeks have rung loud alarm bells?
I turn to the Surrey police report and subsequent comments. While not pushing for a criminal prosecution, they were so concerned about events uncovered in their investigations that they produced a report calling for a broader inquiry. They said that
"the families have, quite rightly, refused to accept the deaths of their children without question."

187WH
The police apologised to the four families for not properly challenging early assumptions that these young soldiers took their own lives and for their failure to overturn the then practice of allowing the investigation to be delegated to the Army. The police now recognise that they should have maintained primacy over the Army in the investigation. The civil police now conduct an independent investigation immediately when untimely non-combatant military deaths occur. However, the police say that
"there remains much more to be done"
to "address areas of risk".
Furthermore, parents' rights are still not sufficiently respected. For example, board of inquiry reports are meant to be passed to the next of kin, but rarely are.
Perhaps that is why the Defence Committee took on board in its duty of care inquiry some issues raised by Surrey police. That is good, but I cannot emphasise enough the admission by the Committee that it simply cannot answer the core questions about the deaths at Deepcut. Incidentally, so that people are not confused, let me make it clear that, although the Committee announced its inquiry on the same day as the final report of Surrey police was published, the two are not linked. The Committee is looking broadly into all three forces. It is not investigating bullying, harassment, the management of Deepcut when the recruits died or mistakes made during the investigations at Deepcut. The Committee says that it cannot do justice to those matters, and 1 agree. Only a public inquiry would have the time and resources to generate as definitive an account as is now possible, after the intervening time.
What outcomes would we want from a public inquiry? Surrey police were concerned about incidents of bullying. That has been a concern of MPs and peers since 1989 and possibly earlier, with numerous parliamentary questions and debates. An inquiry should investigate that issue in relation to Deepcut. An inquiry should also study the high incidence of military suicide. The Defence Analytical Services Agency report of July 2003, entitled "Suicide and Open Verdict Deaths among males in the UK Regular Armed Forces", found that
"between 1984 and 2002 there were 446 coroner-informed suicides"
in the armed forces. That is one suicide every fortnight, most—62 per cent.—occurring in the Army. That figure excludes open verdicts and other non-combatant deaths. The important point is that Army males under 20 years old are 50 per cent. more likely to be registered as having committed suicide than males under 20 in the UK civilian population. Incidentally, suicide rates among the under-25s are higher in the Army than in the Navy or the Royal Air Force.
Mr. Eric Joyce: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to give only part of the picture, but he has left out females, and given that he is calling for a public inquiry into the death of a female, could he give us the overall figure for the rate of death of under-21s in civilian life?
Lembit Öpik: That is a fair question, which I would like to answer, but I was unable to obtain the figures. Perhaps I was looking in the wrong place or asking the wrong questions. I doubt whether the Secretary of State
188WH
can furnish us with that information, but part of my ongoing research, with my limited resources, involves trying to obtain that breakdown. I am sure that it exists and I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for being unable to answer the question now.
The DASA report says that the higher suicide rates among young Army males compared with the equivalent UK civilian population merit further investigation. A public inquiry should consider that in the context of Deepcut. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that three of the four deaths at Deepcut were of young males. Above all, a public inquiry should aim to determine what happened at Deepcut. The final report of Surrey police reinforces the case for thorough, independent scrutiny to establish the circumstances at the time of the Deepcut deaths, plus corrective actions to prevent reoccurrence.
Will there be improvements without an inquiry? Perhaps, but the military have been promising reform and improvement for years. Indeed, Surrey police have documented no fewer than seven reviews, reports and studies. Each identified similar issues relating to the vulnerability of young people at Deepcut—indeed, I understand that Brigadier Evans conducted his inquiry specifically because of the number of incidents at Deepcut. What came of that? There seems to have been relatively little follow-up.
Media pressure is mounting. On 25 April, The Observer ran a front page article entitled, "Military chiefs ignored warnings over Deepcut." It said that the Army Training and Recruiting Agency
"reported a failing in certain aspects as a result of reduction in the military workforce and increased obligations,"
and added that another report, underlining an absence of
"coherent and credible training activities",
should be taken seriously.
The Sunday Express also covered the story on the same day.
Some 140 Members of Parliament have signed an early-day motion supporting a full, independent inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the four deaths at Deepcut. Amnesty International backs that request. By contrast, in all the cases investigated by Surrey police, crucial forensic and ballistics evidence was destroyed because of the Army's assumption of suicide, yet the Army continues to maintain that the investigation into Cheryl James's death was thorough.
Eight years on, Cheryl James's family still do not know how or why she died. The responsibility for that must remain with the Ministry of Defence. No matter how many reports or statistics it issues, no spin can change the fact that it failed to investigate the death of Cheryl James thoroughly, and failed in its duty of care. I give the Ministry of Defence credit for recognising that the families need to achieve closure, but to stop such cases from happening again the Army needs that closure too. If the MOD has nothing to hide, it is in its interest to hold an independent inquiry. It is also in the interest of every youngster who is contemplating a military career.
Statistics and internal reviews have not proved to be an acceptable alternative. For the welfare of young men and women who choose military service and for the sake

189WH
of the families of the Deepcut four and those participating in the Deepcut And Beyond campaign, I respectfully ask the Secretary of State to commission an independent public inquiry into the deaths. It would be a credit to his Department if he were to do so, and nothing less can provide the answers that the families deserve and the Army needs.
9.52 am
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: I congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Opik) on securing the debate on a moving issue of great public interest. I also give credit to the Government for the fact that the Secretary of State himself has come to the Chamber to respond to this important debate.
Mr. and Mrs. Harry Benton, the parents of Private Sean Benton, live in my constituency, and I am proud to represent them. Private Benton died at the age of 20 at Deepcut barracks on 9 June 1995. I believe that he deserved better. He was found dead with five gunshot wounds in the chest. The coroner agreed with the Army and pronounced a verdict of suicide. Later forensic reports have suggested that he was shot four times from a distance and once from close range—a remarkable feat if it is true that it was self-harm. Despite the evidence of Sean Benton's friend, Private Trevor Hunter, broadcast by BBC's "Panorama" on 1 December 2002, in which he said that Sean had been singled out for "special treatment" and subjected to serious bullying and physical assaults, Mr. and Mrs. Benton have yet to receive a satisfactory explanation of his death. Even if the suicide verdict were justified, the question why remains unanswered.
Before I continue, I wish to pass on the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who must be absent this morning in order to present a report to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. My hon. Friend has worked tirelessly with the families to bring these matters to public attention, and we are grateful to him.
I also pay tribute to all the bereaved families who have come together in the Deepcut And Beyond campaign to press their case for a public inquiry. The group includes mothers and fathers of young soldiers who have lost their lives in tragic, but non-conflict circumstances. Everyone knows that when their youngsters join the armed forces, there is a risk, but they do not anticipate that risk arising back at barracks. The campaign also includes brothers and sisters—young people whose childhood will be forever tainted by the memory of how they first heard and were scarred by the loss of someone whom they loved and admired. The families have presented their case with great dignity, clarity and purpose, and have acted throughout with the utmost good faith. They are entitled to the truth about how their loved ones died. They are entitled to justice. All the way up the chain of command, those responsible should be held fully to account. Whether the issue is one of criminal activity or of mere negligence, the truth must be known.
Like the families, I believe that change must come in consequence. All those who have a part to play in preventing future deaths must work together. The
190WH
families have taught us a great deal. It is they, not the Army or the Government, who have brought to light the shortcomings of the policy of zero tolerance on bullying and demonstrated how deaths of soldiers associated with Catterick barracks in Yorkshire are double the number set out in official estimates. It is the families, not the Government, who have revealed the problems of investigating deaths of soldiers overseas, where there is no possibility of civilian police involvement and the Army investigates itself. It is the families, not the Government, who have shown how the absence of effective investigation may lead to those responsible for suspicious deaths evading justice because accidental death or natural causes can seem a simpler, more convenient, or kinder explanation.
The Government have accepted responsibility for maintaining the effectiveness and efficiency of the armed forces. The exercise of the duty of care is a vital part of discharging that obligation. Service families are in the front line of that battle and should be treated as allies. We have a number of problems in the armed forces and I believe the Deepcut And Beyond families should be regarded as partners in helping to resolve them. I pay tribute to the approach of the Surrey police force and its chief constable, who worked with diligence to involve the families in the investigation. I am grateful to the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, for agreeing to place in the Library a number of the documents connected with the Army's investigation of the matters. However, I understand that many more documents are still to come; I hope that they, too, will be available.
In examining the systemic issues arising from its 15-month investigation, the Surrey police drew precisely the same conclusion. Once the problem is acknowledged, the appropriate remedies must be identified. Those measures must be put into effect and maintained; they must be monitored and subject to further assessment. I join in congratulating the Surrey police on a well crafted and finely tuned report. The three central recommendations are well considered and will represent an enormous step forward if acted on promptly.
The broader inquiry that Surrey police propose must consider whether the risks identified at Deepcut are replicated elsewhere and how they may relate to the incidents of self-harm, suicide and undetermined deaths. It must also consider how the Army's care regime can be further improved and how independent oversight might help the Army to define and maintain appropriate standards of care for young soldiers. We are grateful that colleagues on the Defence Committee have decided to undertake their own inquiry into the exercise of the duty of care. However, as its Chairman has stated, that is not and cannot be a substitute for the broader inquiry recommended by Surrey police.
In launching the final report, Surrey's deputy chief constable, Robert Quick, left no room for doubt: to satisfy the Surrey recommendation, a broader inquiry must be independent, it must function transparently, it must have equivalent judicial powers in relation to documents and witnesses, and it must involve the families of victims. The Human Rights Act 1998 requires that all deaths involving state parties be independently investigated, promptly and effectively. New obligations arise from the judgment in Amin v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, given in

191WH
the House of Lords, on 16 October 2003, in which it was found that the obligation to hold an effective and thorough investigation may in certain circumstances be met only by holding a public and independent investigation with the family legally represented, provided with relevant material and able to cross-examine principal witnesses.
Next week it will be two months since the final report of Surrey police was published. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State was made aware of its conclusions at least two months before that. I urge the Secretary of State to set aside any reservations that he may have and recognise the overwhelming case for a full public inquiry or, at the very least, a comprehensive inquiry in public at which the families may be properly represented.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I should inform the Chamber that it is my intention to start the winding-up speeches at half-past 10, because I am sure that hon. Members will want the Secretary of State, whom we are delighted to see here, to have sufficient time to wind up this important debate. I shall be grateful if hon. Members bear that in mind.
10 am
Annabelle Ewing: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) on securing this important and timely debate, and I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has come along to respond to it. I am sure that the families involved will appreciate that.
James Collinson from Perth, aged 17, had been in the Army for six months when he was found dead with a gunshot wound to the head at Deepcut barracks on the evening of 23 March 2002. He had been dropped off at Deepcut some five hours earlier by his mother, Yvonne Collinson. He had been in good cheer and was excited about having recently passed his driving test and the fact that he was soon to sit his HGV licence test.
Three days after James's death, when his father Jim Collinson phoned Deepcut to inquire about how the investigation into his son's death was proceeding, he was told, "One body, one bullet. Draw your own conclusion." Three weeks after that, Mrs. Collinson contacted Surrey police, having heard nothing from either the civilian or military police about the taking of her statement and given the fact that she had seen her son so close to the time of his death. It was only as a result of her persistence that a statement was eventually taken from her. Indeed, it was only as a result of the persistence of Mr. and Mrs. Collinson that a proper police inquiry was finally embarked on some four weeks after James's death.
As we have heard this morning, Surrey police's fifth report includes an express recognition that the deaths of James Collinson, Sean Benton, Cheryl James and Geoff Gray were not originally properly investigated. I would contend that such failure and omission on the part of both the military and Surrey police serve to undermine fundamentally the conclusions that were reached by Surrey police in September 2003.
Hon. Members may recall that Surrey police sent reports of the reopened investigations into the four deaths at Deepcut to the coroner. In it, they stated that
"no evidence has come to light so far to indicate any prospect of a prosecution",
192WH
and that
"It is not the role of Surrey Police to come to a verdict on these deaths, and we have not done so."
As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire mentioned, with respect to evidence gathering in the crucial period following James's death, Surrey police apologised for
"our failure to overturn the custom and practice of the day, which
allowed for the investigation to be delegated to the Army. We have recognised that we should have maintained primacy for these investigations over the Army."
It is clear that in the initial days following the deaths, the Army assumed control of the investigation. However, the key problem was that there was no investigation; instead there was simply an assumption—suicide. There was no proper forensic post-mortem, no photographs were taken and fingerprints were not lifted from the gun. The scene was not secured, and witness statements conflicted with the two photographs that were taken of James's body on the night of his death. Some 160 wedding guests who were at Deepcut base that night for a function were not automatically interviewed. James's cap badge was found some nine months later within the Deepcut perimeter. It had somehow become separated from his cap, which was on his head at the time of his death. I could go on, but I am conscious of the time constraints this morning. The experiences of the other three families are depressingly similar, and we have heard specific information this morning about the way in which Cheryl James's death also was not investigated.
Not only was the subsequent Surrey police investigation hampered by the initial failures of the military police, but the Collinsons and the other families have so far been denied full access to the reports that Surrey police sent to the coroner last September. Some seven months after their investigation was concluded, the families remain completely in the dark as to the evidence gathered, the questions asked, the contents of statements and whether there was full co-operation from the Army and the Ministry of Defence. The refusal to allow proper access to the information has continued, notwithstanding repeated requests from the families' legal teams. Hence, any suggestion that the police investigation is complete and that the conclusions are sound is somewhat premature.
Moreover, hon. Members may be interested to note that Devon and Cornwall police are conducting an investigation into the way in which Surrey police handled the subsequent investigation. As has been said, Surrey police had a wider remit for their fifth report, which was published in March 2004. They were to consider how the Army in general had discharged its duty of care, particularly to young soldiers. The report served as a damning critique of the way in which the duty of care had been discharged over the years. It indicated that there had been repeated failures to learn any lessons over some 15 years and recommended a broader inquiry to examine the sufficiency of the care regime for young soldiers in training at Deepcut and beyond. In a briefing that we received from the deputy chief constable of Surrey police on the eve of publication of the fifth report, there was recognition that an independent inquiry would certainly fit the bill for the broader inquiry that Surrey police were recommending. However, to be fair to the deputy chief constable, he made it clear that that was a political decision for Ministers and not a matter for his force.

193WH
The Collinson family and the other families deserve to know how and why their children died. Unfortunately, they are no nearer finding that out. The Defence Committee inquiry that we have heard about this morning, while very welcome indeed, will not consider the individual circumstances of the four deaths. Again, it will have a wider remit to review the care regime across the armed forces as a whole. A previous Defence Committee report published, I believe, in 1994 did not lead to any significant changes, yet, after four deaths between 1995 and 2002 at the same barracks, we are told by certain spokesmen for the MOD that a Select Committee inquiry should suffice. I say to the Secretary of State that it will not suffice.
Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Lady agree with my interpretation of what the Defence Committee has said—that it excluded itself from the prospect of being able to answer the specific questions of the parents and the Army? It said that that would go way beyond any remit that it could possibly handle.
Annabelle Ewing: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. When the Defence Committee inquiry was announced a few weeks ago, it was made clear that its remit would not include reviewing the circumstances surrounding the four deaths. Indeed, the Collinson family have been told that it will not even consider information that is already in the public domain. Clearly, the Defence Committee inquiry will not get to the bottom of what happened at Deepcut barracks.
As hon. Members have said, an inquiry is needed that will be sufficiently empowered to compel witnesses to appear and documents to be produced. It must he public, open to scrutiny and directly involve the families. Only a public inquiry will fit that bill. We, the public, must be confident that this time lessons will be learned. Public confidence must be restored.
I say to the Secretary of State that the Ministry of Defence should reflect carefully on the issue, because it will not go away. If the reasonable requests for a public inquiry in these particular circumstances are not adhered to, the question that must be asked is, what is the MOD afraid of?
10.10 am
Mrs. Joan Humble: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to take part in this debate, which is very important, not only for the Deepcut families, but for other families, too.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) on securing the debate; he and other hon. Members have worked together to raise awareness about what happened at Deepcut. The matter has brought together other families who are carefully watching this debate, so that lessons can be learned across the board. I am especially pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is here, because by his presence he acknowledges how important the debate is. His answers to the Deepcut issue are key, and they will be key to any future investigation into the armed services' wider duty of care to their personnel.
194WH
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster), I start by congratulating the families themselves. In Blackpool last weekend, there was a meeting involving many parents who have tragically lost children in peacetime to deaths in barracks, mainly at Catterick. They share the concerns of the Deepcut families, and they, too, want answers. I congratulate hon. Members who have given detailed accounts of the deaths of the young people at Deepcut in desperately tragic circumstances. When I meet the families I am genuinely humbled by their dignity and their determination. They want answers: they want to know why they lost their children, who had gone to serve their country. There is no excuse; there must be answers.
I shall consider some common threads in the contributions to the debate and in the investigations thus far, because the lessons to be learned from Deepcut come not simply from looking at the individual cases but from pulling together common threads, the main one being the issue of bullying, which is the principal concern of my constituents and the other families. They want to know how vulnerable 16, 17 or 18-year-olds, who are perhaps not as prepared as their predecessors for a life in the Army and its training centres, cope with being away from their families. They recognise that they have to learn military discipline as well as skills, but they are perhaps not used to the environment in which they find themselves. The Army and the other armed services have a duty of care, which they must acknowledge and to which they must respond properly.
Military suicides are a serious issue. Why do so many young people kill themselves? My constituent, Derek MacGregor, killed himself at Catterick. Why? His family believe that bullying was involved, and that needs to be investigated.
Mr. Joyce: I hear what my hon. Friend says about the human dimension to the tragedies. However, on the one hand she appears to recognise the inherent risk that military organisations take when they train people who are not always from a traditional military background, but on the other she appears to make the assumption that something like bullying must be at the heart of the matter, calls for a public inquiry, and appears to have a preconceived idea of what that inquiry should find. Is that not somewhat inconsistent?
Mrs. Humble: I understand my hon. Friend's expertise in the matter. However, I am not drawing conclusions but pulling together the common threads that have emerged from all the debates that have taken place on the matter. I shall make some points later that I hope will reassure him that I recognise that the Army is addressing some of the issues. However, before I make those points, I want to mention some of the common threads that have emerged from the discussions about Deepcut, which can be used to address the issues raised by other families beyond Deepcut.
One of those common threads concerns independent police investigations. The hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) spoke in some detail about the inadequacy of the forensic investigations into the death of her constituent. That seems to be symptomatic of all the investigations of the deaths that have occurred at Deepcut. Parents are concerned that there should be early intervention by the civilian police in such incidents

