Westminster Hall Sitting of 11 February 2004

Preamble
[MR. EDWARD O'HARA in the Chair]

Manufacturing
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
9.30 am
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: It is a great pleasure to be here this morning to talk about a subject that I thoroughly love and enjoy. It is a particular delight to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and Enterprise sitting next to me. I was at a dinner last night at which his face was beamed in—it was 12 ft wide; it was fantastic. The forelocks of his face radiated over the fantastic event organised by the Electrical Contractors Association. The general comments made were, "Great guy", "A huge enthusiast for the construction industry", and, "It's marvellous to have Ministers who are on side." I thought that I would start by saying that because it is the truth of it.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I agree.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Oh, excellent; there is agreement all round—super.
Let us talk about manufacturing, which has endured a hard few years. I wish that I had a lifetime to talk to hon. Members about that marvellous industry and the people who work in it. It is a roller-coaster of a sector, and I think that manufacturing is the industrial equivalent of the chameleon because it must adapt continuously to survive. Manufacturing today is nothing like it was 100 or 10 years ago—or even, some would say, last week. Many innovative technologies wash over the immensely diverse sector daily. What it took 100 men—unfortunately, it was only men—to produce at the start of my lifetime in engineering takes only one man or woman today, and why not? If we do not lead in the area of process efficiency, other countries will take our business over. The greatest trick that we must realise, and the greatest challenge faced by my colleagues in manufacturing, is finding new lucrative ways to utilise and employ the hugely creative potential of people in the manufacturing world.
Given that I have only a few moments rather than a lifetime in which to talk, I shall concentrate my efforts on four areas of concern: economic policy and investment in the manufacturing sector; the involvement of women in manufacturing and the promotion of science engineering and technology to the public at large; skills and education levels; and the changing nature of the manufacturing sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology is in the Chamber, and I hope that he will have the opportunity to talk to us about nanotechnology, a subject close to his heart.
398WH
I begin by setting my remarks in the context of my experiences. I hope that hon. Members are aware that I am a chartered engineer—I am proud to be so. I am a fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, the Institution of Electrical Engineers and the City and Guilds of London Institute. Last year, much to my delight, I was made president of the Institution of Engineering Designers. However, I started as an apprentice on the docks down in Portsmouth in a machine tool company that made expensive products for the industry. It offered a limited number of apprenticeships, and I was the only woman whom it had ever employed. Two women started apprenticeships after me, but they both left after a short time. It was an exceptionally hard place in which to work. I was sent to Coventry for a long time after being assaulted by someone at work, who was subsequently suspended. Having no one to talk to for a long time at work at least focuses one's observational skills, and the only time I got to speak to people was when I went to night school.
I learned a great deal at night school and realised that what was happening at work was a long way from where technology stood at that time. It was totally obvious that the managers at my factory simply had no idea about the innovations that were taking place in their industry, and the company went into terminal decline because they failed to adopt those innovations, as did many thousands of other companies in the United Kingdom at the time. It was a desperately sad time for the shipping, steel, textile and coal industries. Thousands of gifted and highly skilled men and women walked out of work into wretched unemployment. The then Government's position was, "Let the market prevail"—well, it did. Within 10 years, the country had lost product intelligence that took millions of man hours to achieve.
No one in government at that time troubled themselves to discover the value of the skills and experience that walked away from thousands of factory gates year after year during the 1970s and 1980s. Everyone knew the cost of everything, but the value of nothing. There was no assistance available at all—it was every man for himself. On reflection, four areas of systemic weakness were evident at the time. Factories failed to implement process and product improvement, so processes were outdated and products did not match market need. Poor management was endemic—from where I stood, the problem was not all about the unions but poor management. The variable economic climate and associated fiscal policy militated against any long-term investment in British industry. Welfare and employment measures were punitive and existed in an environment in which unemployment was considered to be an unavoidable fate. Anyone over the age of 50 was considered to be absolutely obsolete. I was told that women should be at home tied to the kitchen sink and that although families naturally existed, they should have no impact on a man's ability to go to work.
In the 20 intervening years, I regret to say that every measure brought before the House to address the problems faced by British industry and ordinary working people was routinely objected to by the Conservative party. The Conservatives never wavered from their market-led position, and if they were in charge today, unemployment would continue to blight

399WH
our society and families for generations. The people who are capable of taking us to the leading edge of highly profitable industries would lack the means to do so.
I know that many hon. Members will talk about the collapse of the number of people employed in manufacturing, but judging the success of the sector by the total number of people in work is immensely misleading. We cannot ignore the fact that we live in a global village and that we are one of the richest countries in the world. We could employ more people in manufacturing, but only if we matched the low wages on offer elsewhere in the world, which would be totally unacceptable. Our efforts must be channelled into finding and developing manufacturing activity that reaps substantial rewards for shareholders and employees alike.
What are the Government doing to help those who want to survive and grow in the incredibly diverse and creative world of manufacturing, and what else needs to be done now? Are we doing all that we can to reach out and talk to companies, large and small alike, and not only those that want to get on that come looking for help, but those in a heads-down, struggling-to-survive mode? What are we doing for that group? Last year, in my capacity as chair of the registrants' panel, which is the engineers' panel within the Engineering and Technology Board, I visited the manufacturing advisory service in Manchester with other members of the panel. It is led by a dynamic and enthusiastic woman, and I was utterly impressed. The Government have invested £15 million in the service, which has been match funded by regional development agencies. When people ask what is happening to their taxes, we can tell them that they are going into regional advisory services for manufacturing. We have put £15 million into that service and got back £28 million so far. Whatever way one looks at it, that means jobs for a sector that underpins a vast amount of our economy.