195WH
to secure the scene, and that a proper investigation should be carried out into all the circumstances surrounding such peacetime deaths in barracks.
I have been asked by my constituent to raise the issue of health and safety in general, and the role of the Health and Safety Executive. Who goes into barracks to examine safety and carry out risk assessment? I acknowledge, especially with regard to the earlier intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce), that that issue is not easy to address. We should not underestimate the fact that when young people go into the armed forces, they are, by definition, going into a dangerous job.
There is also a serious concern about the need for an independent helpline. To whom do young people go when they want help? I know that there are telephone numbers that they can call and organisations that can offer help—the Army chaplaincy service, for example—but do young people use those helplines, and how independent is the help that is available? Is that independent help still available when those young people leave the training centres and go out to their regiments? The Army has an ongoing duty of care to all its staff.
I welcomed the opportunity given to me by the Ministry of Defence to visit two training establishments, and I compliment my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues on arranging that visit for me and four or five others. It was clear from talking to Army and Air Force training staff at the two establishments that things are moving on. It is recognised that the armed forces take in young people who are not the same sort of intake as 10 or 20 years ago. It is also recognised that a duty of care is owed to those individuals, and that their concerns must be listened to.
I took time out during those visits to talk to some of the trainees. They acknowledged that most of the training staff who dealt with them listened to them. The staff may have barked out orders on occasion, but the trainees to whom I spoke accepted that. There should be a balance between what must be a rigorous Army training regime for young people who will go into the most difficult situations and risk their lives, and an acknowledgment that it must not be accompanied by unnecessary aggression by the training staff or bullying among the trainees. We must achieve that balance between having trained armed forces and caring for young people.
I shall finish by quoting from correspondence that I received from my constituent, Joe MacGregor, who says:
"I am not a politician. I am a Father who wants nay demands to know what happened to my son a lad who loved the army, who had so much going for him should in the space of a month see his world collapse and be driven to a point where life is not worth living. Where when he asks for help he is refused. I WANT ANSWERS."
We all want answers.
10.20 am
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) on obtaining this important debate, and on the succinct and eloquent way in which he put the case on behalf of the four families
196WH
whose children died at Deepcut. We are right to praise our soldiers for their heroism in war, but equally right to condemn their betrayal in peacetime by those who are charged with their welfare. All we seek is the truth. Sadly, both as a lawyer and a Member of Parliament, I feel that the whole truth may be beyond us now. A lot of time has passed since the four deaths, and a lot of evidence was disregarded, not found, or subsequently destroyed. I agree that the conduct of the Army and the military police was, at best, complacent, and at worst, disgraceful. Having said that, I praise Ministers' efforts. I was pleased to be able to take Mr. and Mrs. Gray to see a Defence Minister—although it was not the Minister of State—and the Secretary of State is to be commended for coming here today to face certain criticism.
Mr. and Mrs. Gray have been deeply concerned because they do not accept that their son's death was simple suicide. Clearly, it was not. They do not accept that it was suicide through negligence, and they are concerned that Private Gray may have been unlawfully killed, which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, somewhat brutally, described as manslaughter or murder. I cannot answer or deal with that question, and I do not suppose that anyone else in this Chamber can: as I have said, the sad fact is that it may be impossible ever to come to the correct conclusion. However, that is not a reason not to hold an inquiry, given the wide ramifications, not only for Deepcut but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) said, for the community more generally.
We need an inquiry to consider the causes of similar repeated and suspicious deaths at Deepcut, and to call the officer commanding Deepcut, or in this case, officers commanding to account their actions. We certainly need an inquiry to consider the conduct of the military police at Deepcut, who seem to have said, "It was suicide," then looked for the evidence to fit that verdict, and an inquiry must consider the relationship between the military and civilian police forces. In this case, it was Surrey police, whose initial attitude in the case of Private Gray was somewhat peremptory, but who have been praised for their subsequent efforts. I have spoken to them in order to get to the bottom of what actually happened, and to point to some directions in which any inquiry might go.
I should like in particular to praise Mr. Gray, who has performed heroically. It was he who pointed out to me—I subsequently, quickly pointed it out to Surrey police and to Ministers—that all kinds of very odd things were going on at the time of Private Gray's death. An intruder was rampaging in the grounds and escaped; a drunken visitor to the officers' mess was behaving appallingly; and during the search there were discrepancies about the position of the body. In addition, there is the evidence of the ballistics expert who believes that Private Gray could not have killed himself, and the fact that Private Gray appears to have killed himself and then to have fired the gun again—a very strange happening, although the guns in question not only fire single shots but can be pressed on to automatic fire.
Mr. Gray has not had satisfactory answers, nor have we as Parliament; nor do I believe that I have done so, in my capacity as a lawyer who has regularly appeared in the criminal courts. Indeed, I consider the standard of

197WH
conduct of the inquiry to have been dreadful. If that is how the military police operate in conjunction with the civilian police, a good shake-up is needed.
Was Private Gray's death a simple suicide? That seems almost impossible not only in the case of Private Gray but in the others. Was it suicide caused by the Army's negligence? Quite probably. Were third parties involved? That is the deepest question, and we need an answer to it. I hope that the Secretary of State will allow us to have a public inquiry, so that we can get some of the answers.
10.26 am
Mr. Paul Keetch: On behalf of the Liberal Democrats I welcome this debate and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) on securing it. Like him and other hon. Members, I welcome the Secretary of State for Defence to the Chamber this morning. We are very pleased to see him.
All those who have spoken this morning, particularly the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster), have rightly spoken about the families' dignity. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) was right to use the word "humbled". I and other hon. Members whose constituents have been killed, either on active service or in peacetime, are truly humbled by the way in which the families react. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye was right to mention the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who has campaigned vigorously on this issue. The hon. Members for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) have spoken eloquently about their constituents' tragic cases.
None of them, and certainly not I, doubt the armed forces' great traditions and history. We accept that their continuing excellence and the skills that they demonstrate are largely the result of the great training that their personnel receive. The training regime for the armed forces is undeniably, and rightly, tough, but I reject the idea that it should place on young recruits pressures beyond those that they can face. There is no contradiction between a tough training regime and one that respects the rights of individuals. Bullying and harassment are unacceptable in the modern Army. Behind the cases at Deepcut, and those at Catterick and elsewhere that have been mentioned, lies the issue of bullying in the armed forces, which must be addressed.
I shall not speak for too long, because I want the Secretary of State to have plenty of time for his concluding remarks. I do not want to give the impression that bullying and harassment are widespread in the armed forces, because they are not, but it is deeply irresponsible to bury our heads in the sand and say that there is no issue to address. The Ministry of Defence's own survey shows that there is a problem that needs to be looked into. A parliamentary answer to me in December last year showed that half the Army personnel who responded to a continual attitude survey felt that harassment, discrimination and bullying were problems in the British Army. When members of the armed forces themselves provide such figures, the matter
198WH
must be taken seriously. The tragedies that we have discussed today lend weight to that argument. When we have debated the issue in the past, Ministers have pointed out that the problem is often one of perception among young soldiers. I hope that this morning's debate has shown that that perception is important, not only to the soldiers, but to their families.
I accept that changes are happening and that the Government have reacted to some of our concerns. The Ministry of Defence has implemented programmes to reduce levels of bullying, but they have not gone far enough, and in the case of Deepcut there is a significant problem that must be addressed. The facts are simple: between 1995 and 2002, four young soldiers died at one training establishment in Surrey. They were all members of the same unit—the Royal Logistic Corps—all were in phase 2 training, and all were shot, some of them several times.
The Government have rightly held public inquiries in the past when they have felt the need to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and other hon. Members have given compelling reasons why there is a need for a public inquiry in the Deepcut cases. I will leave as much time as possible for the Secretary of State to explain why he will, I hope, accede to that need.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his succinctness and brevity.
10.31 am
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I too congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) on securing the debate and I congratulate all hon. Members who have taken part. Today's debate echoes a debate a year ago, in which hon. Members put forward the concerns of their constituents as well as the wider concerns of a nation that is proud of its armed forces and is anxious to ensure that they can continue to serve with the distinction seen in recent campaigns. I also welcome the Secretary of State and, like the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), I will endeavour to keep my remarks brief to allow the right hon. Gentleman plenty of time in which to respond. I have a special interest in that my constituency, Aldershot—the home of the British Army—is next door to Deepcut. There is a feeling that what happens there permeates through to Aldershot, as it does to the rest of the country.
In last year's debate, I said that it would be wrong to pre-empt Surrey police's report, which was in the process of compilation. Let me place on record, I hope on behalf of everyone present today, our congratulations to the Surrey police on producing a comprehensive, professional and thorough report. It has shown not only that there was a succession of failures, to which I shall refer later, but that lessons have been learned and implemented—the story is not completely negative. Notwithstanding their desire to speak up vigorously on behalf of constituents who want answers, hon. Members have been careful to be balanced. The report is helpful in that respect: for example paragraph 1.22 states:
"It is important to recognise the significant challenges faced by the Army in reconciling the potentially conflicting demands of maintaining a necessarily robust training regime, designed to sustain it among the most professional armies in the world, while at the same time discharging its duty of care to young recruits."

199WH
Several hon. Members have referred to the need to strike a balance. It is clear that Surrey police recognise that need. Their statement encapsulates the position that I hope we wish to maintain.
The report traces back the chronology over the 13 years from 1998 to 2001, and goes on to cover the period to 2003. It spans a 15-year period in which there was a succession of inquiries into the Army's training regime, with concerns raised every time. Recommendations were made following each inquiry or internal review, but it is apparent that those recommendations were either ignored or not implemented to the necessary extent. Several themes recur throughout the report. One common theme is the training given to supervisors and the ratio of supervisors to trainees. Clearly, there has been pressure on our armed forces to do more with less, but the instructor to pupil ratio has been questioned throughout, for example, in 1995 when Brigadier Evans undertook his review, and more recently in 2002 when the deputy adjutant general produced his report. The DAG calculated that the supervisory ratios at Deepcut were 1:60, compared it with Catterick and Larkhill, where the ratios were 1:12 and 1:40 respectively, and observed that the latter levels would be appropriate at Deepcut. His assessment was that the level of supervision was wholly inadequate and greatly magnified the risk. He attributed the Deepcut ratio to reductions driven by the serious undermanning and cost savings in the Army since the early 1990s. The pressure on the Army to do more with less recurs throughout the period under discussion. The impact of that in Deepcut meant that the instructor to trainee ratio was "wholly inadequate". The Army, the Government and the Ministry of Defence must shoulder some blame for that unsatisfactory situation. Lieutenant-Colonel Haes's 2001 report said that ATRA—the Army Training and Recruiting Agency—
"does not have a coherent duty of care and supervision policy that can be costed/measured. ATRA is failing in certain aspects as a result of reduction in the military workforce and increased obligations. There is an unrealistic and therefore false expectation of the staff, but without a clear definition, to what degree remains subjective. The current situation is tenable only as long as there is no major incident or complaint."
So, throughout the period under discussion, assessments have been made that something must be done, but action has not been taken.
Another important issue is that the Army is recruiting in an increasingly competitive marketplace. Hon. Members have already said that the parents of the young people whom the armed forces wish to recruit in order to sustain the operations that we are undertaking must he convinced that they are not sending their children to an organisation that does not have a proper sense of its duty of care. Such concerns will result in the armed forces being unable to recruit. If the Army does not enjoy public confidence, recruitment will be affected.
None the less, I am not convinced that a public inquiry is the right answer. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) was right to say that a lot of time has passed. He is a lawyer, as is the Secretary of State, and they understand the rules of evidence. I am not convinced that an inquiry would yield any more information than has already been secured. However, the Defence Committee is right to undertake its inquiry. I was a member of that Committee when such an inquiry was foreseen. The hon.
200WH
Member for Portsmouth, North (Syd Rapson) was also a member of the Committee, and we both concluded that that was the right thing to do after the Surrey police had reported. The Defence Committee will do precisely what the Surrey police wanted.
I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to answer some questions about the recommendations of the Surrey police—for example, whether there should be any independent oversight of Army recruitment and training. It would be helpful if he also made an announcement today about staffing ratios.
Annabelle Ewing: The hon. Gentleman said that a public inquiry would not unveil more than we already know, but we do not know what Surrey police concluded in their report to the coroner last September. No one knows that because no one has been allowed to see the report. Surely the families are entitled to the best shot that they can get to discover what happened to their children, and a public inquiry is the only route that could secure that.
Mr. Howarth: It is for the coroner to respond to the Surrey police report. The easiest thing for me to say would be, "Yes, let's have a public inquiry," but I am not sure that it would achieve what the hon. Lady and others want it to.
I shall conclude in order to leave the Secretary of State enough time. It is important to get the balance right and see the situation in perspective. In the past seven years, 12,000 recruits have successfully passed through Deepcut and contributed to the outstanding professional combat operations that we have recently seen in Iraq. It is important not to lose sight of that, but it is also important, not just for the families to whom tribute has rightly been paid today, but for the entire nation that we can have confidence in the duty of care given by our armed forces to those in their charge.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House welcomes the Secretary of State to respond to this debate.
10.41 am
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) on securing this debate. He has raised an important subject that has attracted considerable attention both inside and outside the House. I am also grateful for each of the contributions that have been made and the general and specific points raised by hon. Members. I take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that he is unable to be here today due to a prior commitment to visit our forces in Afghanistan.
The events that we are discussing have one common, central truth. Four young soldiers died tragically and before their time between 1995 and 2002. The deaths of Sean Benton, Cheryl James, Geoff Gray and James Collinson represent personal tragedies for them and each of their families. They are also a source of great sadness both in the Army and throughout the services. I extend my sincere condolences to each of the families. I respect the sorrow and difficulty that they have borne over the years, I understand their desire for answers, and

201WH
I accept that in some respects they have not been looked after to the highest standards that we now expect. For that, I apologise unreservedly. I share their desire to ensure that others do not suffer as they have suffered. The personal and tragic events at the heart of this debate should remain in our minds throughout.
We have heard several concerns expressed this morning, and a number of accusations have been made. However, there are two principal questions at the heart of this debate. First, do the deaths, together with deaths at other locations, somehow suggest that the Army is failing generally in its responsibilities to its young people? Secondly, do we know all that we can reasonably expect to learn about the circumstances in which the young people lost their lives?
The first question is exercising members of the Select Committee on Defence, which recently announced its inquiry into how the armed forces discharge their responsibilities to recruits in training. I must be careful not to pre-empt its judgments, but I hope that it will help the House if I set out the broader context of today's debate. Our armed forces are approximately 190,000 strong, and the Army consists of some 103,900 regular and full-time reserve personnel. Last year, 9,794 recruits passed through the Army initial training organisation and joined the field Army. Most will go on to have challenging, enjoyable and rewarding careers and will eventually leave the Army equipped with a range of skills and experiences that in many cases were beyond their hopes or expectations before they signed up.
The Army is extremely successful at training its people. It takes young people and turns them into the likes of Trooper Chris Finney, whose quick thinking and exceptional bravery last year saved the lives of his crew mates in Iraq. The ultimate and enduring proof of that is the Army's effectiveness on operations. They range from war fighting through peace support operations and counter-terrorist operations to supporting the United Kingdom civilian community in a variety of different roles. Operations take place in such diverse theatres as Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and the Balkans. It is not an organisation unable to look after its own, reeling under the burden of systemic weaknesses in its training and support structures or incapable of self-criticism and improvement. It is a healthy institution of world renown, of which we should all be proud. The health of the armed forces rests on the quality of the men and women who join voluntarily. They draw their recruits from the society around them.
In training, we seek to provide not only the skills and expertise to do what is required on the battlefield but, just as important, the character to apply those skills. The armed forces exist to defend the nation's interests and, where necessary, to apply lethal force in that national interest. At the heart of that requirement is a need to do so in a disciplined manner.
Force is not the only means by which our armed forces achieve their aims. Much is spoken of the ability of our armed forces to win hearts and minds. That relies in no small measure on the judgment, discipline and self-confidence of the young men and women on the ground. To achieve that, their training is demanding and, necessarily, progressive. Integral to the training is the requirement to develop the ability of recruits to accept
202WH
responsibility for their actions. We value our people highly and pride ourselves on the exacting standards that we maintain, both in the training that we provide and in the care that we offer.
I accept that there is risk, but the purpose of the armed forces is to operate and succeed in an uncertain and dangerous environment. A training regime that failed to develop individual responsibility and foster a willingness to take measured risk and address danger would fail the country. That is a point well made and recognised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble). I am grateful to her for taking the time and trouble to visit various military training establishments.
I will now deal with some of the more specific points raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. Statistical analysis has shown that, in overall terms, the number of coroner-confirmed suicides and undetermined deaths in the armed forces is significantly below the norm for Britain as a whole. In fact, the rate is less than half that which could be expected across the civilian population.
However, more detailed analysis has shown that more young men in the under-20 age group die in such circumstances in the Army than would be expected compared to the UK civilian population, although the small numbers involved mean that a small change can lead to a significant variation. There have been 27 such deaths over a 10-year period, against a civilian cohort of 18. That statistic is, of course, concerning and we are therefore insisting on further investigation of the subject. Ministers will continue to require that a proper explanation is given of those statistics or they must be persuaded that action has been taken to deal with whatever problem the statistics display.
Every death is deeply regrettable, and when it occurs we strive to learn lessons to ensure that, in so far as we can, processes and procedures are modified to avoid a similar incident occurring in future. The figures do not show that suicide and undetermined death are endemic in our Army. The Princess Royal barracks at Deepcut has come under particular scrutiny. There have been four tragic deaths there in the past nine years. That is, certainly, four too many. The death of Private Sean Benton in 1995 was the first at that establishment since 1965.
There is no doubt that bullying is insidious and corrosive and is the very antithesis of the principle of self-discipline and the concept of teamwork on which so much of the success of the armed forces is founded. I accept that there is a fine line between unnecessarily overbearing behaviour and the robust approach to training and discipline that the armed forces have to take to prepare their people for the harsh environment in which they may be asked to operate. That is a line that the armed forces are well practised at treading. No one should be in any doubt that bullying has no place in the Army or the armed forces. It is rooted out whenever and wherever it is discovered.
There have been many assertions in the media and elsewhere of systemic bullying in the Army. Our policy of zero tolerance to bullying is simply that. It does not mean that bullying does not occur. We can, and do, make our policy clear, but even with the best regime in the world, bullying may occur. Where we are aware of

203WH
it, we will deal with it robustly. What we cannot do is investigate rumour and hearsay. Without the co-operation of those affected, we cannot succeed. Those who allege bullying must come forward. I assure hon. Members that allegations properly made will be thoroughly investigated.
Of course it is right to probe, to verify and to seek improvements. That is what this debate is about. During the course of their investigations, Surrey police provided some helpful suggestions about how to discharge the Army's care responsibilities. Their work in the supporting investigation by the deputy adjutant general has produced real changes in the way we work.
I want to pick out a few of the measures that have already been taken. We have accepted that the ratio of recruits to instructors rose far too high in the mid-1990s, particularly in phase 2 establishments. Ratios in excess of 50:1 were not untypical then, but that has now been directly addressed with the provision of an additional 179 instructors in the training organisation. The target ratio of 38:1 is being achieved or exceeded in all phase 1 and phase 2 training establishments. That change is already having a real effect.
The situation of soldiers awaiting trade training—SATT—in which recruits are required to wait between completing one trade course and starting the next, has been cited as one of the potential causes of frustration, anxiety and lack of focus among young recruits. I can report some significant improvements on that. SATT figures are now at an all-time low right across the Army's training organisation.
Guarding routines were identified by the deputy adjutant general as a substantial contributory factor in the level of opportunity risk to young recruits, specifically at Deepcut. Day-to-day responsibility for managing the guarding function at the Deepcut site now falls to the Military Provost Guard Service, which is also taking on an increasing proportion of guarding duties. That has significantly reduced the burden on trainees and the opportunity risk identified in the DAG's report.
In addition, the MOD director of operational capability has examined the initial training of non-officer recruits across all three services. That work has produced 58 different recommendations, the majority of which have been implemented. Others still require funding, but we are addressing that and making progress. The director's report has established a co-ordinated system for the identification and application of best practice in initial training across all three services.
I hope that hon. Members will accept that that amounts to a persuasive case that the MOD is not failing, that its leaders are not complacent but are taking their responsibilities seriously and that we remain sensitive to the needs of our people. I am happy for that to be tested by others and therefore welcome the Defence Committee's interest in the same way that I welcomed the analysis in the fifth report of the chief constable of the Surrey police, which was published last month. He acknowledged our efforts to secure improvements, but he was far from uncritical. He believed that we could have been quicker at learning lessons from the two earlier deaths. He went further by saying that, although it is clear that a change process has been initiated, in his view
204WH
"a broader enquiry is necessary to provide assurance that the current momentum in the development and implementation of regime improvements is sustained".
He went on to suggest, among other things, that the inquiry should consider
"how independent oversight might help the Army define and maintain appropriate standards of care for young soldiers."
The issues raised are complex and have significant implications. We are not yet in a position to announce what action we intend to take in response. I am sorry if that proves frustrating for the families and for hon. Members, but this is not a case of prevarication. Several factors must be considered and we are determined to get this right. For example, the possibility of engaging with an external organisation to provide some independent oversight of our training arrangements and the discharge of our care responsibilities has certain attractions, but we must think carefully about which organisation would be best qualified to carry out such a role and what should be the limits of its responsibilities. It will be a challenging task, which will require experience of care issues, ideally in relation to young adults, and armed forces training, as well as a demonstrable independence from the MOD.
In addition, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is anxious to meet all four families before final decisions are made. He has already met two of the families and is in contact with a third family about a meeting in the near future. I hope that we will be in position to make an announcement to the House next month on the way ahead.
Each of the four families has suffered a grievous loss that will affect them for the rest of their lives.
Lembit Öpik: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Hoon: If I may make a little more progress, I shall give way in due course.
It is clear that in certain respects the support that we provided to grieving relatives fell short of the standards that we demand of ourselves. I extend my sincerest apologies to the families for the additional pain that that caused. It is clear that each family feels poorly served not only by the institution whose responsibility it was to protect their loved ones but by those who were responsible for finding out what happened. That said, the deaths and the actions taken in response to them have been subject to thorough and detailed examination. Surrey police spent 15 months and have been assiduous in their scrutiny of each case. They declared that they had no intention of pursuing any criminal charges in respect of the deaths. Their press release of 19 September 2003 stated:
"Despite the scale of the investigation, no evidence has come to light so far to indicate any prospect of a prosecution directly related to these deaths."
Their conclusion on causation was clear.
A coroner's inquest provides the established route by which the legal right to a public investigation following a death is satisfied. Inquests into three of the deaths have already been held, and the coroner has confirmed that the Surrey police investigation brought to light no new evidence that would warrant him seeking to open new inquests in these cases. He will in due course examine the circumstances of the fourth death—that of James

205WH
Collinson. Internally the Army has commissioned two boards of inquiry and made the findings known to the families. It will convene a third and fourth when the coroner has completed his work.
I therefore see several difficulties associated with the kind of inquiry proposed in the debate, and I return to the second of my initial questions. What could a narrowly focused inquiry reveal about the circumstances of individual deaths that successive internal and external inquiries have not? What evidence is a further inquiry likely to uncover that has not already come to light, particularly with the passage of time since the first two incidents? What reasonable grounds are there for suspecting that the truth, in so far as it is knowable, has not already been established?
I wonder, too, whether there is a uniformity of view among those calling for a public inquiry about what such an inquiry would cover. If an inquiry were to focus on the individual circumstances surrounding specific incidents, should it relate to the four deaths in question, or, as has been suggested, have a wider remit to investigate other deaths in other locations? If the latter, which and why, and where should a line be drawn?
The intended purpose of such an inquiry is to get closer to the truth about what happened; I ask how realistic that is. If the purpose is to reveal weaknesses in procedure and inadequacies in the Army's handling of the families, which appear to be the basis of the case presented by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, it is arguable that its work has already been done and its conclusions already accepted. Errors were made, which I hope will never be repeated. I accept that we are still not yet as good as we should be as far as this matter is concerned, but we have worked hard to put things right and we continue to work hard to implement the wider lessons.
Lembit Öpik: Given the lack of time, I will not rehearse the arguments made by hon. Members. However, I am concerned about having an inquiry into the four deaths at this stage, so there should be no confusion in that respect. Is the Secretary of State saying that he does not have any concerns about the contradictions, the lack of compassion, the fears about bullying and the apparent lack of evidence that have been highlighted? How does the right hon. Gentleman respond to the belief of Surrey police that a more specific inquiry with regard to Deepcut is necessary and appropriate?
Mr. Hoon: I think that I have addressed those issues. The matters and inconsistencies were thoroughly considered by Surrey police in the course of their 15-month inquiry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) pointed out. It is difficult to see how a further investigation, which could only rely on the same
206WH
investigatory techniques deployed so effectively by Surrey police could produce any further facts that would allow us to reach a conclusion.
Several hon. Membersrose—
Mr. Hoon: I can give way, but I will not be able to deal with the points made in the debate if I do so.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I suggest that the Secretary of State be allowed to complete his speech? This is a sensitive and important debate.
Mr. Hoon: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In conclusion, I assure the House once again that my ministerial colleagues, the Army chain of command and I are acutely aware of the sensitivity of these issues and the continued public and parliamentary interest in them. We deeply regret the death of anyone in our charge; we recognise that we have a duty to the families of those who have died and we apologise unreservedly where that duty has not been fully discharged. We know that there is nothing that we can do to restore loved ones to their families; what we can do is continue to ensure not only that our house is in order, but that it is demonstrably so.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Hoon: No, I will not. This is a theme that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State with responsibility for the armed forces will take up in more detail when he makes an announcement to the House in the coming weeks. In the mean time, we continue to demonstrate that we have nothing to hide. We co-operated fully with the Surrey police and gave them full access to our archives; the joint Army-police learning account, which is a mechanism for recording lessons learned and tracking progress made in implementing them, is testament to that co-operation.
Now that the police investigation is concluded, we intend to give similar access to the wider public. Many of the documents on which the chief constable drew in his fifth report are now in the public domain. We published those documents; they were not dragged out of us.
We have for some months been encouraging hon. Members to visit training establishments, and seven have so far been visited, but the take-up for the programme has been low. We continue to stress the importance of hon. Members seeing for themselves what life is like for recruits in training, and how we approach the training task.
One further visit is currently planned, which will take place on 16 June and will include Princess Royal barracks, Deepcut and the Army training regiment at Winchester. Other visits will be arranged subject to take-up so that as many as possible can take advantage of these opportunities and see for themselves what an outstanding job the Army does in training its people.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I congratulate hon. Members who have contributed to the debate on their balance and the responsibility that they have shown. The House is grateful.

Touring Circuses
11 am
Mr. Peter Luff: I am grateful for this opportunity to debate a subject of great importance to those affected by it. I welcome the Minister for the Arts to her position on the Front Bench, and express my gratitude to her colleague, the Minister for Sport and Tourism, who normally leads on this subject. I must emphasise that we are here today to find solutions, not to point the finger, and the Minister should read nothing whatever into the fact that my tie depicts the Government's own big top, the millennium dome.
The central question is this; for how long will families be able to "roll up, roll up" to the big top on their village green, town park or farmer's field? Is this the end of the road for the big top? It is appropriate that we should consider this because, when one thinks about it, Parliament is itself something of a circus. The Speaker—or you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—holds the ring, while the tightrope artists walk the difficult line between popular opinion and political reality, or between party view and personal convictions. The jugglers keep all those challenging balls in the air, while the trapeze artists swing from one side to the other of every argument, the lion trainers face up to the big issues of our time and—let us be honest—the parliamentary clowns perform. Most of the time, I feel that I am juggling lions.
My interest in the circus began 42 years ago at school when I made a friendship that has lasted for life with Gary Smart, grandson of Billy Smart. With him I visited Billy Smart's winter headquarters at Winkfield row, near to where I lived. His guilty secret, and mine, was that we went on regular school trips to Billy Smart's leading rivals, Bertram Mills at Olympia, and enjoyed them greatly.
The problem that we are addressing today is that the Licensing Act 2003 was intended to deal with alcohol, entertainment and sporting events in permanent structures, not with tents visiting up to 60 different venues a year. The Act was not designed for the particular needs of touring companies in tented venues pitched on grass. That is hardly surprising as—for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy—the circus industry was excluded from the consultation on the Bill. It is no surprise that that the Government do not know why they need to license circuses. Is it on health and safety grounds, which are well covered by existing provisions, or is for the protection of children and public order, which is pretty irrelevant at a family circus?
The threat to circus is an even greater tragedy as it was invented in Britain. It is a little known fact that it was born a couple of hundred yards away from where we are now, on the south side of Westminster bridge, on land owned by St. Thomas's hospital, in 1768. Philip Astley was a sergeant-major who had served in the 15th Light Dragoons in the seven years war. He was a gifted horseman and when he retired from the Army, he became an equestrian trick rider and performed at pleasure gardens in London. Astley opened his riding school just across the river in 1768. He set up a ring, calling it "the circus"; derived, I believe, from the French word for a circle.
208WH
By 1772, the circus needed some variety, so Astley hired jugglers, acrobats, tightrope walkers and clowns, inventing the format of the modern circus. Circus spread from this small ring adjacent to Westminster to Russia and the court of Catherine the Great, and to the rest of Europe and to America. Indeed, as a British cultural export, it is easily as successful as my great hero, Shakespeare.
However, the burden of licensing under the 2003 Act now threatens to kill or seriously maim touring circus in the UK. The industry believes that if the Government do not change their mind, we could lose up to 80 per cent. of touring circuses. There are three main reasons why we should be concerned about that, and why the Government must act. First, the assurances that were offered that circus would be exempt from the Licensing Act 2003 have not been kept. A letter in November 2000 from an official in the Home Office—which then had responsibility for the legislation—to Malcolm Clay of the Association of Circus Proprietors said:
"I have spoken to colleagues within the Home Office and at the Local Government Association and at present the Home Office does not plan to include circuses in the scope of the White Paper or any future legislation."
The Government never meant to license circuses, which have been dragged into legislation by accident. When the policy changes took place that led to that accident, no one told the circus industry.
Secondly, the purposes of the Act are being inconsistently applied. Those purposes were to prevent crime and disorder, maintain public safety, prevent public nuisance and protect children. However, bizarrely, travelling fairgrounds are not covered by the Act and they are all too often scenes of crime and disorder. They are often unsafe, a public nuisance and a danger to children, unlike the family entertainment that is circus. Why do the already well-regulated circuses not enjoy a similar exemption, and why do fairgrounds and circuses not share the same regulatory environment?
Thirdly, and perhaps most important, we do not want to harm circus. Circus is probably our most undervalued art form. Despite the cultural elitism of the reviewers in the leading national newspapers who too often ignore circus, it remains immensely popular and very skilful, too. Millions of people visit circus every year and circus is, of course, the ultimate touring art—something that the Arts Council has always been very keen to promote—visiting even the smallest communities in our islands. And—joy of joys—it is unsubsidised. What is more, there has never been so much interest in circus skills, from juggling on street corners to circus societies at universities. If that interest is to flourish, there must be the opportunity to see real circuses locally.
It is true that the death of circus would be the death of a whole way of life. Many circus performers and circus proprietors follow a family tradition that reaches back many generations. The significance of "classic" circus was acknowledged by Arts Council England in its "Strategy and Report on Circus" in 2001. That report, and a more recent one from the Circus Arts Forum, cites recent survey figures stating that on an average Saturday during the circus season—between early spring and late autumn—more than 180,000 people will see a circus performance. Just over one in five people will visit a circus each year, and 50 per cent of the population have visited a circus in the previous five years.

209WH
Circus is a living art form. Traditional circuses have been influenced by more modern approaches to circus, such those of Cirque du Soleil, and there has been a conscious move away from the use of trained animals. Some people welcome that, others do not; but it has happened.
Some 90 per cent. of British circus organisations provide outreach and education activity. For example, only two weeks ago, in the area of the country where the Minister and I come from, Billy Smart's Circus donated its facilities for the launch of a new initiative by Wolverhampton city council and other organisations to guide children in safer surfing of the internet. Circus is increasingly used in regeneration projects and as a means of reaching disaffected youth; 86 per cent. of young people using circus to develop circus skills showed a marked improvement in general school performance.
The traditional touring tented circus, by travelling from town to town and from village to village, reaches people who would not otherwise experience live performance. Almost everywhere in the country—from villages to large cities—will usually receive a visit from at least one circus during a season. Circus introduces very young people to performance and, 1 strongly suspect, is a powerful but insufficiently recognised recruiting ground for performances by dance and theatre companies as those young children grow up.
As is the case in the production of theatre, if the small ones are closed down, the opportunity to bring on young performers is squandered. However that is more important to circus than theatre because the performers do much, much more than perform and must learn every aspect of circus life.
There are about 35 tented circus operating in the UK, and although circus is an established part of the cultural life of the country, the majority of those remain family businesses. Most tented circuses do not have a permanent administrative base, but instead operate from the back of a caravan. That is the root of the problem. Such very small businesses, already overwhelmed by coping with running their businesses—planning routes for example—cannot cope with an intrusive licensing regime.
What is the problem? There are three separate problems. The first is the substantial, additional and unnecessary regulatory burden placed on circuses. They are, after all, already subject to substantial health and safety, and planning, regulation. The second is the imposition of an inflexible licensing regime on an industry that simply has to be flexible and entrepreneurial to survive. The third is the simple question of cost.
I shall consider those one at a time. As regards regulatory burdens, the legislation could not sustain a regulatory impact assessment for a touring circus. Most circuses perform on up to 40 different sites a year, often visiting a venue for only three days. Under the new regime, most circuses will have to secure a full premises licence for each site that they visit. A typical circus will have to bear the administrative burden of applying for and negotiating up to 40 licences a year, with varying sites each year—circuses return to different places in different years—and 40 sets of fees.
210WH
We face the odd prospect of a circus facing a licensing system that is 40 times more burdensome and costly than the system faced by Old Trafford football ground, the Royal opera house or even a yearly heavy metal festival, such as Knebworth or Donington. Small businesses run from the back of a caravan and with no administrative support except the proprietor's wife simply cannot cope with that.
The second issue is inflexibility. I think that there are signs that the Government understand the significance of that threat to the future of circus, for which I am grateful. That issue is important because the Act has an impact on circuses' ability to change site at short notice. Circus relies heavily on the weather. Heavy rainfall and saturated ground conditions can mean that a site is unsuitable and possibly dangerous for erecting the big top. In such circumstances, circuses must find another, more suitable site at short notice. Alternatively, a circus may arrive in town, discover that a competitor has just been there and need to move to find a fresh audience.
Under the new licensing regime, however, the option of moving site at short notice risks being denied to circuses, because a full premises licence is likely to take four to six weeks from application to approval. A circus facing that problem will typically lose a week of performances and the box office revenue that that generates. The loss of only a week's revenue is financially damaging to many smaller circuses, and an unseasonably wet summer, for instance, could devastate the whole industry.
The third issue is cost. The circus industry already operates on very tight margins. If a small touring circus visits 40 or more venues a year and we assume that there is a charge of £500 each time—that is a big assumption—the cost will be £20,000 for the circus. Of course, we do not yet know the cost of the licences. A sliding scale of charges based on rating valuation has been suggested but as farmers' fields are not valued for rating purposes, how on earth will it be calculated? The cost will be even higher for the smallest circuses. One small circus that tours mostly Kent and the south and that could quite possibly play 60 or so venues annually is John Lawson's circus. There is also Peter Jolly's circus—I rather like that name: no relation—which was in Chasewater park in Staffordshire on Sunday. Bills for those tiny enterprises could be some £30,000 a year.
What is the solution? We must find one because there is no evidence of public harm associated with circus, the industry is already covered by a stringent safety inspection regime and local planning requirements, and the Government originally intended to maintain the exemption for circus. The need to re-examine the issues is therefore overwhelming.
I do not expect the Minister to rule anything in or out today, but I want her to commit her Department to an even more urgent search for a solution. There are at least two options. The specific exemption of circuses from the definitions of entertainment or sport—there is some uncertainty about which category of the Act they are caught under—in the guidance to licensing authorities would help. I understand the insuperable legislative difficulties that that might involve, but a block exemption is by far the simplest solution.
More technical—I do not have time to explain this at length—is the option of including all circuses, at all audience capacity and for a longer period than the