I am sure that hon. Members have heard of the Engineering Employers Federation, which is led by Martin Temple. It campaigns and works hard for the tens of thousands of companies that it represents. When I looked for a user's guide to the manufacturing advisory service, I looked to Martin, because if it was not working, he would say so loud and clear. However, he says:
"The true measure of any successful programme is for good practical advice to quickly translate into tangible benefits. MAS is delivering on this, and EEF, through a number of our regional Associations, is delighted to be playing a part in its success."
The service did not exist before 1997, although there were other services that I used. The quality of advice was poor, and one was never sure whether one was getting value for money. The manufacturing advisory service is quality controlled, led, and has an ethos of excellence.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: What my hon. Friend has said so far is music to my ears. However, has not the engineering industry failed over a long period as an employer to make the necessary investment in skills? We now have a more stable situation, and 1.7 million people are still working in the sector, but mainly for small and medium-sized
400WH
enterprises. If the manufacturing advisory service is to work, it must reach not just big companies but down to SMEs.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Good companies will go looking for help; there is no problem. They will come knocking on the door. The manufacturing advisory service, particularly up in Manchester—I cannot speak for elsewhere—has had hundreds of companies knocking at the door. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend's point is valid. A company of five people that is trying to work with six and seven people has to grab them and ask for help. There are a number of vehicles that would allow that. There is the business community, trade associations and all sorts of people who have to impress on companies that assistance and advice is available. I know that it is a huge struggle; I visit companies all the time and ask whether they have heard about such vehicles. They have not done so—not because enough effort is not being made, but because they are too busy to lift their heads out of work and relate to the services available. We must keep knocking on that door.
I turn to the measures that the Government have introduced that help companies generate more profit and encourage investment in new capital equipment and research and development. That touches on my hon. Friend's point about lack of investment. When companies are making enough money to cover only salaries, where do they find funds to invest in new product? Where do they find that huge capital up front and at reasonable rates that do not cripple the business? That is a problem for companies whose turnovers range from £100,000 to £100 million.
I want to refer particularly to, and applaud, the practical but easy measure that reduced corporation tax from 10 per cent. to zero in 2002. It seemed easy, but we had to pay for it—it came out of tax revenue. It made a huge difference and mattered to shareholders, whom we want to keep on board. What about companies that want to invest? I mentioned that, in Liverpool, we have had the benefit of regional venture capital funds, which give easy access to finance and are vital to business. We are not talking about pigeon feed: we are talking about £235 million going into our region—a fantastic amount of money.
I have had people coming to my surgeries such as an entrepreneur who wanted to set up a small catering company. He is now the largest producer of crispy duck on the planet. He is right in the middle of Sefton and we are delighted to have him. He got started with funding. Another man who wanted to invent and develop games on his own needed the money, technology and production capacity to do so, and he got it from such funds or from a venture capital trust. Venture capital trusts are an excellent innovation and are designed to ratchet in money from big public insurance companies, and it has worked. The trusts have delivered just over £1 billion. There have been gaps in the market, especially for very small companies that do not have the portfolio to attract venture capital funds regionally. So, the development of the small companies fund is excellent. I ask all my colleagues in the engineering world to take advantage of it.
Hon. Members may not remember the Chancellor announcing in his Budget—I think in 2000—the R and D tax credit. I think that I was the only person who

401WH
cheered at the time. Most people said, "What's that?" but it was absolutely huge; for little companies, it was a heaven-sent message. Little companies have no problem getting support for R—they can get support for research in universities; huge money is going to R—but what about D? There was no investment in D or money from the Government for it. We all know that to make money in business, one needs to go from R to D to manufacturing. When the Chancellor said, "We'll give it to you for R and D", that made a huge difference to many companies.
Mr. Sheerman: So much of what my hon. Friend is saying is good, but is she aware that a clause in last year's Finance Bill that was intended to address creative accounting inadvertently completely stopped small innovative partnerships in universities? There have been no joint projects between universities and companies for the past six months. Something serious has happened. In my capacity as Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee, I talked in the House last night to vice-chancellors, who are deeply worried. If something is not done, nothing on university campuses will move on joint partnership and research and development.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Gosh, if the totality of that is true, that is bad news. I was also speaking last night to some colleagues who work in the business. I will turn later specifically to the construction industry; I cannot resist it with the construction Minister present. If what my hon. Friend says is true, the problem is serious.
I applaud the initiative that the Government have taken. We have a Government and a Chancellor who say, "We recognise the barriers to development and want to try to do something about them." Fantastic! I firmly believe that, if there is a problem, the Government are determined to do well by manufacturing, as it matters profoundly to this country's economy. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North in his place, and I know that universities always want more money. We must examine the extent of the problem.
Dr. Ian Gibson: What about top-up fees?
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I will not talk about top-up fees today.
I want to address the fantastically massive investment that the Government have made in our science base, which is supported by the Wellcome Trust. That has provided £1.75 billion-worth of investment in science infrastructure. We have brilliant engineers working in universities, and want to keep more of them there. I know what an engineering department was like under the previous Administration because I was the dean of one. It was a desperately sad place. There was no talk about expanding the department; it was all about collapse. We talked about how many jobs the department would lose that year because there was no investment in the public sector and no pull on further education and other colleges to produce apprentices or engineers. What was the point of taking an engineering degree when there was no work at the end of it?
There has been a transformation since 1997. In order to conduct blue-sky research in universities, we needed massive investment. In walked the Wellcome Trust, and
402WH
the Government grabbed it by the hand and said, "We'll join you." It has been a fantastic achievement that we in the UK have been able to retain the support of the Wellcome Trust, which could have gone to any other country or to our major competitors, but instead chose to come here where we still have some of the finest educational engineering facilities in the world.