211WH
current 96 hours on a site, in the regime for temporary event notices. That option would. I believe, require circus proprietors to be eligible for a personal licence within the temporary event notice regime. The temporary event notice provisions of the Act offer little help to circuses, as most are too large to benefit, or stay on a site too long to qualify. Had the Act been developed with circuses in mind, a temporary event notice could have been available for, say, a week or 10 days.
One approach that officials have helpfully suggested is for the Government to encourage local authorities to license in their own name areas of public land that could then be used by circuses without the need for a separate licence. That might help some circuses in some parts of the country, but it is far from a complete solution; it would cause a number of practical problems, not least the creation of a line of legal liability for the local authority. Indeed, Birmingham city council has already said that it would not be prepared to do that. Anyway, how many circus sites are controlled by local authorities?
Licensing in Scotland has deterred touring circus north of the border. There is a real risk that we will pay a fortune for local authority bureaucrats to come and look at things that simply do not need looking at. This is not only about circuses: Punch and Judy shows could also be caught. Those shows may have a dubious approach to domestic violence, but I do not suppose that the Government want to end up banning them.
Encouragingly for the Minister, most circuses, and their trade body, would be happy to accept the principle of a genuinely workable licence. However, the talks with the industry have been dragging on for a long time now and there is an urgent need to move them up a gear.
I am not asking the Minister to offer a solution today, but I entreat her to signal that the Government accept that there is a problem, and that they will work out a solution in close consultation with the industry. The Licensing Act 2003 was intended to be a flagship piece of legislation. It must not become an epitaph for the travelling circus.
11.15 am
The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) for introducing the debate and for the way in which he has presented the issues.
I am not sure that I shall be able to answer all his questions today but, as he said at the beginning of his remarks, it has been agreed that he can bring a delegation to meet the Minister for Sport and Tourism. It is essential that the detailed issues that have been raised by the hon. Gentleman today continue to be discussed between the Government and the industry. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for agreeing to bring that delegation.
The hon. Gentleman said that it is not the case that the sector does not want to be regulated, but that it wants a regulatory system that meets its needs as well as those of the wider community. That is also the Government's aim; to find something that we and the industry believe will achieve that.
Before I address some of the detailed points raised by the hon. Gentleman, I should like to acknowledge that circus is something that we treasure in the UK. It is part
212WH
of our heritage and, as fashions in entertainment have come and gone, circuses have remained. We can all remember them in our own childhood, as our grandparents can remember them in their childhoods.
Some months ago. I went to see the Jerwood circus awards in east London. I am not sure whether circus is a sport or an art—it is one of those crossover areas—but it involves a huge level of skill, commitment and expertise, and is both graceful and energetic at the same time. I was particularly impressed by the number of young people who were engaging in it, which shows that the sector is carrying out its obligation to the next generation in training and in contributing to social cohesion.
I also acknowledge the strength of feeling in the circus industry. I accept that a letter was sent that gave people in the industry reason to believe that they would not be covered by the regulations, and I know that it has not been an easy time for the industry. However, it has not been an easy time for anyone covered by the licensing regulations; balancing the interests of the public and the wider community with those of performers is not easy.
Mr. Luff: But does the Minister accept that most sectors had the chance to contribute to the consultation, but circus did not, because it was thought to be exempt? That is the crucial point for circus.
Estelle Morris: I will come on to that in a moment. Circuses feel more strongly about the matter than anyone else and more aggrieved than any other entertainment sector. Most of the other industries have settled their differences with the Act and with the Government, but the circus sector has not done so.
I remind the House that the 2003 Act was intended to be broadly beneficial to industry and to the entertainment sector, because it integrated six existing licensing regimes into one. The aim was to reduce the bureaucracy and paperwork to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The deregulation affects some 180,000 businesses, of which circuses represent about 30. That does not make the issue any less important for circuses, but part of the problem has been that one law covers so much of the entertainment industry, which has different interests.
It is important to remember that the current regulatory system governing circuses is not perfect; it is a patchwork that offers neither stability to the circus industry nor the necessary assurances to the public. Circuses have been subject to regulation that is confusing and not always consistently enforced across the UK.
As the hon. Gentleman said, circuses are covered by health and safety legislation and, in some cases, by local byelaws. Some of their activities fall under the requirements of the Theatres Act 1968, but whether that Act has been applied and enforced depends on different local authorities and their understanding of the provisions.
It is therefore important to remember that we were not moving from a perfect system to a less-than-perfect system. I am not saying that there have been major embarrassments, but the licensing system was not logical, nor was it consistently applied. The aim of the 2003 Act was to provide that consistent, unified system for the licensing of certain activities.

213WH
It is often said that health and safety legislation should license circuses, but it does not deal with issues such as crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance or the protection of children from harm, which are just as relevant to licensable activities at circuses as to other forms of entertainment.
Mr. Luff: I should like to challenge that assertion. How much antisocial behaviour or public disorder has the Minister seen at a circus?
Estelle Morris: I am not sure that I have seen any. Circuses are held in my constituency, as are funfairs, which are subject to the same regulations and are not exempt. Urban areas such as the one that I represent contain open space on which circuses and funfairs can be held. They are well-run institutions, but nobody could argue that the potential for antisocial behaviour does not exist. That may be sad, but it is probably true.
There are four licensing objectives: the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm. The argument is that those objectives are as relevant to circuses as to any other form of entertainment.
As I said, the circus industry has a good record, but circuses are large commercial events that attract big crowds, a significant proportion of whom are children who are not always accompanied by parents or do not go as part of a family unit. Perhaps that was the case when the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire and I went to circuses as children. I hope that the circus industry will acknowledge the possible risks.
I accept that the circus industry has no objection to being licensed, but does not like the scheme approved by Parliament as part of the 2003 Act. The circus is licensed not by the 2003 Act but by the extent to which it carries out licensable activities—
"the sale by retail of alcohol the supply of alcohol by clubs",
under neither of which would circuses be caught,
"the provision of regulated entertainment",
under which circuses would be caught, and
"the provision of late night refreshment",
under which they may or may not be caught. Therefore, only circuses that carry out any of the four licensable activities, as defined in the Act, would require authorisation.
Circuses may be involved in the provision of regulated entertainment, which includes the performance of live music or the playing of recorded music, a performance of a dance or an indoor sporting event. For the purposes of the 2003 Act, sport includes
"any form of physical recreation which is also engaged in for purposes of competition or display".
Acrobatics or trapeze acts are likely to be caught by that definition. It would ultimately be for the courts to determine whether circus activities fell into one of those four categories, if somebody chose to take the matter to the courts, but our intention is that they should be covered by that licensing regime.
With regard to consultation for the 2003 Act, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire referred to the Home Office undertaking that there were no plans to license
214WH
circuses. That is the case. Nobody denies that the letter exists. We have all had a chance to see it. It was a letter in November 2002 from a Home Office official in response to a letter from the Association of Circus Proprietors of Great Britain about the licensing White Paper. The Act was at the White Paper stage then.
Ministers subsequently considered more than 1,200 responses to the White Paper consultation and announced their conclusions and their intention to legislate in May 2001. When the results of the consultation were published, people changed their minds, and it was decided to bring circuses under the remit of the new Licensing Act. Therefore, when the Bill was published in late 2002 it did not include an exemption for circuses or pleasure fairs.
I can see that that was a disappointment for circuses and that it would have come as a surprise or a shock—they had been given assurances that they would not be covered and then they were—but I do not accept that they did not know that the change had been made. Indeed, the Association of Circus Proprietors of Great Britain wrote to Ministers in January 2003 to clarify the position, and all correspondence during the passage of the Bill made it clear that circuses were not exempt.
Mr. Luff: The Government did not reply to that letter until 14 April, three months later. That is a pretty sorry story.
Estelle Morris: That was wrong, and I apologise. That letter should have been replied to sooner, especially in the context of a Government changing their mind after consultation. 1 was not in the Department at the time, but I remember during the passage of the Bill that the issue was raised. Although there was disappointment, there can have been no doubt that circuses would be included in the Bill. Circuses should understand that the Arts Council has actively raised their concerns and been a strong advocate of their position with Government. The Arts Council was included in our advisory group from an early stage and considered the contents of the draft Bill between July and its publication in November.
I shall make a few more points before summing up. The first is about the cost of licence fees. The licence fees for premises have not been finalised, and I understand that that is an important point. We have said on many occasions that we estimate the fees to be between £100 and £500. They are likely to be based on non-domestic rateable values. I take the point that the hon. Gentleman made about agricultural land, often the location for circuses, not being rated for that purpose and I will either drop the hon. Gentleman a line or ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism to take that point up later. However, it is clear that most open land that would be a location for circuses would be expected to pay no more than about £100 for a licence fee.
An important point that was not mentioned and will be helpful for circuses is that there is no bureaucratic renewal process under the new regime; licences will be valid indefinitely if they are not revoked or suspended. If circuses follow a pattern of visiting similar sites each year and have gone through the paperwork and paid the fee for the first year, they will stand in good stead for the second year because they will have a licence to perform on that piece of land. It might be difficult for the first year or cycle,

215WH
but it will get easier as time goes on. To be absolutely clear, in subsequent years, licence holders will pay only an annual charge to cover inspection and enforcement activity. That will not involve paperwork and the fee will be lower than for the grant of a premise licence.
We have been exploring with local authorities the hon. Gentleman's point about the possibility of them seeking a licence for the area of land that would cover visiting circuses or funfairs. Local authorities are nervous about their liability if they seek a licence, but we believe that they will not be subject to any greater exposure than at present. The Department is still actively working with local authorities on that. That is our preferred way forward; if local authorities license the land, many problems would be solved.
I clearly cannot promise to reconsider either the legislation or Government's decision to not exclude circuses. However, I can give an assurance that we are happy to discuss the details and areas that have been raised today, for example surrounding the activities and charging of local authorities. An appropriate way forward might be for me to report to my right hon. Friend the main points that have come from this debate. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman takes a delegation to the Department, the details raised today can act as a starting point for that those discussions.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Ceramics Industry
2 pm
Ms Joan Walley: This is an important debate and I am grateful for the opportunity it gives to north Staffordshire Members, who are present in force, to debate the effect of the closure of Royal Doulton's last remaining manufacturing plant in Nile street, Burslem, in my constituency, which is not far from your constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The closure was announced on 26 March.
I am very pleased that the Minister is in his place in good time for the debate, fresh from his travels yesterday to Stoke-on-Trent. I know from his stance and from his work in the Treasury and in the Department of Trade and Industry that he is au fait with the problems that Stoke-on-Trent faces. He has a detailed grasp of the ceramics industry, and I want him to take on board the experience of people in Stoke-on-Trent and to work with us to improve the industry.
We want the Minister to reaffirm the Government's long-term support for business and enterprise in the region, especially in the ceramics sector, which must involve all Departments. The Government must continue to take a special interest in the outcome of the Lyons review, which was set up to oversee the transfer of Departments away from the south-east to areas such as mine, where the benefits will be so much greater. We hope to be able to take a clear message on the matter to the Deputy Prime Minister and to the Chancellor.
I shall explain the background to the debate. Royal Doulton came to Burslem from Black Prince road, just over the river from Westminster, following the successful collaboration with Pinders. By 1884, Royal Doulton became the sole owners of the Nile street site and built a china section. From then on, Royal Doulton built its profits and its business on generations of skilled pottery workers in our area.
Fifteen years ago, when I was part of a parliament and industry fellowship trust with the company, it employed about 7,000 workers, and the Royal Doulton brand was to die for. It was a symbol of the best of British industry, by appointment to Her Majesty the Queen, and renowned worldwide. However, since then, successive managers of the company, especially the latest duo, Hamish Grossart and Wayne Nutbeen, who were supposedly brought in to rescue the company, have succeeded in closing the last remaining factory in Stoke-on-Trent. Workers have been let down by successive managements, but nothing can compete with the callousness of Grossart and Nutbeen in handling the announcements, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) made clear at an annual general meeting earlier this month.
This is a double-edged debate: it is about the sheer incompetence, betrayal and failure of Royal Doulton, and it distinguishes between the deplorable way in which one company has conducted itself compared with the approach of responsible companies in Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire, which, however challenging the market conditions in the global economy, strive to improve competitiveness and contribute to the local economy by working jointly with all the stakeholders.

217WH
Although today's debate was prompted by the Nile street announcement, even if that had not happened, we were due a debate on the ceramics industry, and we would have secured one. Away from the glare of publicity of the Royal Doulton announcement, there have been many meetings and discussions, followed up by Ministers, to address in detail the issues relating to the ceramics industry that north Staffordshire Members have identified. However, before we can consider in detail what more we can do to support and help to restructure the industry, we must deal with the anger in Stoke-on-Trent about what Doulton has done and how it did it. In my 17 years in Parliament, I have never known anger like it, and it needs to be expressed here, in Westminster.
The anger is everywhere in my constituency and across north Staffordshire and is all-pervasive. One prominent local company director thinks that the situation at Royal Doulton is scandalous and points out that when the chairman and chief executive were appointed to sort out the company, Doulton shares stood at £1.74, whereas when he wrote to me, they were at 8p. He feels that they have shown no concern whatever for the skilled work force. The general secretary of the Ceramic and Allied Trades Union, Mr. Geoffrey Bagnall, accurately summed up the situation as lions led by donkeys.
The anger is felt by the workers employed on the shop floor, who sat on their benches listening to rumours of the factory closure on their local radio stations—BBC Radio Stoke and Signal—on the Friday, while all the time Mr. Nutbeen denied that a decision to close the factory had been taken. The concern is shared by prominent business leaders, who understandably distance themselves from the company for fear of being tarred with the same brush. Shop-floor workers are united in anger. They resent the way in which their loyalty to successive so-called final restructurings has been rewarded with a total factory closure, the transfer of 525 jobs to Indonesia and all the attendant uncertainty in the immediate aftermath.
There are, then, questions that require answers from Royal Doulton. However, its attitude until now has been that it takes its decisions behind closed doors and only once it has taken them does it tell the rest of us what they are. If Royal Doulton will not give those answers, it is up to the Government and the shareholders to investigate and call the people responsible to account to find out exactly when and how they made the decisions and the effects that their announcement will have on the livelihood of the workers, their pension rights, retraining and employment needs in the area, and the Nile Street visitor centre in my constituency, which is financed by European funding and the Government office for the west midlands. I am sure that my colleagues will pick up that point later. It may be worth asking whether, even at this late stage, there is still some way in which the visitor centre can be salvaged as part of the tourism and heritage legacy of Burslem. Also there we have the Royal Doulton heirlooms, which morally belong to their city of origin—Stoke-on-Trent—but which the company says it intends to sell on the open market.
218WH
We must also address the wider impact on the local economy just at the time when the Burslem masterplan and urban design plan have been agreed and are being taken forward, hand in hand with the initiatives of the North Staffordshire regeneration zone and housing pathfinder market renewal, which comes under the auspices of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Will the Minister give us assurances that, where appropriate, Departments will investigate all the ramifications of the Doulton decision? Will he take account of the bad taste of the company's decision to agree a land sale for the factory site at Nile street with St. Modwen before any announcement or detailed consultation with the trade union? That raises all manner of questions about the timing of the company's business announcement.
There is the same incredulity locally that the company could approach the Stoke-on-Trent regeneration company—19 per cent. of which is owned by Stoke-on-Trent city council and the rest by the St. Modwen property development company—and present drawings of a proposed new factory and visitor centre to be leased by Royal Doulton at Festival park in relation to the announcement of the factory closure, and still not meet its statutory obligations to consult about job losses.
How can a large-scale manufacturing outsourced outlet, which is what it will be, dressed up as selling ware made in Stoke-on-Trent and presented as a showcase on an industrial estate selling goods made overseas, benefit Royal Doulton or north Staffordshire? In fact, many people want to take the "Royal" out of Royal Doulton. All its actions fly in the face of the partnerships that so many of us have taken so much time to establish through the work of the regional development agency—Advantage West Midlands—the CATU, the North Staffordshire partnership, the local authorities, the chamber of commerce, the Ceramic Industry Forum, the renowned CERAM Research and the trade association, the British Ceramic Confederation.
The first and last word on the effects of Doulton's announcement must go to the workers. The CATU is working hard to obtain legal redress. I want a strong message to go out to its members that we support them. That prompts the question whether the time is now right for the Minister's Department to carry out further fine-tuning of employment relations legislation and regulations. For example, will he review the redress available to a trade union when a company blatantly ignores its statutory obligation to consult?
John Mann: The horror that my hon. Friend outlines for Staffordshire Members of Parliament is shared by hon. Members across the country. Should we not have the best employment laws in Europe rather than laws that rank somewhere in the middle?
Ms Walley: I absolutely agree. That is why I hope the Minister will carry out a thorough review of further progress that can be made. I want to see the speedy implementation of the European directive on consultation and information.
However, there is another side to the argument. The House should know —the Minister showed that he understood this when he visited my constituency

219WH
yesterday—that the main concentration of the United Kingdom ceramics industry is based in north Staffordshire, predominantly in Stoke-on-Trent, so its survival and success are crucial to the area. That is why the Government have supported funding for the Ceramics Industry Forum and why the industry must continue to go from strength to strength. Support for innovation, design, skills and training must be high on our shopping list of future Government support.
The Minister saw for himself yesterday the real difference that the facilities at work funded by the Government is making to workers. The CATU has also shown what a difference a work force development project can make. Supported by Jobcentre Plus and the Learning and Skills Council, I seek an assurance that he will ensure that the next stage of this funding is speedily—we cannot wait until October—appraised and agreed by Advantage West Midlands. Funding from the European social fund has already been approved, and it simply remains for AWM to agree its contribution.
Will the Minister update us on the progress on tariffs on hotelware, especially in relation to the United States and China, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) and many other hon. Members have raised on numerous occasions, and say what scope there is for further bilateral trade talks? Will he update us on counterfeiting, backstamping, liaison between Customs and Excise and trading standards legislation—and enforcement of that legislation—all issues that we have raised repeatedly, and constructively, with Government?
Will the Minister take account of anxieties over the underfunding of pension funds and the need to compensate employees who worked for local ceramic industry companies that have gone under and who have lost their pension? There is still time for the Government to address that point in the Pensions Bill.
In view of the Minister's combined DTI and Treasury expertise, will he initiate talks with the directors of the main banks to review the way in which the loan guarantee scheme works and see whether it can be used to support investment in the ceramics industry? There is not time to list all the issues, such as transport, packaging or the operation of the European emissions trading scheme, on which I understand talks were taking place with the trade association earlier this morning, but we shall continue to flag them up across Departments to ensure that north Staffordshire remains the centre of ceramics.
If the Minister cannot answer all those points during our short debate this afternoon, will he find the most appropriate way of ensuring that we continue to tackle each and every one of these issues?
2.14 pm
Mr. Mark Fisher: I congratulate my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), on securing this debate. As she said, it is badly needed to explore what has gone wrong, to express the horror and anger felt throughout north Staffordshire and by anyone who cares about British manufacturing—feelings run further than just the ceramics industry—and to explore what Government can do and what lessons we can learn.
220WH
When great names, including industrial names, fall, a shudder is felt through the world. When the announcement was made, there was a sense of disbelief in north Staffordshire. It seemed incredible that anything could touch the pillars of the industry—Royal Doulton, Wedgwood and Spode—which had been great names throughout the world and symbolic of British industrial brilliance and success for, in the case of Royal Doulton, about 125 years, and in the case of Wedgwood and Spode. about 250 years. We must ask what that means and what can be done.
I want to impress it on the Minister that the industry has been great for the past 250 years and still is, as I hope he saw when he visited north Staffordshire yesterday. Those brand names sell throughout the world because the wares are beautifully made and superbly crafted, and are great designs that are prized and valued. We have a worldwide reputation for quality, innovation and design.
Profits have always been made in the industry and continue to be made. As the Minister will have seen yesterday, several companies, such as Dudson, Steelite and Spode, which trade in the same general market conditions as Royal Doulton, not only survive but thrive. It is difficult, for reasons that we might explore in this debate, for companies to be successful in this complicated industry, because of international market conditions and in the light of new technology, but it is possible. If Royal Doulton has not succeeded, questions must be asked about the management.
Employment in the industry in this country is declining because of technology and lower labour costs elsewhere. However, at the same time, more ceramic ware is produced in north Staffordshire than has been during the 250-year history of the industry. Sadly, few people are now employed. When I first became a Member of Parliament 21 years ago, more than 50,000 people in north Staffordshire worked in the industry; now there are probably fewer than 10,000. Nevertheless. profits are being made, the ware is being produced and there is a future, albeit for a smaller work force. However, according to Royal Doulton's management, they have no future in north Staffordshire.
Nobody disputes that there are difficult market conditions. Labour costs abroad and Government subsidies for the manufacturing industry in other countries, such as China, are factors, as is new technology. Many aspects of the industry, but by no means all, can be carried out effectively by robotics. We have invested well in this country, but those factors put international pressure on the industry. There have also been unfair practices, such as backstamping and dumping, which the Minister will have heard about yesterday. Over the past 10 or 15 years, we have recognised that we cannot compete on cost, only on quality, design and promoting the great brand names. To do that we need skilful management, both industrially and financially. In recent years, Royal Doulton has failed the stringent but realistic tests that others have passed.
When I was first a Member of Parliament, Royal Doulton was owned by the Pearson group as part of a package of high-quality companies. With its great industrial, marketing and financial skills in the City of London, it kept the company going and made it prosper. Since the strategic demands of the group led to its being