Although researchers have benefited enormously from huge injections of funds, they do not get paid very much. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills announced not so long ago that researchers' salaries would be bumped up to £13,000. Frankly, that does not keep body and soul together. Research in engineering is done for the love of it, but we must find some way of recognising the enormous contribution that such people make down the line. They may not get into the manufacturing world, but they provide the products that engineers turn into fantastically fund-generating products.
Prior to Charles Clarke's intervention, research salaries
"haven't changed since the invention of the quill pen".
That is a direct quotation from one of my engineering colleagues who feels that he has been working in universities for that long and has struggled in very difficult times.
I turn to an issue that is specific to the construction industry, about which I know my hon. Friend the Minister will talk. Construction is not manufacturing, but the manufacturing industry underpins the products used in construction. The transfer of responsibility for construction from the former Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions to the Department of Trade and Industry may have a serious effect on the research and training community. The innovation review is focusing on major companies and technology departments at British universities. That is appropriate, as we want to work with the players and universities that are eager to set the agenda. However, that approach means that small process-driven companies and the fragmented sectors of the construction industry will have great difficulty in finding the industry muscle to compete for the available funds. My hon. Friend the Minister is aware of the problem, and he will know that it will result in a substantial loss of the funding that underpins much work that translates blue-sky research into usable codes and standards for a large part of the construction industry.
It was right to move responsibility for construction from the DETR to the DTI, but that must not be at the expense of organic and sustained improvement in the construction industry. Construction must not lose out as a result of that transfer. Construction is a major contributor of wealth creation in this country, and is said to produce up to 10 per cent. of our gross domestic product. However, we must recognise that innovation flows not just from university research and development, but from a plethora of small organisations. The DTI must examine the need to develop a package to support large numbers of small and medium-sized enterprises that have been disfranchised as a result of the focus of the innovation review. We want to ensure that small groups that have worked closely with small companies, which are difficult to reach, continue to do so and that that sector of the industry thrives.

403WH
The good news is that I have almost concluded my speech, but before I do so, I shall touch on something that is close to my heart—apprenticeships and the involvement of women in the marvellous world of engineering and manufacturing. Apprenticeships, as we know, virtually collapsed in the 1990s and it took the Government a couple of years to focus their energies on the role of apprenticeships and the reason why they were necessary. In the 1990s, there was little for apprentices to do, particularly in the manufacturing and construction sector. However, that has changed, and there are now a variety of two-year and four-year apprenticeship programmes, which is music to my ears. I did a four-year apprenticeship—two years on the tools before learning a variety of other skills. I now meet young apprentices, and I find it extraordinary that they manage to do in two years what I managed to do in four. We have not lost the quality of the old apprenticeships—the programme works differently and is tailored to today's needs.
Mr. Sheerman: I agree with my hon. Friend, but only 38 or 39 per cent. of young people finish their modern apprenticeships. Something must be done, not in engineering or the manufacturing sector but in other sectors, to improve those figures. I hope that, like me, she supports the introduction of foundation degrees, which will complement modern apprenticeships. Modern apprenticeships will lead on to foundation degrees and even to university or practical employment.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I am delighted that my hon. Friend came to support me this morning. I agree with him—I was going to say that the biggest problem for young people who choose to do an apprenticeship is finding an employer. That does not prevent them from going to college to do their apprenticeships, but if they cannot find an employer and the clock is ticking, they will surely quit. They know that there may be serious problems when they finish—who wants to employ an apprentice plumber or fitter who has never worked on a job? We do not want people with textbook knowledge but no practical skills.
We need to consider the quality of the courses on offer. I cannot comment in depth, but in my previous role as dean of an engineering faculty, I know that it is damned difficult to come up with a training product overnight. It is a huge exercise—we have to work with people who will use apprentices, and create courses and skills that will underpin businesses so that there is a ready market for students. If there is no such market, why would students want to remain at college? If people drop out, they may then go and work as an assistant, but they will end up working with bodgers—the lowest of the low who give qualified, skilled people a bad name.
One way in which to solve the apprenticeship problem is to establish better dialogue with employers. However, to return to my earlier comments, it is exceptionally difficult to reach out to some small businesses and encourage them to expand. When they are running here, there and everywhere, how can they focus on their future? Perhaps we should consider incentivising them, although I do not know how we would do so. In my day, companies were prepared to take a hit on the bottom
404WH
line. When I was an apprentice, I was not producing anything profitable, but the company recognised that eventually I would be a contributor. We need to acknowledge that and allow employers to discuss the issue. We must be supportive—employers need apprentices, and we need them to grow their businesses.
I shall conclude by discussing the role of women in manufacturing and engineering. It gives me immense pleasure that a woman is serving as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. There has been not just one woman in that post but two, which is great news. There are not many women working in engineering. We try hard to attract women, as engineering is immensely creative and accommodates people with a wide range of skills. People who are brilliant with their hands can find rewarding work in engineering, as can people with marvellous minds and naturally gifted artists. However, it is immensely important to try to diversify the engineering world—I am afraid that is still appears to be men wall-to-wall. I went to the Electrical Contractors Association dinner last night. If I were a single woman, it would have been a joy to behold about 1,000 men, mostly business men, who were all unaccompanied. A fair percentage of them must have been single—it is a fantastic business to be in. I do not believe that my engineering colleagues or the institutions have alighted on this, but perhaps we should think about speed-dating. A speed-dating agency could be attached to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, God bless it, in Birdcage walk—such a service would be very popular. The Government have not yet alighted on such a measure, but we are innovative, so who knows?
In the absence of speed-dating, what are we doing to try to get more women into the male-dominated world of engineering? We have great role models in Patricia Hewitt, who is great, Margaret Beckett, and numerous other women. The DTI, recognising the seriousness of the problem and the fact that we will not realise the potential of the manufacturing sector unless we attract women and people from different ethnic backgrounds, has set up a number of groups. The Department continues to support the Women into Science and Engineering programme, which does a great deal of work in schools. That is important, as we need to reach young women and others when they are thinking about which career to pursue. I was involved in the inception of the WISE programme, which has been under way for 30 years. Its results are not momentous, but they are consistent, and it is a resource for women who are interested in science and engineering, as well as their parents and others who influence them.
David Sainsbury—
Mr. Bellingham: A marvellous man.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Indeed, David Sainsbury is marvellous.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order. I hesitate to interrupt, but the hon. Lady has referred to Members of both Houses by name. She is well aware of the convention.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Thank you, Mr. O'Hara. Then let me refer to Lord David Sainsbury as the Minister in

405WH
charge of the Office of Science and Technology. He has done an enormous amount, in his own way, to try to further the involvement of young people in science and engineering. He funded, through the Engineering and Technology Board, the science and engineering ambassadors scheme, which goes into schools and involves hundreds of people who are interested in engineering and want to promote it. The scheme needs more work, but it is delivering results.
Recognising that other Members wish to speak, but craving their indulgence—
Mr. Bellingham: The hon. Lady could go on for another hour.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I could go on all day—there is such a lot of good stuff to talk about.
I know that I shall probably hear criticism of the Government's approach to manufacturing and of the fact that the number of people who are engaged in it may still be falling. However, Members of both Houses need to understand that there is something in people's blood that makes them cleave to manufacturing. This is a wonderful nation because its people have involved themselves in the production of goods since it began, and they are marvellous at it. The trick is to harness the creative ability and drive of people working in manufacturing and to develop the policies that maximise those great abilities. That requires constant effort. I ask the Minister to explain what more he intends to do to help the people out there, because if they are not there, we will not have the money that they make to spend on the betterment of others.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order. I remind Members that the wind-ups must start at 10.30.
10.1 am
Mr. John Randall: Thank you, Mr. O'Hara. I shall try to keep my comments as brief as possible to try to ensure that other Members can catch your eye.
I thank the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) for introducing a debate on a subject to which she brings an undoubted expertise and enthusiasm that we all enjoyed. She talked about role models, but she is herself a good role model for many people.
I declare an interest—not a direct interest, Mr. O'Hara—in that since leaving university and before coming to this place, I worked in a retail outlet, a family business, which had close alliances with manufacturers, particularly furniture manufacturers. That is the nearest that I will ever get to Cabinet status.
When I came to this House nearly seven years ago, one could more or less stock a furniture department, both cabinet and upholstery, from British manufacturers. Sadly, that is no longer the case. I recently went to the national furniture exhibition at the national exhibition centre in Birmingham, had a look round and saw some people whom I had not seen for a few years to try to find out what was going on. I spoke to Roger Mason of British Furniture Manufacturers, a trade association with 7,000 members. Interestingly—I had not realised this—80 per cent. of its members have
406WH
fewer than 10 employees. However, although we are talking about very small businesses, about 166,000 people work in the industry.
One of the reasons why British furniture manufacturing has been in decline is consumer driven. As with many other industries producing goods that we used to sell, such as cutlery from Sheffield or ceramics from the potteries in Stoke-on-Trent, British furniture has become too expensive for the average consumer now that people have other spending priorities. There is an influx of imported products, which, if we are honest, may not be nearly as good but are much more affordable. I am pleased that some manufacturers of furniture and other goods are being proactive by running advertising campaigns and trying to establish niche markets, with some success. However, as the hon. Member for Crosby outlined in relation to engineering, businesses sometimes find that they do not have the money to do what they want to do. We can all have lots of good ideas, but it is not always easy to carry them out. Some companies have been successful; others not so, but not necessarily because they are bad companies.
It is interesting that the decline has occurred pretty much equally all over the country. My great-grandfather started his furniture manufacturing business in High Wycombe, where there was a traditional industry, which has since declined, based on the beech woods of the Chilterns. According to the regional development agencies, the situation is more or less the same in every area. When the steel industry was in decline, many companies in south Wales started to manufacture furniture, and I remember that when I started in the furniture retail sector, we were a bit rude about their stuff, which was not of the highest quality because it was produced by steelworkers who had suddenly turned their hand to upholstery. That soon changed, as those skilled workers put their minds to new tasks and produced some very good things. Sadly, some of those jobs are now going.
What can the Government do about the problem? In fact, I do not think that Governments can do a great deal in a free market. I heard what the hon. Member for Crosby said about the previous Conservative Government. However, people often blame the Government without necessarily having a party political viewpoint. Many of my local manufacturers and small engineering companies in Uxbridge blame the Government for their problems—whatever the party, it is the Government who get it in the neck.
Manufacturers face many hurdles: that is by no means exclusive to the furniture sector. People often mention employers liability insurance, the compulsory nature of which means that it is impossible to negotiate with insurance brokers to get the price down. I am sure that many Members have heard complaints from business about the significant increase in insurance costs. Businesses face increasing amounts of legislation. No doubt, much of it is very worthy—only yesterday, I spoke in the debate on the environment, so I cannot knock environmental legislation other than to say that, proportionately, it affects smaller businesses more, because they cannot employ a person specifically to deal with health and safety or environmental issues, as can a large company.

407WH
There is a feeling—some say that it is an urban myth, but I think that it is true—that businesses in this country do not have the level playing field that they want because other countries do not enforce legislation that comes from elsewhere as strictly as we do. When I was in business, the flammability of upholstery was a big issue, and Britain was at the forefront in addressing it. In fact, our flammability regulations were dumbed down when EU regulations were introduced, because they were not as good as ours. I have heard of cases, although I have no evidence, in which Customs and Excise, having received a tip-off, checked some goods that had come in from China—it could also be true of other EU countries—and found them to be sub-standard. It is simple to stick a label on a consignment of sofas or chairs without testing every one. Many British manufacturers feel that they are sticking firmly by the book while others are coming in round the side.