221WH
reshaped into a media company, which has different management and ownership now, it has done less well. In recent years, it has appeared to be panicking, selling off good elements like Royal Crown Derby, and last year there was an undignified and rather shameful scrabble to sell off the core symbols of its heritage—its great museum collection. That was done in the stupidest, most ill-considered and thoughtless way, and was symptomatic of the sort of poor thinking that has bedevilled the company in recent years.
As my hon. Friend has said, some difficult questions should be asked by the Government and the financial regulators about the management of the company. This problem is occurring throughout industry when companies fail. The public, employees and—I hope and believe—the Government do not like to see companies that are failing sacking huge numbers of loyal, skilled and important workers, while the directors and management walk away with huge pension schemes and bonuses, having had large increases in salary, packages of relocation and other things during the failing years of a company. To see directors go away lining their pockets substantially while people who have worked for a company for 20, 30 or 40 years are left with nothing, offends the British sense of justice and fair play.
The Department of Trade and Industry must look into the management of the pension scheme and the management of directors' and boards' salaries in recent years, in order to ensure that everything is in order in the company. That needs to be examined, and I hope that the Minister will hear that. It is not an easy thing for him or the financial authorities to do, but it is necessary because there are plenty of signs that in many companies—and Doulton may be one of them—things are not right. That cannot be left unquestioned.
We need a DTI investigation into the financial circumstances of the company in recent months and the whole way in which it has been managed. We also need, as my hon. Friend has rightly said, some assistance from the Government, because the industry is still a good, thriving industry. We are not going to the Government on our knees with a begging bowl saying, "Please save us." The industry is still strong, albeit one that employs fewer people.
The Government have done some good things in setting up the Ceramics Industry Forum and supporting CERAM Research, which is one of the real leaders in high-technology manufacturing research in this country. However, as my hon. Friend says absolutely rightly, there is a possibility—we need to make it a certainty—of getting European Union money. The European side of the £2.7 million has been secured. We now need the regional development agency in the west midlands, Advantage West Midlands, to fulfil its side of the deal, and anything that the Minister can do to speed up the process would also be helpful.
On paper, the European money is lost at the end of June, and Advantage West Midlands is saying that it needs six months to reassess the bid. We do not have six months to spare in this case. We need a little bit of pressure from the Minister to encourage the good people at Advantage West Midlands to consider the
222WH
matter with slightly more dispatch and make a decision. That is the sort of practical help that the Government can provide.
I very much welcome the fact that the Minister visited Stoke yesterday, and took the trouble to listen to some of the best people in the industry, such as Mr. Ian Dudson. He will have learned a great deal, and I hope that he will be encouraged that what has happened to Doulton is the exception rather than the rule. We have to ensure in what we do during the next few months that it continues to be the exception, and that the rest of the industry thrives, even if weaker brethren like Doulton fail.
2.24 pm
Mr. John Randall: I ought first to explain my interest in this subject. I am still the director of a family retail business. Items that we have sold over all those years, going back to 1891, include ceramics, china and glassware.
At one stage in my career, I was the buyer for the china and glassware department, so I understand exactly how much the names that have been discussed by the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) mean. Those names are part of British heritage; Royal Doulton is part of the British way of life. It was with great sadness that I heard about the demise of production in the UK.
I do not know many of the details of the Royal Doulton case, and I will not comment on what has happened, except to say that when I took over the china department many years ago, I was surprised to find that we had 50 tea plates of one design. Asking the previous buyer why that was, I was told with a certain degree of irritation that it was because that was what the company had sent us. Going back a long time, there was a great arrogance about some of these companies. They were so keen on exports that they ignored the home division and they decided that one was very lucky to be sent anything. If one was sent tea plates with the wrong pattern, it was just bad luck.
Sadly, I could almost foresee problems occurring, yet because of the Royal Doulton name, I could never have envisaged what has happened. It has not always been the best company to deal with, but it would be a great shame for the whole ceramics industry to be tainted by what has happened to it.
Away from tableware and giftware, the industry is thriving. The industrial and construction markets are doing very well. However, it has been extremely difficult for all British manufacturing industry. I was in a debate on the British furniture industry recently where the Minister was present. It has gone through very similar problems, as has the cutlery industry in Sheffield.
About 15 to 20 years ago, I prided myself on the fact that we were selling and could stock our departments with British goods. Sadly, the price became a little high for the good burghers of Uxbridge, and although they wanted British goods, they were pulled towards imported goods. I understand that that is what the market is all about. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said. successful companies have relied on quality and a niche market, and I am surprised at some of the companies that have gone under, because of the power of their trade name.

223WH
Customers often visit my gift department wanting to buy something British to take abroad or give to a foreign visitor. Recently, they have been appalled to find how many products with British trade names are manufactured abroad. If we promote British industry in the correct way, there will still be a great deal to say for it.
As the hon. Lady said, counterfeiting, copying and illegal imports are real problems, and it is very difficult for companies to live with them. One has only to tweak a pattern on tableware to make it not exactly the same thing, and hence get away with it. One can also change the name: I must be careful because the companies in question may still exist, but I have seen Royal Doulton spelled differently in several ways, such as Royal Dalton.
I, from the other end, not the manufacturing end and not with a constituency interest, say for heaven's sake we must support the ceramics industry. It is part of Britain's heritage and is something that we should be proud of.
I had not heard about the selling off of the heirlooms. I think that it is appalling. Perhaps the Minister can talk to his chums in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and see whether they can do something about it. To lose some of those pieces would be absolutely irresponsible. I am pleased that I have been able to speak a little from the customer point of view and to say my little piece. It is incredibly important that we support British ceramics. Each Member of Parliament should do their bit and go out and buy some. They do not have to buy it from my store—although there is a generous discount on production of the House of Commons pass.
2.30 pm
Mr. George Stevenson: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), of our great city, on securing this debate. It is sad that the background to it is one of so much anger and frustration in north Staffordshire—and in Stoke-on-Trent in particular. Those feelings are based on our facing an unacceptable situation.
We recognise that, like many other areas of Britain, north Staffordshire is going through the most profound economic and social changes. We do not deny that, and although we still have a long way to go, we are managing those changes with a certain degree of success. Those changes are no less profound and serious for that success. We no longer have a coal mining industry at all; after 70 years, Michelin no longer produces tyres in Stoke-on-Trent; and the ceramics industry, one of the mainstays of our economy through the years, faces enormous problems and significant challenges.
As has already been said, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), there are success stories in the approach to managing those changes that we have adopted with the industry, the Government, the Ceramic and Allied Trades Union and the local community in north Staffordshire. We cannot succeed on our own. In that context, the recent events at Royal Doulton have dealt a body blow, not only to the company and, more important, to the people who lost their jobs, but to the heart of that important partnership between the
224WH
industry, the trade unions, the employers, the employees, the local authorities, Members of Parliament and every stakeholder in the great industry. Despite all the problems and challenges that it faces, the industry remains great. That is why the unacceptable activities of the Doulton company and its management have dealt such a body blow. There is a feeling of real anger about the way in which people have been treated.
To give the impression that the incident has had its gestation in recent months would be wrong. It has been going on for years. When such events happen in different parts of the country—including north Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent—we sometimes hear the siren voices saying, "The work force is to blame. They've been too intransigent. They haven't recognised the changes that the industry is facing. The trade unions have not been prepared to be flexible to meet the issues head on." We sometimes hear that the management or shareholders are to blame, because they are concerned about only their own interests. Some siren voices might say that the workers at Royal Doulton and their union representatives have played a part in the situation that we now face, but they would be wrong. Let there be no mistake that this tragic situation is the direct result of 10 years of rank had management—the sort of management of which this country should be ashamed. For years, the company made products while watching its market disappear. It continued to make the product, stuffed it in store and said, "It's Royal Doulton—sooner or later, it will sell." However, the company found itself with millions of pounds worth of stock that it had to give away. Was the work force responsible for that? No, it was the unacceptable face of British management, and I will argue that the Government have a direct responsibility for and interest in what has taken place.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central rightly pointed out, the tragedy affecting Royal Doulton has wider implications for the British economy. Royal Doulton ignored the dramatic changes that were taking place in the global market. It failed entirely to recognise the fact that people were going out to eat in restaurants rather than staying at home and were therefore not using the same ware as they were in the past. Other important companies in north Staffordshire, which are now doing rather better, recognised those changes and found the work force ready and willing to adapt to them, even though it meant the loss of some employment. The work force realised that the changes were inevitable, and they enthusiastically supported them. We are now seeing the difference. The problems affecting the ceramics industry are not the unfortunate result of an accident or global market conditions. They are the direct result of unacceptable actions by an important section of British management. North Staffordshire has a concentrated dependence on the ceramics industry, but the problems also affect other sectors. That point is important—Royal Doulton is not the only company affected.
That leads me to a point that has already been touched on but which I believe needs to be emphasised. How, in this day and age, when we are supposed to have a constructive framework of employment laws, can a company can get away with such actions? That is what my constituents, those of my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and the trade unions are asking, and we need an

225WH
answer. Why can a major company do a secret deal that has the direct result of hundreds of people losing their jobs without consulting anybody until the deal is done and the announcement is made? How can that happen? What is wrong with our employment law that means that companies can get away with that? What has happened should not be allowed. It is unacceptable, and the Government need to examine it carefully. Although a relatively small company in terms of national and global employment, Royal Doulton is a world-renowned company with a reputation that has been built up over years that has a lot of respect throughout the world. Make no mistake: if Royal Doulton can get away with such action in the name of management, other companies will be allowed to get away with it. Such practices are completely unacceptable.
We in north Staffordshire are determined to meet the challenges and to build on our successes, but we cannot do it alone. We need the Government to act determinedly and in partnership with us to address the problems that still affect the ceramic industry. Unless action is taken, even those companies that we claim are relatively successful will increasingly find themselves pushed out of the marketplace.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) said, in his capacity as a buyer of ceramic products, that his customers, the good burghers of Uxbridge, wanted to buy British goods but were priced out—they felt that the goods were too expensive. That may be so, given the changes that are taking place throughout the world, but we must give the people of Britain—whether in north Staffordshire, Uxbridge or elsewhere—the choice.
Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but in terms of good management there comes a point when a retail outlet cannot afford to keep offering goods that people do not want. It can try to promote them, but it is up to the manufacturer to make the goods more attractive.
Mr. Stevenson: I take that point. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a few more seconds, I might be able to clarify what I mean by giving consumers the choice. One of the problems faced by the ceramics industry that is products that are manufactured elsewhere come into the UK with no mark of origin and are then decorated in the UK and sold as British products. That is unacceptable. We can discuss price, but we should give British consumers the information that they need to be certain where a product has been produced.
We must impress on the Government how important it is for them to stress, in their dialogue with the United States through the World Trade Organisation, that even if it has been slightly reduced recently, the peak-time tariff of 30 per cent. on our pottery imported into the USA is unacceptable. It is a tax on British goods entering the USA—the most important market for the British ceramic industry. Action must be taken on that issue. In addition, we need to see more evidence that the Government, the European Union and the WTO are serious when they talk about monitoring the import of ceramics from China as part of the WTO accession agreement. We must impress on the Government the importance of that.
226WH
I reiterate the point made by my hon. Friends that we are proud of the partnership that we have in north Staffordshire, even with the difficulties that we face. We intend to meet the challenges and are managing the changes positively, but we cannot do it alone. Further investment is necessary. European Union money has been mentioned and Advantage West Midlands must put in its share—the Government must impress on it how important that is. We must also ensure that the framework of investment that will create new jobs in north Staffordshire continues to be available.
Several hon. Membersrose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should say that the Minister has indicated that he will need about 15 minutes to respond to this important debate. I hope that the Opposition spokesman, the Liberal Democrat spokesman and the final Back-Bench speaker, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), will bear that in mind.
2.45 pm
Paul Farrelly: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on securing this debate, which is timely, given the dire situation of Royal Doulton. I should also like to thank the Minister for taking the time to listen and to respond to this debate about an important sector of UK manufacturing, and for his visit to Stoke-on-Trent yesterday.
I declare an interest, as I am a recent shareholder of Royal Doulton. Last week, cast shares as proxy for another Doulton shareholder at the company's annual general meeting in the City. That shareholder was the former managing director of the Nile street factory, which was about to close. His votes went against Royal Doulton's management last week. I have also advised the Ceramic and Allied Trades Union, whose general secretary Geoff Bagnall, and his deputy, Garry Oakes, I warmly welcome here today.
Many of my constituents worked for Royal Doulton, have been made redundant by Royal Doulton, or are Royal Doulton pensioners. To give a flavour of the local impact of the company's implosion, last Friday, as part of "MPs back to school" clay, I was at Chesterton primary school in Newcastle-under-Lyme explaining to children what I did locally. When the subject of Royal Doulton inevitably came up, one of the teachers asked the kids if any of their mums and dads were affected. No fewer than 10 hands shot up. There were stories of parents now facing redundancy, of mums and dads who had lost their jobs at Doulton in recent years, and of worries about Doult on pensions. It was a worrying and depressing litany from the mouths of 10 and 11-year-olds at just one school in my constituency.
In common with many traditional manufacturing industries, ceramics has long found the going very tough. As in other sectors, chief among the challenges is our response to globalisation and competition from emerging low-wage economies, often assisted by UK companies investing over there rather than here. We realise that there is no easy Government panacea for globalisation. However, there are issues, to which my

227WH
hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) referred, to do with fair trading, which we can seek to remedy. The Minister will be aware of the efforts made by the north Staffordshire Members, along with those of the trade union and the industry, to tackle concerns such as blatant copying of designs by China, punitive and protectionist US import tariffs, and ensuring that marks of origin fairly reflect where an item is made. The last issue is very important to an industry such as ceramics, because it is important to consumers that they are not misled into buying fragile fizzy plonk, as it were, rather than the full-blooded champagne that they really want.
Chief among the challenges are: investment in modern technology; having the right management and skills; and getting the right designs for the right markets at the right time and at a price that gives companies an acceptable return. As we have heard already, many ceramics companies are doing just that in a difficult environment. The industry is not an unremitting tale of woe; it has a future and there are many success stories. However, Royal Doulton, one of the industry's flagship names, is simply not one of them.
It is hard, after many years of commentating on and dealing with industry, for me to recall a worse example of blundering management. Royal Doulton is a textbook case of poor leadership, poor judgment, and questionable corporate governance: the worst of UK manufacturing in microcosm. The recent history should be told, so that it is not glossed over and the wider lessons not learned or forgotten. The present Royal Doulton chairman, Mr. Hamish Grossart, has been in that position for almost six years, since mid-1998. He is typical of many chairmen of public companies in this country: a privileged scion of a City family and Edinburgh's financial elite. He has a bagful of directorships—six others, at the last count. He is rarely seen or noticed at Royal Doulton's headquarters in Stoke-on-Trent, yet he picks up £120,000 a year from this cash-strapped company, plus perks. The local joke is, of course, "No wonder we can't afford him full-time." I have written to Mr. Grossart, raising detailed questions about the management and corporate governance of Royal Doulton. He has promised me a reply, but I have not yet received it. However, in the meantime I have obtained a few hard facts about his tenure.
Mr. Grossart's is a story of consistent and unremitting failure. Since he became its chairman, Royal Doulton has racked up pre-tax losses of £127 million, it has not made a profit or paid a dividend, and its turnover has halved. It swallowed more than £18 million of rescue rights issue money raised a mere two years ago, but its debt has grown again and its balance sheet has higher gearing than before the fundraising. During that period, the share price has slumped from more than £2.50 to about 9p today. The sad fact is that the planned closure of the UK factory at Nile street in Burslem means that, since 1998, Mr. Grossart will have shut all 11 UK factories and made more than 4,000 loyal, hard-working employees redundant. That is hardly a record of which to be proud. The wider point is that, as with so many companies in this country, the board has been rewarded handsomely for failure. Given some of the payments and perks, workers and shareholders could rightly ask, "Is Royal Doulton being run not so much as a pot hank but as a piggy bank?"
228WH
The history of this proud company is not all written in red ink. In 1997, before Mr. Grossart arrived, it turned in a pre-tax profit, and in 1998 it at least made an operating profit. It has not done so since. Last week, at the annual general meeting, Mr. Grossart said that the company
"was heading for the knacker's yard"
before he arrived. All I can say is that when he did arrive, he jumped into the driver's seat, gunned the engine, severed the brakes and smashed Royal Doulton into every pile-up along the way. Let me give an early example: in 1999, uniquely among publicly quoted companies, Royal Doulton was bitten by a millennium bug of its own making months before the millennium. The fiasco of installing new warehouse software cost the company dearly and turned it into a laughing stock in the industry. It is worth noting that the current chief executive, Mr. Wayne Nutbeen, was the chief operating officer at the time.
Royal Doulton has been looking to Indonesia for its salvation. That undertaking has hardly been error-free either. According to accounts from Indonesia that I have managed to obtain, in the five years since that operation started to the end of 2001, it accumulated total losses of $6.2 million. It has also suffered serious accounting problems, and a run-in with the Indonesian tax authorities over its tax accounting cost an already cash-strapped company another $5.8 million.
I mention that not to embarrass Royal Doulton but to make a wider point about the running of our public companies. As far as I can tell, none of that was made public to UK shareholders, not even when Royal Doulton had its rights issue back in February 2002. Too often, mistakes in such companies are simply swept under the carpet or glossed over and presented as part of a coherent and inevitable strategy. Such glossing and flossing happened again last week at Royal Doulton's AGM in the City. I was last in the City with the shareholders and with Geoff Bagnall of the trades union two years ago at the rights issue, which the union pragmatically supported for the good of Royal Doulton's future and the last remaining employees. At that time, only two years ago, Mr. Grossart assured the work force and investors that, after another painful factory closure, one third of production would take place in the UK, one third would take place in Indonesia and one third would be sourced from elsewhere. After yet more pain in the meantime, he assured staff and investors as recently as last September in the interim results statement that
"major structural changes have now been largely completed".
Did he mean the major changes apart from shutting down the last factory, in which the company had been investing the previous year, and ending UK production—or leaving it at 2 per cent., not one third? In reality, have not subsequent events shown that the chairman again had no clue where Royal Doulton was going and that workers and shareholders were misled? All that he has done is push firmly down on the accelerator on the way to the knacker's yard.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that we must encourage leadership by example in UK companies, even when times are tough, yet last month, when the news of Nile street's closure was finally broken, what did the chairman of the company do? Did he insist that his