Many companies, particularly in my part of the country, find that when their lease comes up for renewal, the price has gone up considerably. In terms of property prices, location is everything. We have a tradition of small engineering companies in Uxbridge—I grew up with them. They are having to move out and their employees cannot find suitable employment without moving away from the area.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Come to Liverpool.
Mr. Randall: However wonderful Liverpool is, the charms of rural Middlesex are also pretty good.
Brunel university's engineering department was famous for innovation. Although it remains famous, it is in decline and has problems, despite what the hon. Lady said. We have a science park where many interesting products are developed, but once a company reaches a specific size and is doing well, it cannot find another location.
I have outlined some of the problems and I hope that, through raising them today, we will manage to consider what to do about them.
10.10 am
Dr. Ian Gibson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on instigating the debate. The word "manufacturing" appears to be rapidly disappearing from the dictionary. A few days ago, I heard the bad news that the last big manufacturing company in Norwich, Laurence, Scott and Electromotors Ltd. was to close. It once employed 2,000 people, but no longer. However, I guess that there are other jobs for 55-year-olds in a boom city.
At the same time as I heard the news, a document from the East of England Development Agency came through my letterbox and gave me hope when I first saw it. It is called "Sharing The Challenge—playing your part in reviewing the regional economic strategy". It purported to give us a vision of making
"the East of England a world-class economy, renowned for its knowledge base, the creativity and enterprise of its people and the quality of life of all who live and work here."
408WH
That is fine.
The document recognises that the east of England has good research and development arenas, high-profile headquarters and research establishments—for example, in Cambridge, Norwich and Ipswich—in advanced manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, information communications technology and so on. However, advanced "manufacturing" provides the only instance of the word in the main document. I went through it with a fine toothcomb and found that it also appears in appendix II, which points out the decline in manufacturing, including
"a 35 per cent. decline in employees working in manufacturing since 1985"
while
"the percentage of employees working in services has increased 30 per cent. over the same period."
Indeed, as other speakers have pointed out, the world is changing.
Britain could take a lead, however, and build up its manufacturing base in some arenas. For example, it is doing something but could do much more in nanotechnology, which is the big hope for the developing world in creating new jobs. I do not want to define nanotechnology or I shall end by fighting with His Royal Highness again about grey goo. It involves small particles, but has the potential for significant advances in health care, medicine, security, electronics, communications, computing and so on.
Let us consider one of the regional development agencies in the north, where my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby lives. The Office for National Statistics report on regional gross value added—GVA—points out:
"The manufacturing sector is the largest contributor to GVA in the NE region, but its fractional contribution is reducing."
However, it continues by stating that manufacturing
"remains much more important as a sector in the NE than for the UK as a whole, but it is now declining in line with the national average for the sector".
The challenge is therefore to take up the new technologies, push them into the industries and thereby keep the industries expanding in a modern way.
According to the document, the best way in which to increase the GVA in the large manufacturing sector is by using nanotechnology. There is therefore great hope for developing nanotechnology to help with an industry's problems. However, it is being commercialised mainly through small and medium-sized businesses. Large companies currently regard it as peripheral to the core technology. They expect it to have an impact on their future product performance, but have yet to formulate any nanotechnology research and development strategy. That is true of the East of England Development Agency.
That Government have put £90 million into nanotechnology in this country, but the document that fell through my letterbox—"Sharing The Challenge"—does not mention it. I have made that point in other places to try to make the East of England Development Agency move and use the new technologies. What more can a Government do but give money and ask the

409WH
regional development agencies to get on with it? There are brilliant people in the region, but they have to take action and develop the technology in the industries.
Germany is fourth biggest funder of nanotechnology after Japan, the United States of America and the European Union as whole. It intends to place its nanotechnology in the motor industry, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and optics. It is concentrating hard on that and it is currently ahead of the game. We have the potential but are being beaten back through lack of drive. I know that because the Select Committee on Science and Technology has considered nanotechnology and visited Germany. The chairman of the Development Agencies Network Collaboration for UK Micro and Nanotechnology told the Committee that recognising nanotechnology
"is vital to the future competitiveness of the industrial base of the UK and other regions…so there was a developing awareness of the importance of this field."
The professor who is director of the Cambridge Nanotechnology Interdisciplinary Research Unit, which is again well funded by Government, stated:
"I can only speak from my personal experience of the Eastern Regional Development Agency, clearly they have a lot of things which they have to work on within the RDA and in some cases the nano network is not high on their agenda and in some cases it is quite clear that they do not really understand the issue."
I rest my case that the technologies are there to develop, but we simply do not exploit and use them enough.
In our brave new world, we, like my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, should be positive about product development and manufacture in the key areas of health care, pharmaceuticals, communications, environmental sensing, safety systems and so on. The world is opening up. An ink-jet printer has been developed in this country, creating a market of billions of pounds, as well as a blood analyser and other products that keep people in work and benefit the health and wealth of the nation.
We need an integrated approach and I ask the Minister to consider asking the development agencies what they have done with the money because, without the injection of cash into manufacturing industry, it will disappear and the word "manufacturing" will no longer be in the English dictionary.
10.17 am
Richard Burden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on securing the debate and on the passion with which she presented her case. She was right to remind us of the dangers of turning the clock back to the dark days of the 1980s. In the west midlands, we know only too well the devastation that Government policies caused then. That is not to say that manufacturing does not continue to face a tough time and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) was right to mention employer's liability and insurance, which are a problem for many companies.