229WH
chief executive stay and talk to the workers? No. There was no meaningful consultation with the work force either before the announcement or immediately afterwards. Instead, Mr. Grossart let his chief executive fly off for a holiday in Zanzibar, heaping more ridicule and bad will on Royal Doulton. My only hope is that the company did not pay for his ticket, because in the last year it had already splashed out £64,000 on air fares and relocation expenses for Mr. Nutbeen and his family, on top of his salary of £200,000 a year. He also gets an extra £25,000 a year in lieu of company contributions to the UK pension scheme, of which he is not a member, which is £18.7 million in deficit. That is another worry for Doulton pensioners.
There is one final issue in the run-up to the factory closure that is firmly related to leadership by example. From the chief executive's comments to the local press before his holiday, it seems that the review and sale of the Nile street factory had started six months before—in September, shortly after the interim results were announced. In November, however, while the review was going on, three directors, including Mr. Grossart and Mr. Nutbeen, bought Royal Doulton shares at the nearly rock-bottom price of 3p a share. As a result, they are all sitting pretty on a paper profit of nearly half a million pounds. If only other long-suffering investors, who include the workers, had had such foresight. Instead, in a proud, 200-year history, what they have, through mismanagement, is a scenario in which UK manufacturing is set to all but disappear.
After that tale of woe, and woeful leadership, who did Royal Doulton's chief executive have the cheek to blame? Funnily enough, he blamed the Government. I do not expect the Minister to respond to individual actions and events at companies such as Doulton. However, I should be grateful to learn what assistance Doulton has requested in the past to support a future in UK manufacturing, or to help its work force, because I understand that it is precisely none. I should also be grateful to hear how much importance my hon. Friend attaches to leadership by example and to good corporate governance in all UK industry. Lastly, I should be interested to hear his views on the appropriateness of Royal Doulton having "Royal" in its name and bearing the royal warrant when it is shifting production overseas in such a tragic and underhand way. If that does not fall within the Minister's remit, I should be grateful to know where people concerned about the issue should be directed.
2.57 pm
Brian Cotter: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) for initiating the debate, and to the many hon. Members who know more intimately about Royal Doulton than I do. I would have spent more time talking about the matter from an outside perspective, but my colleagues have already referred to management issues and to the fact that, over time, the management has not handled the company, or the consultation, very well.
I want to examine the key issue of consultation. Hon. Members asked how decisions made in businesses can seemingly come out of the blue. Surely, if there was proper, relevant and real consultation, that would not
230WH
happen. If the work force were engaged properly, as they should have been in this case, better-informed decisions would be taken and the work force themselves would be better.
It is understandable that the work force feel disgruntled and unhappy. There are the similar examples of Corus steel, which was strongly criticised for how it made people redundant, and the Accident group, which made people redundant by text message. Those examples highlight how this country is behind in that respect.
In the Standing Committee on the Employment Relations Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) and I highlighted the issue to press the Government to confirm that they are fully committed to helping UK companies to implement the relevant European measures. I hope that the Minister will reaffirm his commitment today.
The Liberal Democrats believe in giving business maximum freedom in which to pursue competitive advantage and believe that it would be wrong to try to restrict the right of companies to relocate parts of their business overseas. However, we must remember that, in a free market, if companies rejig their production overseas the home market will take that on board. Home sales can be affected if people feel that the company is not trying hard enough to keep jobs in the UK.
Particular attention has been drawn to the fact that US ceramics tariffs are hitting the industry, a point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) earlier this year and again today. We saw how similar problems arose in the steel industry, until President Bush finally capitulated and scrapped steel tariffs, following a long and bitter battle with the EU. As the world's largest economy, the United States has a responsibility to take those issues on board. I ask the Minister what progress has been made on negotiations relating to US tariffs on pottery imports, and what the position is today.
Hon. Members have referred to Chinese counterfeits, an issue on which I wanted to say a few more words. I very much support what was said. Furthermore, the British Ceramic Confederation says that when counterfeit goods are exported to countries such as South Korea, where the enforcement of copyright law is lax, things become even more difficult. Although British businesses now have greater protection for their designs and productions in the EU, design protection outside it is more difficult. The Business Link website acknowledges that, saying,
"Design law across the world is a complex area".
That is an issue that we need to put to the World Trade Organisation and other bodies. I hope that the Minister will take on board the British Ceramic Confederation's request and liaise with the Chinese authorities to help to clamp down on the production of counterfeit goods in Asia.
A serious issue also arises about manufacturing in general. That goes wider than Royal Doulton, but this debate has highlighted the need to consider manufacturing generally in this country. New figures show increasing unemployment in the manufacturing industry. While house prices boom and consumer sales increase, manufacturing is an area of great concern. The

231WH
Government have an obligation to create a regulatory climate that helps businesses rather than hindering them. The Minister will know that I have often engaged in such issues. I do not do so in a general way. One can keep talking about red tape, but there are specific examples, many of which I could give today, such as the burden of student loan payments.
Recently the British Chambers of Commerce held a conference across the road. It has taken a lead in highlighting the burden of regulation on businesses. I ask the Minister again what action the Government are taking to speed the removal of regulation and to boost vocational education. There is much talk about university education, with which I agree, but we must place emphasis on vocational training too, to give our workers the opportunity to compete, through their company, with efficient practices and so on. I agree with a point made earlier: it is disgraceful that, over so many years, management have not listened to the work force, have not responded to the marketplace and have allowed this situation to occur. Colleagues know that far better than I do, but I have come across it myself during my business career. Having been in a small business where I—fortunately—had control over my companies, I was appalled to learn that businesses are still operating in that way.
I express concern about the impact on the work force at Royal Doulton, which I am sure local Members will share, and I am encouraged to see that a rapid response team has been put in place to help those made redundant. I hope that the responses will include offers of retraining and the like. There was a similar situation in my constituency, and the rapid response unit was very good at taking on those issues. I hope that that is happening in this case.
In the long term, we must focus on our industries and help them with the issues that I raised, such as tariffs. We must also help communities that are devastated. Despite the fact that the ceramics industry is a great one, the number of people employed in the work force is in decline, and I hope that the Government will deal with that issue through the regional development agencies, which are sometimes hamstrung by regulation, to do what needs to be done. I believe that these issues should be addressed locally, through RDAs or by other means, because it is those in the local area who know what needs to be done. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board when he responds.
3.6 pm
Michael Fabricant: I am delighted that the debate has taken place today, and I particularly want to congratulate my hon. Friend—I use that term advisedly—the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on securing it, and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) on the valuable work he has done. I rise to speak not only as a shadow trade and industry spokesman but as a Staffordshire Member of Parliament. Hon. Members have already pointed out that there are structural problems in the ceramics industry as a whole. I would like to pay brief tribute to the work of the Ceramic Industry Forum operating in the European Parliament, which is chaired jointly by Malcolm Harbour and Michael Cashman.
There are problems in the ceramics industry generally, but the problems at Royal Doulton have been exacerbated by the crass incompetence of the recent
232WH
management. The hon. Lady has already pointed out the history of Royal Doulton, so it is clear that the demise of the company is not just the demise of a single factory or firm. A short time ago, it was the leading English group of fine china companies. The English fine china business has always been cyclical, but it has been a proud and successful exporter of fine English products.
In the early 1980s, as we heard, Pearson found that the business was not performing to its expectations. Its response was not to close down the company but to bring in a new chief executive to give the business inspired and creative leadership. It engaged Stuart Lyons, who had a background in menswear manufacturing, and had previously been managing director of the UDS retail group.
In those days, Stuart Lyons, with the support of the Pearson chairman. Viscount Blakenham, introduced new manufacturing technology to the tableware, figurine and glass-making operations, and combined that with innovative design and marketing programmes. In addition to the existing markets of Canada, the USA and Australia, he opened distribution subsidiaries in Hong Kong and Tokyo, and the company's products were sold in 80 countries around the globe. Royal Doulton became the world's leading specialist fine china retailer, with more than 400 branches, including the Lawleys shops in England and a successful chain in America.
However, 10 years ago, when the Pearson group decided to concentrate on its media activities, Lord Blakenham invited Stuart Lyons, who had by then been awarded a CBE for services to the china industry, to make the business public and gain a separate listing on the London stock exchange. Royal Doulton plc was listed in December 1993, and in the three years that followed the company doubled its earnings per share and delivered dividend increases of 13 per cent. annually. It was a success. Annual turnover was more than £250 million, with profits rising to £17.6 million. On the strength of that achievement, further expansion was planned. It was apparent that the brand names of Royal Doulton, Royal Albert, Royal Crown Derby and Minton, all part of the Royal Doulton group, were more powerful in the USA than the distribution that they commanded. America was then, as now, the world's richest market, and the company had already opened a chain of 50 stores there that were well managed and commercially profitable. Guaranteeing Royal Doulton's success, and safeguarding the work force in north Staffordshire, depended on further penetration of the US market, as well as on building up the United Kingdom market.
With the full support of his board, his independent chairman, the banks and the company's financial advisers, Lyons spent many months negotiating the agreed acquisition of a large and profitable retail group in the USA. That should have been a further step in Royal Doulton's expansion and a significant boost to the Stoke-on-Trent economy.
Mr. Randall: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Michael Fabricant: I will not, because there is little time and the Minister wants to respond.
Life is not always so simple. Two institutional holders of Royal Doulton shares—they held 25 per cent. of the equity between them—failed to understand the strategic

233WH
logic of the proposal and adopted a policy of shorttermism, refusing to support the proposal. That is one of the costs of the free market: those who own shares in companies are free to make mistakes. At that time, the Royal Doulton share price stood at about £2.50. Today, after a series of rights issues at ever lower prices, it stands at less than one twentieth of that figure, having fallen as low as 3p.
Stuart Lyons left the business rather than preside over a new strategy in which he had no confidence. A new management team took over. Their first step was publicly to belittle the company that they now led. They then proceeded to dismantle Royal Doulton's design, marketing and retailing teams worldwide. They rationalised—if rationalisation is the word—stocks, warehouses and advertising budgets, and wondered why the company's sales went into freefall. Unwilling to blame themselves, they blamed the previous management, the present management, the work force. the economy, the marketplace, the Government and the trade unions.
For the past seven years, Royal Doulton has made trading losses, having made substantial profits every year for the previous 12. Every loss has led to further cuts, to factory closures and to job losses. Only the top management team is protected, with high salaries, share options, housing allowances, bonus entitlements and free trips abroad. Hamish Grossart, the chairman, has much to answer for, as do M&G and Mercury Asset Management. They have demonstrated clearly that those are the destructive forces, forces of short-termism and lack of vision that have seen the destruction of the well-respected Royal Doulton company.
This is not a saga about party politics or political philosophy. It is a tragedy for the people of Stoke-on-Trent and of Staffordshire generally. It is also a tragedy for the English exporting effort, for investors in Royal Doulton and for Customs. I endorse the series of questions asked by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent. North and those asked by other Members including the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. I look forward to a full response from the Minister.
3.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: I am told that some former Ministers have found the experience of responding to Westminster Hall debates rather painful. In the light of the fantastic contributions that we have had from hon. Members of all parties, it is both a privilege and a pleasure. Indeed, it is always a pleasure to serve under a Deputy Speaker whose commitment to manufacturing is acknowledged throughout the House.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) for securing the debate and for taking the trouble to meet me in Stoke-on-Trent yesterday to brief me in great detail.
No single sector is as well represented, with the Members from north Staffordshire, or more effective in speaking up for itself as the ceramics sector. Today we are considering one of the gravest subjects we ever consider—the loss of hundreds of jobs and livelihoods, affecting family members across the generations in a
234WH
community that, although still a world leader in ceramic innovation and production, has suffered from deeply hurtful company closures.
I always enjoy meeting ceramics manufacturers, and yesterday was my third visit to manufacturers in Stoke since becoming a Department of Trade and Industry Minister. They tell me that the Government's direct support for the UK ceramics industry, our establishment of the Ceramic Industry Forum, our involvement of work force representatives through their trade union, and the direct funds of £3.3 million have all ensured that UK ceramics firms maintain a world lead. That progress is welcome, and it means that it is to the United Kingdom and north Staffordshire in particular that many companies, countries and competitors look for innovations.
Let no one claim that any Government are doing more to listen to and respond to the needs of the industry or that anyone is doing more to liaise with it. The DTI, the Treasury, the regional development agency, the local Government office for the west midlands and the British Ceramic Confederation meet every quarter to address the issues that give UK manufacturers a competitive lead.
We are working closely with individual major ceramics manufacturers precisely to achieve that competitive lead. I regret to say that Royal Doulton is noticeable by its absence.
Mr. Randall: Does the Minister's Department put its money where its mouth is and buy British ceramics?
Nigel Griffiths: I was delighted to be photographed yesterday holding the House of Commons chinaware that we use here, so we do put our money where our mouth is. There is no better place to showcase it.
It is no wonder that Dudson is a company that in the past five years alone—I will allow hon. Members to draw their own conclusions about the time scale—has taken international contracts previously given to China for a major theme park corporation and one of the world's largest coffee houses. That is a tribute to the innovation and investment of the manufacturers of Stoke-on-Trent, and especially to the highly skilled and well-led work force who deliver 21st-century needs at peak production.
In spite of our complaints about Chinese imports, we know that the manufacturers in north Staffordshire can provide a lesson about innovation, design and quality to the rest of UK manufacturing and the world, because they are second to none.
As I have said before, redundancies are a sad but inevitable part of commercial life. Although some companies handle them well and treat their work force with respect, dignity and compassion, and work with employees and their trade unions to save jobs, sadly, Royal Doulton is not one of them. It has not taken any of the steps that other responsible manufacturers have taken, and it did not fully explore all the funding opportunities that have been mentioned by hon. Members.

235WH
Government representatives and the regional development agency met the company in 2002 to outline the possible help available locally, including up to 15 per cent. for operating in an assisted area, assessing available European regional development funds and preparing a bid for objective 2 funding. Hon. Members will share my disappointment that none of those options was pursued. Last August, a further meeting was held with the company, and again possible funding options were put to Royal Doulton. I have met the dedicated and experienced officials at the Department of Trade and Industry who promote the ceramics industry, and they are as frustrated and disappointed as local and other Members. I share that frustration at the company's failure to explore the available options.
I am also concerned to read reports that an employer of the reputation of Royal Doulton has not kept its work force or experienced and distinguished Members of Parliament informed of pending decisions. My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) came to the DTI, and working with Advantage West Midlands, we ensured that a taskforce was set up for Royal Doulton.
The taskforce was established and met within 13 days of the announced closure, and I am grateful to all the people who came together so quickly—Advantage West Midland, Jobcentre Plus, Stoke-on-Trent city council, the Ceramic Industry Forum, the Leaning and Skills Council and the North Staffordshire regeneration zone project. As can be seen, the taskforce includes all the key agencies and industry professionals and involves the key worker representatives from the union who know more about the situation than anyone else. The taskforce is meeting again next week, and I have asked for a report from it after that meeting, which I will share with hon. Members whose constituents are affected.
Ms Walley: The most important thing is to ensure that the request for additional money by the Ceramic and Allied Trades Union is addressed in the ongoing consideration of what is needed to help the area.
Nigel Griffiths: No consideration of any aspect that could help to ensure the prosperous future of the company and its work force should be ruled out by the taskforce. We are fortunate, because in a similar debate to which I have responded in this Chamber, the time scale was much shorter and there was not such a determined group of hon. Members as we have seen today, reflecting a lifetime of commitment to the industry.
Hon. Members have rightly highlighted other issues of concern. Counterfeiting and backstamping, especially by China, have been blamed for undermining our successful manufacturers, and I am aware of the burning resentment felt by UK manufacturers, who have to pay a fee to Customs and Excise to lodge an application to prohibit competitors in China and elsewhere from bringing goods into the EU and UK that they have illegally copied from British designs. That will not happen any more—we have abolished the fee.
Last month, my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North, for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson), for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), for Newcastle-under-Lyme, for Stafford (Mr. Kidney)
236WH
and for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) met my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment to discuss, among other matters, illegal counterfeiting by Chinese companies. We are strongly supporting amendments to directive 84/500 to ensure that all ceramic tableware is permanently marked with the name, trade name or registered trademark of the manufacturer or seller.
A further issue raised by my hon. Friends concerns the 30 per cent. import tariffs imposed by the United States on hotelware. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment shares that concern and intends to make strong representations in international forums. It was raised on his instruction at bilateral talks with the Chinese earlier this month. The British Ceramic Confederation has been given the full details of the Chinese officials with responsibility for considering the matter. The Chinese authorities tell my hon. Friend that they are keen to co-operate, and we look to the British Ceramic Confederation to report to us regularly on what we hope will be positive progress.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North also stresses the need for partnership between Government and local companies, and I could not agree more. That is why we have established the Ceramic Industry Forum and why we value our contacts with the British Ceramic Confederation, which represents 95 per cent. of the industry. Indeed, my hon. Friend was with me yesterday when Ian and Max Dudson thanked me for the research funding given to a local consortium in which Dudson plays a major part. That consortium is helping to drive British manufacturing and innovation forward in ceramics in three areas: cup making, plexiform and flexible flatware.
The idea of the consortium, like many of the best ideas, originated in north Staffordshire. CERAM Research at Stoke-on-Trent worked with us to put together a consortium of 10 manufacturers. They have been working with direct funding from the Department of Trade and Industry on the manufacturing improvement club model to set up a trial plant, which we saw yesterday. That plant has so much potential that it is expected to be a major exporter of expertise, and manufacturers around the world will look at how we have achieved a tremendous competitive lead.
Another firm that we visited yesterday, H and R Johnson, showed how successful, forward-looking management that is willing to reinvest in the work force, the plant and machinery, rather than in sending their wives back to Australia or on holiday, can gain a world lead. We saw yesterday the tile-making plant based in Stoke-on-Trent, which is the most advanced in the world.
We know that we have the best; it is sad that we have to come together as often as we do for Adjournment debates not to showcase the best but to criticise and try to learn lessons from the poorer performers. I am glad that my colleagues, the local Members of Parliament, stress the vibrant nature of the ceramics industry, and that they join me in analysing those success stories and celebrating the success that Government and industry can achieve together, although I confess that the vast majority of that is due to the work force and local industry.