Manufacturing remains significant. In my region, it accounts for 20 per cent. of employment. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby was right that we need to move up the value chain to become world class and fulfil the skills agenda. I have a specific interest in the automotive sector, where great work is going on, such as the creation of the automotive academy, which boosts
410WH
skills and processes. I congratulate everyone who has been involved—in the Government, the learning and skills councils and the private sector.
We need to examine our development of the catalytic parts of engineering that can build and boost industry beyond its immediate area. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) was right to mention nanotechnology in that context, and I draw attention to the high performance engineering and motor sports sector, the value of which the Government rightly recognise.
We should also emphasise the importance of Government influence in procurement and I am glad that that is being re-examined. I feel that acutely coming from Birmingham, where we are witnessing the end of 150 years of train manufacturing at Alstom. That should not happen, and we should exercise greater influence to prevent such occurrences in future.
I want to get something off my chest. When we consider manufacturing, there is sometimes a tendency to draw false distinctions. In the automotive industry, no manufacturing sector means no retail, car mechanics, repairs or sales sectors. When the Longbridge plant in my constituency was threatened in 2000, it was not simply a problem for those who worked there. For every job lost there, three or four others would be lost, including in the supply sector and even in the corner shop across the road. A link therefore exists all the way through.
The reason that I mention the point now is that over the last few days MG Rover has been in the news again, and I want to comment on that briefly. Once again, special investigations are appearing in the newspapers, which at first sight seem to be drawing the same conclusions as the special investigations undertaken about six months ago. There are whispers of at best corporate greed, and at worst asset-stripping at that plant. I have some criticisms of some of the decisions taken by the directors of Phoenix Venture Holdings, and I have told them to their face and put them on the public record. If there are serious questions to be asked, the company must be comprehensive and transparent in answering them. It may feel that it has answered those questions previously, and in many cases it has. It owes that to the people who helped it to save Longbridge back in 2000, however, and it owes it because without giving those answers, even if it has done so previously, the speculation will continue.
I also want to send a message to the newspapers arid the "experts" who often make such allegations. My constituents just wish that when national newspapers publish these stories, they would show as much interest in the future of the company, the future of the people employed there and the future of car making at Longbridge as they appear to show in getting a good headline. Hardly an article is written without Rover being referred to as "the stricken car company" or "the troubled car maker", irrespective of whether sales are up or down, irrespective of whether new models are being brought out or not, and irrespective of whether those models have attracted praise or criticism. All those things hit confidence.
There may be some who are only too happy about that. There may be people who have an axe to grind, who wrote off Longbridge back in 2000 and who never

411WH
forgave the employees there for rewriting the script and proving them wrong. They were told that they would be out of business in six months, a year, and then two years. Four years on, however, they are still there. What is the future? I do not know. There have been setbacks, and the company faces big challenges. Nothing is guaranteed. The business is very different from what it was in 2000, however. New models have been brought in over the past three years, and new models are on the way. Their success will be critical to the future of the company.
The analysts and the press should ask what questions they want, and the company should give open and transparent answers to those questions. I do not believe that it has anything to hide, and it needs to demonstrate that. However, the analysts and newspapers should not impose on this company and its employees expectations that they would not apply to other businesses of this size. They should give the employees of Longbridge the chance to do what they want to do—to let their cars do the talking.
10.22 am
Brian Cotter: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on securing this debate. She clearly has great experience, and one might say that she is something of a fellow in many ways, certainly judging by her experiences with her many fellowships. She made a great double act with the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who has just left. I am sure that theirs, like many other double acts, will continue, as they related to each other very well and raised some serious issues.
It is important that we again debate manufacturing. The topic is relevant today because, once again, we have disappointing figures from the Office for National Statistics, which show a fall in manufacturing output in December. I shall refer briefly to an issue on which the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) touched: insurance costs. I hope that the Minister will take account of the great burden that manufacturing has had to bear because of the increased costs of employer's liability. Despite warm words about those costs being brought under control, I know from having spoken to the industry that although the increases are being reduced, many concerns remain, for example, about notice of rates from insurance companies and other issues. I therefore thank the hon. Member for Uxbridge for his contribution.
Despite hopes that the sector is beginning to recover and evidence that manufacturers are confident about boosts to the volume of orders and business activity, recent figures make it clear that the sector is far from being out of the woods. December's output figures should be of great importance to us because of the vital role that manufacturing plays in our economy. Although the contribution of manufacturing to the economy has been diminishing for a long time, it still accounts for around 17 per cent. of gross domestic product.
While house prices boom and consumer spending spirals, manufacturing remains stagnant, and the economy continues to be fundamentally out of balance.
412WH
December's fall in manufacturing output means that economic recovery could end up being based on consumer borrowing alone. British consumers are expected to have accumulated debts of £1 trillion by this summer, and it is clear that that is unsustainable in the long run. In addition, yesterday's announcement of the record quarterly trade deficit from the Office for National Statistics further undermines the Government's bravado about the strength of the UK economy.
Last night I attended the Engineering Employers Federation—the manufacturers organization—dinner at which the Chancellor spoke. He did not exactly tell us what was in the Budget, but we heard lots of warm and encouraging words. Let us hope that they are translated into action. The decline in manufacturing is weakening our ability to export, and it is becoming increasingly clear that the services sector will no longer be able to cover the import-export gap.
We have a two-speed economy, with runaway consumer spending and a weak manufacturing sector. The Bank of England alone cannot resolve that. I therefore ask the Minister what action he is taking to rein in irresponsible lending to consumers and to ensure that we do not return to the old days of boom and bust. I imagine that the unkind references to the Tory Government made by the hon. Member for Crosby related to boom and bust. I give the current Government credit for having brought stability to the economy—although, modestly, I point to the fact that they adopted the long-standing Liberal Democrat policy of having an independent central bank. None the less, I congratulate them at least on stability, and generally on jobs, although, unfortunately, we are not keeping up in manufacturing.
The Department of Trade and Industry has given subsidies to various larger manufacturing companies in the form of regional selective assistance, yet many of those larger companies are beginning to outsource their operations abroad. Although we must accept that that is a natural phenomenon under a free trade system, we should not allow such companies to accept huge Government subsidies on the premise that they intend to bolster jobs in the local community when, in reality, they end up moving their operations abroad. Only last month, despite the fact that in 1994 an £86-million public aid package was used to attract Samsung to invest in Teesside, the company announced that it was quitting its Teesside site to take advantage of lower production costs in eastern Europe and China. Samsung received, I think, £10.5 million of that regional selective assistance.
A Financial Times survey conducted last summer also found that half the £750 million in grants offered to regional aid projects over the last decade went to 16 companies that have since closed or fallen well short of job creation targets. Although it is not wrong to try to attract foreign investment, it is imperative that the Government measure properly the way in which taxpayer's money is spent to ensure that it achieves the maximum benefit for local communities and the economy. Increasingly, we need to direct money to our manufacturing businesses. The message must be conveyed that the DTI cannot—must not—go on digging into the taxpayer's pocket to bail out flagging

413WH
companies such as British Energy. A large amount has gone to that company, and even larger sums may go to it in future, perhaps largely to benefit its shareholders.
I know the Government are thinking of allocating regional selective assistance according to the need to boost productivity, rather than just for jobs. That is a welcome departure, but the way in which public money is distributed to private companies should be scrutinised more closely, perhaps by the National Audit Office.
We need to boost innovation by encouraging more private investment in firms, so that money is available for research and development. The hon. Member for Crosby rightly emphasised the importance of development. Much more must be done to inform manufacturing firms of where they can go to obtain finance. Although the Government have introduced a research and development tax credit, a recent KPMG survey found that only 9 per cent. of firms are taking advantage of it, and many are unaware of its existence or do not know how to claim it. The Government should promote plain speaking not only in regulation, but in explaining to people what is available to them. It is imperative that we help small and medium-sized manufacturers by encouraging private investment, cutting bureaucracy, and encouraging research and development.
More support for training and initiatives are needed. Modern apprenticeships must be flexible, so that apprentices will feel that they will have a good job at the end of them. There has perhaps been too much training and not enough hands-on work. More in-house training is needed, especially in the case of small companies, which cannot easily allow people to leave the workplace.
There is still a skills gap. According to a recent survey by the Forum of Private Business, skills training is the second most important issue for small firms. Skills must be relevant to business, and there should be links not only with universities but with schools. I have encountered great concern about the lack of careers advice to attract people into manufacturing. Lately, I have talked to many people about training, and I have been told that careers advice in schools is often not good enough—indeed, young people are sometimes actively discouraged from going into manufacturing. That must change. We must also get rid of the idea that vocational courses are second best. The days when apprenticeships meant no more than learning to screw things into machines are long gone. Nowadays, people need complex skills to run machinery. It must be made clear to those at school that manufacturing has a great deal to offer them.
I strongly support the concept of the Manufacturing Advisory Service, but I urge the Minister to ensure that it is monitored. It does very well in some areas, but in others it needs to be reassessed. I applaud the Government's regional approach to the service, but I want them to go further. Liberal Democrats believe that the DTI must be slimmed down considerably and that service must be delivered at local level.
We need to raise the profile of manufacturing. Manufacturing is exciting, it is essential to the country's future, and it can provide a great future for our young people.
10.35 am
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I congratulate the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on her ebullient speech, which showed her enthusiasm and experience. I shall make it my business to attend more trade association dinners if I know that she will be at all of them.
Some of the headline figures for employment and economic growth—and, indeed, the latest CBI survey, which revealed stronger output growth in manufacturing—may lead Ministers, including the one present here today, to believe that everything is a great deal better. However, as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) pointed out, the December manufacturing output figures showed a fall of 0.1 per cent. and output still 4 per cent. below the 2000 level. We heard another announcement of Liberal Democrat policy today when the hon. Gentleman said that he wants the DTI to be slimmed down, but the other day his boss said he wanted to get rid of the Department. It would be useful to know exactly what the policy is. In any event, it is not Conservative policy to get rid of the DTI. We think it is doing a good job, especially with the Manufacturing Advisory Service.
There are other storm clouds: for example, figures show that Britain is no longer the number one place in Europe for inward investment—we have fallen to about number four, behind France and Germany—and recent World Economic Forum figures on competitiveness show that we have fallen from fourth to 14th in the ranking. Moreover, as the hon. Member for Crosby pointed out, manufacturing investment is at an alarmingly low level—the lowest for about 20 years. The wretched trade figures have also been mentioned.
Let me say something about the overall tax and regulatory burden. The hon. Member for Crosby referred to the Engineering Employers Federation and the indomitable Martin Temple. The EEF has been very complimentary about the Manufacturing Advisory Service and several other Government initiatives. Conservative Members give credit where it is due, as the Minister knows—I often compliment him personally on his enthusiasm and energy. However, he might have missed a comment made by Martin Temple the other day. He said
"Businesses in this country may well be able to cope with individual burdens and regulations, but the cumulative weight of the regulatory burden is now destroying wealth creation, especially among SMEs."
The CBI, the Institute of Directors and the British Chambers of Commerce have made similar comments.