237WH
I urge Royal Doulton to co-operate fully with Jobcentre Plus, Advantage West Midlands, the rapid response team and, most importantly, with its work force, unions and Members of Parliament, to ensure that everything that can be done in the next year is done. The ceramics industry in this country has a great and long history, but I, like my colleagues, believe that its greatest years lie ahead.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We thank the Minister for his reply. I congratulate all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate on their passion and their well-researched speeches. I hope that the contents are noted.

NHS Trusts (Data Protection)
3.30 pm
Mike Gapes: The Data Protection Act 1998 has been topical over recent months with regard to the sad murders at Soham and the way in which some public authorities, particularly police authorities, seemed to misinterpret it. My purpose today is not to enter a wide debate on the Act, but to focus on it in relation to the role of representatives and Members of Parliament taking up cases on behalf of their constituents. I do so knowing that the issue has been considered in the House before.
A Library standard note on the issue—SN/HA/1936—was published on 4 December 2002. Its first sentence states:
"A number of MPs have reported difficulties in carrying out their constituency duties stemming from the Data Protection Act 1998. The legal issues involved also apply to other elected representatives such as councillors, MEPs, MSPs etc."
The note was produced to try to explain the position in December 2002, before the coming into effect on 17 December 2002 of the Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) (Elected Representatives) Order 2002. I contend, on the basis of my recent experience, that there are still difficulties, despite the advice given by the Lord Chancellor's Department and despite that order, which came into effect one and a half years ago.
The matter was drawn to my attention as a result of correspondence from my local NHS trust, but, on the basis of e-mails that I received, including from officials in other NHS trusts, after I raised the matter during business questions just before Easter, I suspect that it is a wider issue. Certainly the reaction that I provoked when I raised it in the House suggested that similar issues have been raised with other hon. Members.
Data protection in the NHS does not relate simply to NHS trusts. I will not break the embargo, but I think that I can at least refer to the publication tomorrow of a code of practice by the Healthcare Commission, which is starting a process of public consultation on how it will deal with data protection issues. These matters do, therefore, have wide concurrence at the moment.
I have been a Member of the House for more than 12 years, in which time I have received many representations from my constituents on health-related issues, as do all MPs. The vast majority have been by telephone initially. Many are simply telephone calls from elderly and distraught people or from relatives of such people. Sometimes there are letters, but more often than not there are telephone calls or visits to my advice surgery.
In view of my 12 years' experience, I was surprised in early March to receive a letter from the chief executive of Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS trust—the trust that serves my constituency and covers King George's hospital, Ilford, which is in my constituency. The letter stated:
"As you are aware, we have recently been reviewing the whole of the complaints procedure in order to ensure that we are both responsive to, and learn from, our patients' experience.
As part of this review we have developed a new complaints policy, part of which covers our responsibilities under the Data Protection Act. The Act requires that we seek the permission of the patient. wherever possible, to disclose information of a clinical or personal nature to a third party.

239WH
Although I appreciate that by writing or talking to their MP, patients and their relatives are implicitly providing consent, it is important that we as a Trust also have that permission in writing.
I have therefore enclosed a supply of consent forms and would be grateful if you could ask your constituent to complete the form and send it to us with your letter."
That letter, with the consent form, was from the chief executive, Mark Rees, to me and, I presume, to other Members of Parliament in the area, and was dated 9 March. The form is a standard form for consent to access to information and, where necessary, for health care records to be disclosed to relevant personnel.
I thought that the letter raised fundamental questions about the role of elected Members of Parliament. I telephoned the trust immediately on receipt of the letter. I was not able to speak to the chief executive at that time, but spoke to senior officials within the trust, and was informed that there had been discussions among compliance officers in north-east London about how to deal with such matters. I asked if there was any documentation or guidance, and was told that there was none of which the person to whom I spoke was aware. I thought that, in those circumstances, I would write to the chief executive and see where that got me, because I felt that wider issues were raised. I wrote to Mark Rees on 18 March 2004 and pointed out that I had read his letter with considerable concern. I wrote:
"I, of course, accept that in the case of a 'third party' neighbour or friend making representations to Members of Parliament issues of confidentiality and Data Protection can arise. However, in the vast majority of cases, representations are made to me directly by constituents or by a close relative on their behalf.
A considerable number of cases are brought to my attention by individuals or their relatives or friends, who telephone my Office. Your letter to me appears to accept that an elected Member of Parliament is not in the same category as another member of the public to whom provisions of Data Protection procedures might be applied.
Indeed, you state that `patients and relatives are implicitly providing consent'. You are also aware that a very large number of my constituents do not have English as their first language and find it difficult to give written consent or to write letters in English.
Your letter also appears to be in conflict with the advice to Government Departments issued by the Lord Chancellor's Department which is based on The Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) (Elected Representatives) Order 2002: (SI 2002 No. 2905).
The advice states `If the elected representative says that he or she is asking for information on behalf of someone else, Departments should normally be able to take the elected representative's word for it. The elected representative may often provide a letter or other form of written 'mandate' from the individual. But there is no requirement for the individual to put the request to the elected representative in writing, and getting a written mandate may not always be possible. For example, in urgent cases the individual's approach to the elected representative may have been made by telephone. If Departments are in particular doubt, they may wish to check the position with the individual."
I continued:
"It is not acceptable to me, as a Member of Parliament, to be faced with a bureaucratic obstacle course when I take up cases on behalf of my constituents. I therefore expect that you will modify your policy without delay and clarify to all members of your organisation the correct procedure for responding to representations and letters from myself as a Member of Parliament."
I also gave notice that I intended to raise the matter in the House.
240WH
I received a reply to that letter on 26 March, which sought to clarify the trust's position. Mark Rees said:
"I am writing further to your letter and our recent telephone conversation … I appreciate your views in this matter and as indicated in my original letter, accept that by talking with or writing directly to you as their MP, constituents are giving their consent.
The area of concern that the Trust has is that if a relative or friend raises issues about individual patient care without that person's knowledge or consent, then the Trust would be in breach of the Data Protection Act.
I can understand that you have a view that the Trust is being overly bureaucratic and therefore we shall take up the responsibility of checking, as necessary, with the patient involved."
I still thought that that response did not entirely meet my concerns, so I sent the correspondence to the Secretary of State for Health in a letter dated 30 March. I shall not quote the letter in full because it repeats many of the things that I said in the earlier correspondence. However, I shall quote one paragraph, in which I made the point that the way in which those matters were being considered undermined my position as an elected Member of Parliament and
"could place a bureaucratic obstacle course in the way of making timely and effective representations to NHS Trusts."
I continued:
"I would therefore be grateful if you could intervene to require the withdrawal of this policy and issue advice to NHS Trusts on the role of Members of Parliament in representing their constituents."
The day after sending that letter to the Secretary of State for Health, I received a further letter from Mark Rees in which he further clarified the trust's position. He wrote:
"The issue you raised with me in relation to the Data Protection Act (Processing of Sensitive Data) (Elected Representatives) Order 2002: (SI 2002 No. 2905) required some clarification with regard to obtaining consent to divulge information to a third party.
In my original letter, I acknowledged that if a complaint is raised with an MP directly by the patient involved, then clearly consent has been obtained.
The area of concern that the Trust has is that if a relative or friend raises issues about individual patient care, without that person's knowledge, or consent, then the Trust would be in breach of the Data Protection Act.
Although I want to avoid excessive bureaucracy at all costs, it is considered best practice for the Trust to obtain the consent of the patient involved wherever possible. Therefore, the Trust undertakes to write to the patient directly. However, I appreciate that you have been supplied with some consent forms, which need only to be used if you are in a position to provide one to the relative or friend, who can then obtain the patient's consent and forward the form to the Trust.
I apologise if this was not made clear in my earlier letter."
It seems, therefore, that there are consent forms but that it is not an absolute requirement to use them. I was still not entirely convinced, so I raised the matter at a meeting with the NHS trust in my constituency on Friday 2 April.
I also raised the matter during business questions in April, just before the House rose for the Easter recess, and will refer to that exchange because I was struck by the reply I received from the Leader of the House. He said:

241WH
"The Department of Health and the health service are in a slightly different position, as information held by hospitals about the health of individuals is likely to be held in confidence and disclosure to a third party is governed by the common law of confidence. However, the crucial point for my hon. Friend is that the Department of Health has issued guidance for NHS organisations, including trusts, that they should accept an MP's word, when an MP clearly states that he or she has the patient's consent."—[Official Report, 1 April 2004; Vol. 419, c. 1783.]

I had not seen that NHS guidance; I was working on the information that the Lord Chancellor's Department had given. I therefore asked the House of Commons Library if it could tell me where the NHS guidance was, and whether it was available. The Library was helpful and, eventually, after a few telephone calls, obtained a document called "Confidentiality: NHS Code of Practice", which was published in November 2003. It looked through it—it is a long document. The letter from the Library says that the only reference to Members of Parliament that could be found was in
"annex C, Model B3, Example 13, which is about 'non statutory investigations e.g. Members of Parliament."
This says:
"If an investigation is appropriately authorised, disclosure will meet tests of necessity and appropriateness. The minimum necessary information should be disclosed. There is a balance to be drawn between ensuring that a patient has understood and properly consented to a disclosure of information and needlessly obstructing an investigation. Careful consideration of any written authorisation and prompt action are key, e.g. where an MP states, in writing, that s/he has a patient's consent for disclosure this may be accepted without further resort to the patient."
That is very clear. I find it extremely to difficult to ask where that balance is; and if it is published in the annexe as a footnote to a document, it is not particularly helpful to managers in the NHS trust or to Members of Parliament when they deal with these matters.
My intention in securing this debate was to ask the Minister to clarify the Department of Health's position and the position with regard to data protection and Members of Parliament, and to say in what circumstances information should be given in response to letters or telephone calls from Members of Parliament when those hon. Members do not have written consent. It is not my intention to bother the possibly distressed elderly relatives of people in hospital with serious illnesses who cannot themselves respond to such requests.
Members of Parliament are not third parties; they are representatives of their constituents. We are our constituents' advocates; we are here to represent them and, without going into further detail, I hope that the Data Protection Act 1998, having been misused by police authorities in some circumstances, is not to be used by NHS trusts as an impediment to getting the truth about issues or to hon. Members making effective representations in a timely manner on behalf of our constituents. It is sad that Select Committees have less ability to get information than judicial inquiries and that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 may be a more effective way to get information than representations from Members of Parliament.
242WH
I hope that the Department of Health will come up with a clear, explicit, public and understandable explanation so that NHS managers and compliance officers and the trusts' chief executives are put clearly in the picture about the circumstances in which they can release information, and when they will have to think about obtaining written consent from the individual on whose behalf a Member of Parliament or another representative is taking up the matter.
3.49 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) on raising an issue that is of concern not only to him, but to many hon. Members who have had similar experiences.
The Data Protection Act 1998 is a lengthy and complex piece of legislation that brought into force an equally long and complex European directive. It has, somewhat unfairly, been blamed for preventing information from being shared when it is in the interests of individuals and communities that it should be shared. As my hon. Friend said, there have been several well-publicised cases in which it was suggested that incidents might not have occurred if the rules on disclosure of information were less strict. However, it would be fairer to say that incidents might not have occurred if the rules on disclosure of information were better understood. It is often not the Act, but people's misperceptions of it that prevent the sensible sharing of information. The complexity of the Data Protection Act 1998 arguably contributes to this poor understanding, but it is only one element of the legal framework that governs disclosure of information.
The Department of Health is not responsible for the Act, so it is not my job to defend it or explain its application outside health and social care. However, providing those who work in the NHS with clear guidance is the responsibility of Health Ministers, as my hon. Friend suggested. I therefore hope that it will help if I outline both what the Act requires of NHS trusts, and the separate but associated requirements imposed by common-law obligations of confidentiality. I will then consider the guidance that has been provided to NHS trusts and try directly to address my hon. Friend's key concerns.
The Act applies to personal data about living people that are held on computer files or in certain structured manual files. NHS trusts that process personal data must comply with the eight data protection principles set out in schedule 1 to the Act. The term "processing" encompasses obtaining, holding, use and disclosure; in other words, everything that might be done with data. The first and second data protection principles are of particular relevance in the context of disclosure. The first principle requires personal data to be processed fairly and lawfully. The second principle requires that personal data are obtained only for specified and lawful purposes and are not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes. The other principles require data to be adequate, relevant and not excessive; to be accurate; to be kept no longer than necessary; to be processed in accordance with individuals' rights; to be kept secure; and not to be transferred to countries outside the European economic area without adequate protection.

243WH
As part of complying with the key first principle, NHS trusts must inform patients when their data are collected and meet at least one condition in each of two schedules to the Act. The first schedule applies to all personal data, the second only to sensitive data such as health data. The conditions serve to ensure that personal data are not used inappropriately but do not prevent them from being disclosed for legitimate purposes. I repeat, the conditions do not prevent data from being disclosed for legitimate purposes. That is an important point.
The two highest-profile cases in which the Act has come in for criticism are the failure by British Gas to notify social services when cutting off the gas supply for two pensioners, and the failure of the police to retain data about prior contacts with Ian Huntley. In the first of those cases, the Information Commissioner stated that
"in any circumstances, for example age or infirmity, where there are grounds for believing that cutting a particular household off would pose significant risk then the Data Protection Act would not prevent an energy supplier from notifying the relevant body."
In the Huntley case, the Information Commissioner stated:
"It is for the police to decide what information should be kept, and for how long, for their job of preventing or detecting crime."
My hon. Friend is concerned that NHS trusts have on occasion impeded investigations conducted by MPs on behalf of their constituents. NHS staff may have referred in error to the Act. However, the Government amended it through an order, which came into force on 17 December 2002, that removed restrictions on the disclosure of sensitive data to MPs who are dealing with constituents' cases. That means that the Act is not in itself the barrier to sharing information with MPs that some seem to think it is.
However, there are other obligations in law that restrict disclosure of data. Furthermore, due to the first data protection principle requiring that all processing of data be lawful, the Act serves to reinforce those other obligations. Those who process data will be in breach of the Act if they are not met. For NHS trusts in particular that creates a complicated and confusing picture. The most important obligations that they face in law, other than the Act, stem from the requirements imposed by confidentiality under the common law. Information held in confidence, which health data almost always are, cannot generally be disclosed without the consent of the individual concerned; in this case, the patient. The common law obligation is not absolute, but the exceptions are limited to circumstances in which there is a statutory requirement to disclose, an order from a court or, a public interest justification, such as significant risk to others, that outweighs the confidentiality obligation. An investigation conducted by an MP might, rarely, justify disclosure in the public interest, but in most cases there would need to be a clear indication that the patient concerned had consented to disclosure of information. There are several other legal barriers to the disclosure of health information. For example, there are strong prohibitions against the disclosure of information about sexually transmitted diseases.
As I said when I started, it is clearly our responsibility to ensure that NHS staff and organisations are provided with clear guidance on those complex matters. Comprehensive guidance was issued to the national
244WH
health service in November 2003 in the document referred to by my hon. Friend. It is called, "Confidentiality: NHS Code of Practice". It covers all the legal aspects of disclosing confidential patient information in what we believe to be a straightforward and helpful way, but clearly my hon. Friend disagrees. The Information Commissioner, the General Medical Council, the British Medical Association and the Medical Research Council have all endorsed the guidance.
Mike Gapes: I am not criticising my hon. Friend for issuing general guidance, but does he not accept that it would be helpful if there were greater clarity in the advice on what to do when representations are made by Members of Parliament?
Dr. Ladyman: I accept that. I am just about to give that clear guidance.
The performance of NHS trusts in the area is being scrutinised this year, for the first time, as part of the work undertaken by the new Healthcare Commission to develop star ratings relating to NHS trust and performance. Although the provision of guidance and increased managerial attention to such matters are useful steps, as I am certain my hon. Friend will agree, it is difficult to ensure that all NHS staff receive appropriate training. The existence of guidance that can be quoted and referred to is a useful tool for MPs. For the record, I want to strengthen the position by providing as clear a statement as I can for Members and for health service staff.
The position is as follows. The Secretary of State for Health expects all NHS employees to co-operate with any reasonable request for information made by a Member of Parliament. Where that request is for information about an identified or identifiable individual, NHS bodies must comply with the Data Protection Act 1998, but, following the order made in December 2002, that should not act as a barrier to any legitimate inquiry. Where information about an identified or identifiable individual is held under a legal obligation of confidentiality, NHS bodies must comply with the NHS confidentiality code of practice. That will normally require the consent of the individual concerned. However, where a Member of Parliament acts on behalf of a constituent who has, whether in writing, by telephone or in person—perhaps by attending a constituency surgery—sought that Member of Parliament's assistance, the Member of Parliament has obtained a form of consent.
It is, of course, important that all concerned exercise careful judgment. Members should ensure as best they can that their constituents realise that any inquiry may result in a number of people having access to information that they would not normally have. They must assure themselves that they have the consent of the individual concerned, or of a parent or someone authorised to act on the individual's behalf. NHS staff should disclose only information pertinent to the inquiry—rather than all of a patient's past record—and they should inform the patient concerned about the disclosure. The bottom line, however, is that, providing that a sensible and responsible approach is adopted by all concerned, there should be no insurmountable barrier to sharing information with Mps.

245WH
Sometimes, of course, the NHS body can deal with the MP's inquiry without disclosing confidential health information. For example, if the matter relates to the scheduling of an operation, it may be necessary to disclose only dates and information on waiting times when responding. Under those circumstances, MPs should not press for information that they do not need. When confidential information needs to be shared, the NHS body should accept that if the MP has been asked to inquire into the matter by the individual, or by a person authorised to act on their behalf, that is sufficient consent. The MP must, however, not take lightly his or her duties to make appropriate inquiries only where the constituent genuinely wants those inquiries made.
If my hon. Friend or other hon. Members wish to do so, after it is published in the Official Report, they may bring the statement that I have just made to the attention of local health bodies if they believe that they do not properly understand the position or if a dispute arises. I will also bring the comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, as I know that these issues are often raised with him, and I shall ask the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), who normally deals with these matters, to take into account the issues raised by my hon. Friend.

Digital Broadcasting (Wales)
4 pm
Mr. Simon Thomas: I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss digital broadcasting in Wales. It is opportune because today news has come out of the Department about the costs of the digital switchover and only yesterday the BBC published its views on the transfer to a digital future.
I shall address three broad themes—first, the review of public service broadcasting currently being undertaken by Ofcom; secondly, the move to a digital switchover for television services, which again is being reviewed by Ofcom and, finally, the current review of S4C, the Welsh language broadcaster, which also raises several important issues for broadcasters in Wales in both Welsh and English. I raise these matters as someone who was arid who remains sceptical about the mode of regulation chosen by the Government in Ofcom, but in the knowledge that, as elected representatives, we must all engage with those reviews or see our broadcasting future decided for us by unelected quangos.
Let us start with today's news that the Secretary of State is seeking an additional £300 million from the Treasury to fund the digital switchover. That would presumably keep the Government on target for their rolling programme of switch off and switch on between 2006 and 2010. Ofcom, in its report "Driving Digital Switchover", is keen on that and has proposed an independent organisation, properly funded, to market and plan the switchover. I ask the Minister to state what the Government have in mind for the process and say whether the sum sought from the Treasury will be sufficient.
Ofcom's research has shown that many customers are reluctant to go digital if it means extra costs, and they certainly do not want to pay a subscription. We now see how vital was the BBC's stepping in with Freeview. The growth of digital terrestrial television has been surprising and it has helped the Government toward their target. Prices are falling, and the set-top box is now almost an impulse buy for consumers. However, DTT—not to be confused with a dangerous chemical—is not yet universally available. Digital satellite can plug the gap, but it is more expensive and we have still not resolved the problem of satellite carrying all the public service broadcasters—BBC, ITV, Channel 4, S4C and Five—unencrypted and free to view. Indeed, the Solus cards failed again earlier this year.
Mr. Roger Williams: At a recent meeting in Knighton, Mr. Rhodri Morgan, one of Ofcom's chief officers in Wales, suggested that some of the reception problems encountered by people living in rural areas in the hon. Gentleman's and my constituency might he overcome if Wales was one of the pilot areas for digital switch-off, but the digital technology was provided by satellite rather than by terrestrial means.
Mr. Thomas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I should not have let him intervene, because he has stolen my thunder. If he waits a second, I shall come to that point—but he is right.

247WH
Wales is a good example of the challenge that the Government face in achieving switchover. We in Wales lead the way in digital households: the latest figures available show that 56 per cent. of Welsh homes have digital television—the highest percentage in the United Kingdom, and the percentage has increased since those figures were produced. However, many hon. Members know that some areas of Wales do not receive a good analogue signal, and although the predictions for the digital terrestrial signal are similar to those for analogue reach, one either gets a digital signal or one does not. There is no fine-tuning and no putting the television in a different corner and just about getting a watchable picture: either it is there or it is not. Digital satellite has better penetration—97 or 98 per cent.—but it is bedevilled by customer resistance, by planning issues in some areas, and by encryption, which stops the free terrestrial channels to people who have Sky equipment but no subscription. Similar problems of reach apply in many areas of Scotland, Northern Ireland and England.
We need Government funding. The broadcasters, the poorest and the last people to switch should not have to pick up the tab. Everyone will have to make some contribution. I have a real concern that, if the market dictates the pace of change, rural and upland areas will be left behind and Wales as a whole will lose out. The Government and the BBC in their report into digital switchover published yesterday express the desire for switchover to happen region by region—but what about nation by nation? I do not want Wales to be at the back of the queue when the digital sweeties are handed out. The report suggested that the first region to switch over should be somewhere such as Oxford, because of the ease of installing transmitter relays. However, what is the point in tackling the easiest areas first and leaving the more difficult to last and perhaps to be forgotten? Now that the Department is looking for the money from the Treasury to fund the switchover, Wales can make a very good case for being the first part of the United Kingdom to go digital. The argument is counter-intuitive. If Wales is difficult, sorting it out will make it easier for the rest of the United Kingdom. It will also mean that resources will go where they should do—towards assisting those who would otherwise suffer from a new digital divide, rather than toward propping up what, in time, the market will deliver for many anyway. It would not be easy: Wales has 20 per cent. of UK transmitters and about 5 pet cent. of the UK's population; but sorting out those 20 per cent. of transmitters would give a good start to digital switchover anyway.
Benefits would also be delivered to broadcasting in Wales. I hope that Members representing Welsh constituencies who are present will support me when I say that I expect the territorial integrity of Wales to be preserved in the digital age. We want the transmitters that serve Wales to broadcast the Welsh digital service. No one would lose out—that is one of the glories of digital—but the channels would be where one would expect them to be. We want S4C to be the No. 4 channel on the Welsh digital service, the No. 2 channel to be BBC 2 Wales and the No. 3 channel to be ITV Wales, not any other ITV region. That integrity is vital to meeting the citizenship obligations of the Communications Act 2003. Too many people in Wales do not receive any news about their National Assembly and Government in Cardiff. They might not want to
248WH
watch or hear such news, but there is a difference between having the choice to reject it and not being provided with it in the first place. At the time of the Assembly referendum, viewers in north-east Wales were told by Granada that the people of Wales were voting for their own Parliament that week—and that was it. That was the extent of Welsh debate.
Let us build on the lead that the people of Wales have already taken. As customers, they have switched on to digital in droves and in greater numbers than elsewhere in the UK. Ofcom and the Communications Act 2003 have the twin duties of providing the Wales-based digital services that we deserve as citizens and ensuring that we are not left languishing as the market delivers to the easy-to-reach 90-odd per cent. but fails to reach those hard-to-reach areas. That can be achieved if Wales pioneers the digital switchover.
When that happens, as it inevitably will, what sort of digital broadcasting will we have in Wales? My favourite medium is radio, but digital radio barely touches Wales at the moment. When can we expect digital radio in Aberystwyth, Pwllheli, Carmarthen or Brecon, or any other part of Wales?
Mr. Wayne David: Caerphilly?
Mr. Thomas: Caerphilly as well. That is important because, for example, there are opportunities to develop a Welsh language radio station for young people, separate from Radio Cymru. Digitalisation brings a wider spectrum, and my local Dixon's and Curry's are merrily selling digital radios to anyone who wants them. The only problem is that they have to travel 100 miles to get a signal. Digital radio is important to wider citizenship and public service broadcasting, but unfortunately it has not yet been considered in the context of Ofcom, which has concentrated on television. The review of television services now being undertaken by Ofcom has done us a service in trying to open up a debate about what public service broadcasting really is. Ofcom has attempted a definition in the review—the first time that a definition has been attempted—and suggested means of delivering public service television outwith the traditional public broadcasters.
There are some warning signs in Ofcom's report. I hope that Ofcom is listening, because I want it to ditch the ludicrous phrase "citizen consumer". It is trotted it out at every opportunity and used it as if it covered everyone. The Communications Act does not use that phrase, and instead says that it is the principal duty of Ofcom
"to further the interests of citizens in relation to communications matters; and to further the interests of consumers in relevant markets, where appropriate by promoting competition."
That was a compromise, arrived at after a lot of debate in Committee and the House of Lords about the interests of citizens. It is not unimportant that the Act treats citizens and consumers in such a way. As in the Venn diagrams that I remember from school, much of what affects the citizen and consumer is shared; however, some issues are distinct and pertinent to only one or the other. In using the phrase "citizen consumer", Ofcom is guilty of garbled thinking. It reminds me a lot of the old phrase, "EnglandandWales", spoken as if it was one word. We know that there are two distinctive countries.

249WH
With that caveat, I believe that the review treats public service broadcasting seriously and makes some points that should be of concern to us in Wales. Ofcom seems to accept that regional or, in this context, national ITV1 programming has relevance in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, but it does not hold up much hope for a continuing commitment to regional ITV in England. Such a loss would be deeply disappointing and short-termist. A weakened regional ITV structure in England would do Wales no favours, as cuts in programming tend to spread like a virus. Just as the poor slots for ITV Wales programmes—for example, the current series by Hywel Williams on the history of Wales has been shoved to 11 o'clock at night—reflect the English situation, so changes in England could have damaging repercussions for ITV Wales. As it is, Wales produces just a measly 1 per cent. of first-run network, UK-wide programmes, while Scotland produces only 2 per cent. I hope that the Minister and hon. Members present here will join me in asking for a continuation of drama, news, current affairs and entertainment programmes being produced in Wales by ITV Wales.
The Ofcom review is predicated on 10 propositions for public service television in a fully digital world, two of which I find disturbing. First, Ofcom says that
"Competition in the provision of PSB is at the heart of an effective system."
That has not been the experience in Wales. As ITV Wales shows now, and as past failure to provide for Welsh speakers has demonstrated, competition does not deliver public service broadcasting in the interests of citizens. Secondly, and even more disturbingly, Ofcom suggests a split purchaser-provider system for meeting public service obligations. That would be disastrous for digital broadcasting in Wales. Grafting failures like Railtrack on to broadcasting would be worthy of a reality TV show, but it would fail the viewers of Wales. I should also point out that it is different from the successful S4C model, in which the corporation is both purchaser and provider. The Ofcom review suggests a new purchaser of public service broadcasting to deal with established broadcasters. I would suggest that that has the disadvantage of bringing in the bureaucracy of the NHS into the purchaser-provider split.
Ofcom's review is convincing in its analysis of the changes of TV viewing. It is clear that digitalisation leads to more niche programming and the decline in the viewing of so-called serious programmes. Interestingly, that is more pronounced with satellite viewers than Freeview, viewers of which tend to stay more with the traditional terrestrial broadcasters. That has implications for public service broadcasting. Encouragingly, viewers—described as citizens, rather than just consumers—still want such serious programming to be provided, even if they do not watch it themselves. Some 87 per cent. still want well-informed news, 81 per cent. want high standards of programme making, and 84 per cent. want a balanced diet of programmes at peak hours. Clearly, public service broadcasting is still relevant and worthy of widespread support. There is much more work to be done, including the BBC charter review, but the Ofcom review and its conclusions support my view that the BBC deserves independent funding to support the strong public service remit that the public expect it to fulfil.
250WH
Finally, I turn to the unique position of S4C, the Welsh language broadcaster, which will be considered by Ofcom in the next stage of the review. It is worth saying that a review is currently being undertaken by the Department, and that S4C has published a review of where it has got to, just after its 21st birthday. Digital switchover places particular stresses on S4C. The broadcaster has heti its own as viewing habits have changed. It has maintained standards and embraced the opportunities of digitalisation by establishing S4C Digidol, the first wholly Welsh language channel, and S4C2, which broadcasts the National Assembly. It has been able to bear down successfully on overheads and played a role in the recent increase in the number of Welsh speakers. It is a fantastic success story and a jewel in the crown of diversity and distinctiveness in UK public service broadcasting.
Regrettably, however, S4C has done all of that without any extra resources. While the BBC has gained from an increase in the licence fee to meet the costs of digitalisation, and commercial broadcasters get a digital dividend for every viewer who switches to digital, S4C does not get a penny for its investment in digital services. That must be put right, and the review is the place to consider that and act on it. S4C is well placed to take advantage of digital broadcasting if it gets the chance and the funding. As its good showing in the BAFTA Cymru awards over the weekend demonstrates, S4C has high standards and makes programmes of high quality.
I look forward to a time when S4C can provide an extra channel in Wales, perhaps reporting from the National Assembly reporting news and providing programmes for young people. It is regrettable that S4C has had to withdraw from film production in Wales because of the costs involved. However, it has achieved a huge increase in Welsh language broadcasting: some 80 hours a week are now delivered by digital television, rather than the 34 delivered by analogue. It is a huge success story, and I hope that the Minister will support S4C in its review and in the future.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): Before I call the Minister of State to reply, a little bird has told me that there could be a division at 28 minutes past four. If it does start then, I suggest that we give the Minister time to finish, even if I use a little non-hearing discretion, because it would seem a pity to come back for just two minutes.
4.18 pm
The Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr. Richard Caborn): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on raising the issue of digital broadcasting in Wales. I know that he has kept the matter on the political agenda, along with many of his colleagues who are in the Chamber this afternoon.
The £300 million figure that the hon. Gentleman referred to in the press shocked me. I have now been told that it was in The Times. I have been in some very detailed discussions about the spending review and I am sure that he appreciates that we do not discuss those in public. However, I do not recall the £300 million figure being mentioned. We have asked a consumer expert group to review affordability and availability and we shall receive their report soon. We do not plan any

251WH
subsidies for the consumer—I think that he referred to this—because the set-top boxes can now be purchased for about £40. As he said, prices are decreasing, but we shall reconsider the affordability of DTV closer to the switchover date.
I note from the hon. Gentleman's contribution the frustration of viewers in Wales, who want digital television but do not want pay services, and who cannot receive digital terrestrial signals. The position is more difficult in Wales, as he said. The debate is an opportunity for me to give hon. Members an update of how broadcasters are resolving that. First, I want to explain the background of the Government's policy on digital television and digital switchover.
The growth in take-up of digital television is a significant development for broadcasting in this country. The hon. Gentleman gave the figure for Wales as 56 per cent., which surprised me, but on average 50 per cent. of all households have digital television. That strong take-up is the main reason why we believe that the time is right to consider switching over the analogue signal. It is the right decision for the economy and viewers alike.
On 18 September, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Culture, Media and Sport and for Trade and Industry published a cost-benefit analysis showing that the switchover will bring quantifiable benefits of about £2 billion in net present value terms. There is still some way to go to convince people that switchover is the right thing, and this debate provides an opportunity to set out those arguments again.
One of the main benefits of switchover is to the 25 per cent. of households that can receive analogue channels but not digital services via their aerial. Digital television uses the same spectrum as that used for analogue television, with digital transmission interleaved between the analogue services. By switching off analogue, power levels can be increased, and small relay stations will be upgraded.
In Wales, the problems of terrestrial reception—analogue or digital—are particularly challenging, as the hon. Gentleman outlined. Reliable reception requires a line of sight to a transmitter. Unfortunately, the beautiful hills and valleys of Wales mean that that is difficult to achieve with ground-based transmitters, because the land frequently gets in the way. There is not much that we can do about that. Historically, we have used 200 small relay transmitters to solve the problem by filling in coverage to areas that cannot receive signals directly from a main transmitter.
The six main transmitters in Wales broadcast the full range of digital services, as do three of the larger relay stations. The remainder of the relay transmitters do not broadcast digital services because insufficient frequencies are available while analogue signals are still broadcast. The shortage of frequencies is particularly acute in south Wales where there are a large number of analogue transmitters.
The transmitter network in Wales is proportionally in line with other UK nations where the main stations and a small number of relays broadcast digital signals, the large majority of relays being unable to do so. The shortage of frequencies will not case until analogue services begin to be switched off. When that happens,
252WH
many of the restrictions on digital coverage will be relaxed and the number of transmitters and their coverage can be increased significantly.
In addition to allowing the digital terrestrial network to be extended, other benefits from switchover are worth highlighting. First, broadcasters spend significant sums on transmitting programmes in analogue and digital form. As a majority of households switch to digital, it increasingly makes little sense to continue with that uneconomic arrangement.
Secondly, the current arrangements are an inefficient use of spectrum. Digital transmission uses a fraction of the capacity of analogue broadcasts while increasing choice, giving access to interactivity and driving electronic programme guides to help viewers in a multichannel environment. Switching off will allow users to work the spectrum harder. It will open the way for new dynamic services to be developed, which will be attractive to consumers and good for the economy.
Given the clear benefits, the question is not whether we switch off analogue broadcasts—that case has been made—but when. However, we must ensure that digital is right for all viewers. We need to ensure that the timetable that we set is achievable and that people who have not yet switched over are able to do so. We have established a consumer experts group to ensure that there is an effective conduit for working through issues affecting consumers. That will report shortly and we will publish the report once we have received it.
Switchover is an extremely complicated undertaking, and I am not sure that some hon. Members appreciate that. It is essential that we get it right. There are still several issues to be resolved before we can set the timetable, but we are making progress.
Switchover cannot be delivered by the Government. It depends on market-led take-up and the response of broadcasters and other stakeholders. One of the tasks for broadcasters will be to produce proposals on the digital terrestrial coverage at switchover. The Government and Ofcom will review the broadcasters' proposals and consider whether they make sufficient provision for those who have no access to digital terrestrial. All parts of the UK will be carefully considered.
One issue that will likely be raised is that of free-to-view Solus cards that enable people—obviously, in Wales as well—who want digital services but who have no terrestrial access to receive the main channels without paying a subscription. As has been said, the issue arose when the BBC decided to end the scheme it had funded and to transmit programmes without encryption using a satellite with a much tighter UK coverage. In a debate in Westminster Hall on 21 October last year, I announced that ITV, BSkyB, Channel 4 and Five had agreed to facilitate a scheme to enable consumers to continue receiving the commercially funded public service channels on a free-to-view basis. The scheme covers all the digital satellite consumers who did not have a subscription to a pay TV service, whether or not they had from the beginning chosen to be free-to-view consumers.

253WH
The agreement involved offering existing Solus card holders a new card for a one-off purchase cost of £23.50. The new cards are guaranteed until the end of December 2005. The cost of the scheme was met by ITV, Channel 4 and Five and was intended for those viewers who were about to lose their free-to-view channels. Existing free-to-view satellite customers were informed through on-screen messages on the affected channels. The Department sent a letter explaining the situation and how to purchase a card to all MPs and members of the public who contacted it, and it also put out a statement that included the last date on which the cards could be purchased on its digital television website.
The temporary scheme was successful in ensuring that viewers who had invested in equipment were able to continue watching the main public services on satellite. A total of 111,000 cards were issued through the exercise, which was aimed at ensuring that existing free-to-view satellite viewers did not lose out.
I accept that there is no longer a free-to-air satellite option available to new customers, although BBC analogue and digital services are available by satellite without subscription. Before digital switchover can take place, we need a free-to-view solution for people in more remote areas with marginal coverage, and for those who want Channel 4 and Five in addition to ITV and S4C.
254WH
Indeed, we note Ofcom's statement in its switchover report, "Driving Digital Switchover", which was published on 5 April 2004. It stated:
"Ofcom will consider whether regulatory intervention is needed to secure a viable free-to-view satellite proposition"
before switchover. I believe that the hon. Gentleman referred to that, and the Government will stick to it.
We are working closely with Ofcom, broadcasters and other stakeholders in determining the arrangements for switchover. The problems of coverage in Wales that the hon. Gentleman outlined cannot be resolved separately from digital switchover. It is not possible to improve digital services before switchover for the reasons that I gave. Our position since 1999 has been that analogue terrestrial broadcasting signals should continue until everyone who can at present get the main public service broadcasting channels can receive them free-to-view via at least one of the digital platforms. We believe that it is possible to complete switchover by 2010, but we are not yet able to set a timetable, for the reasons that I have outlined. We will do so when we are certain of the optimum time scale. The end result will be better television services, significant economic gains and improved reception and choice for people in rural areas.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.