One consequence of the growing burden on businesses is the increasing trend towards "offshoring". Not only low value-added manufacturing concerns, but sophisticated call centres and other financial service back-up operations are now moving to the subcontinent and the far east. The companies involved include BT. HSBC, National Rail Enquiries and, as the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) will know only too well, Norwich Union. It has not caused huge pain in Norwich, but Norwich Union has "offshored" a significant part of its operation in recent months.
The skills gap is narrowing. The other day I spoke to the chief executive of a financial services company who said that the brutal truth was that the decision is a no-

415WH
brainer. If people in this country cost at least £25,000 a year per employee—that is not a great deal to pay someone, but it is the overall cost of each job in the call centre—and they can be replaced by people in Bangalore who have degrees, speak good English and are highly motivated, literate and numerate for perhaps £2,500 a year per employee, it is understandable that businesses take such a step.
It is worrying that the skills gap is narrowing rapidly, particularly in China—a giant that is stirring and making extraordinary progress in building its own technical know-how and ability. That is why it is evermore vital that the DTI and other Government Departments focus on creating a thoroughly proactive and dynamic skills agenda, as the hon. Member for Crosby rightly pointed out.
We must also have an across-the-board SME policy that has the desired impact on such businesses. The Government have introduced various initiatives, made improvements to some of the schemes, including the small firms loan guarantee scheme, which the Minister and I have debated on a number of occasions, and introduced other schemes, such as the regional venture capital funds and the phoenix fund. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) pointed out in a succinct and all too brief contribution, there is a crisis in public and employer liability insurance. Many companies simply cannot get insurance. According to the Federation of Small Businesses, about 10,000 companies are continuing to trade without proper public and employer liability insurance. We have had a Department for Work and Pensions report on that, but I would like the Minister to comment on what the DTI is doing to alleviate that crisis.
My hon. Friend mentioned EU regulations and the Government's tendency, arising from our different culture, to gold-plate regulations, and he mentioned the regulations on inflammability. I looked at the ceramics directive the other day. There was a perfectly good inspection regime in the ceramics industry in this country. Perhaps only 20 or so businesses in the west midlands are affected, but by implementing the ceramics directive with added fervour, we have created an inspection regime that exceeds that in every other country in Europe—countries that apparently were content to leave their existing inspection regimes in place.
That is not an example of malice on the part of the DTI; it is symptomatic of the attitude in this country. We insist on implementing directives to the letter, and we have a culture of ensuring that the law is obeyed. It is an honourable and sensible culture, but the Minister must tell us that companies in this country and in Europe will be receive equal treatment.
My hon. Friend mentioned the stamp duty land tax. The Minister may talk proudly about the number of tax reductions that have been introduced, but what is the benefit to firms of relieving them of one burden but then imposing another on them in the form of stamp duty land tax?
We are seeing an erosion of flexibility in our economy on the supply side. In his winding-up speech, for which I will leave him plenty of time, I would like the Minister
416WH
to focus on the working time directive. I am sorry that the EEF dinner that I went to clashed with the Institution of Mechanical Engineers dinner, which I would have liked to attend as well. At the EEF dinner, the Chancellor made it clear that, as far as he was concerned, the working time directive and the UK's individual opt-out was a red-line issue. He said that it was absolutely vital for British business that we kept the individual opt-out, because we have a different employment framework from other European countries and it is vital to our competitive position. I support what the Chancellor said.
The Commission is to publish its report on the future of the UK individual opt-out and indeed the future of the opt-out generally—other countries in Europe have an individual opt-out. The least the Chancellor should be entitled to expect is the enthusiastic backing of his fellow socialists, the socialist Members of the European Parliament, but, unfortunately, they have not even been neutral. Far from staying out of the way and perhaps helping the issue to go away, under a Spanish MEP, Cercas Alonso, they have published the so-called "own initiative" report. Mr. Stephen Hughes, secretary of the Socialist Group, said last week that the group
"want speedy and specific action from the Commission to remove the individual opt-out and overall, the Socialist Group takes the view that an opt-out from the health and safety directive is a dangerous nonsense."
Can the Minister comment on that? When the Chancellor and other Ministers are doing all they can to ensure that the UK's competitive position is maintained, it is a pity that their colleagues in the European Parliament do not sing from the same hymn sheet. The Minister may comment on the fact that, when my good friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), whom I shadow two days a week in the Standing Committee scrutinising the Employment Relations Bill, went to Europe the other day, the great Mr. Hughes refused to see him to discuss the future of the UK individual opt-out. That is important.
It is easy to quote statistics selectively, and all of us, including the Opposition, are guilty of that. The Minister might say that I only dig out pictures that are disturbing to the Government; equally, we could say that the Minister paints pictures that are over-rosy. However, as the hon. Member for Norwich, North will know only too well, many constituencies in Norfolk contain small engineering and manufacturing companies that are finding life very difficult.
We are, as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare pointed out, enjoying something of a consumer boom at the moment, but that may be largely dependent on, or at least fuelled by, people taking equity out of their homes. The Minister is very good at getting out and talking to people on the ground—every organisation that I speak to, including the EEF, the FSB and the Forum of Private Business testifies that he talks to businesses—but it is vital not only that he stands firm on the UK individual opt-out on the working time directive, but that he listens to people on the ground, so that we have in place policies that are proactive, totally relevant and above all go a long way to ensuring that the small firms sector and the smaller end of the manufacturing sector are able to retain their position and, I hope, grow to

417WH
provide jobs to substitute for the jobs lost to offshoring, in which many larger businesses are engaged. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
10.48 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on securing the debate. She takes a keen interest in this crucial subject and has on several occasions brought influential constituents to brief me at the DTI, for which I am grateful. As a qualified chartered engineer actively engaged with major industry stakeholders, she speaks with great authority. I am also grateful to other colleagues for the interest that they take in manufacturing and for the generally non-partisan approach to manufacturing, which is a sign of its great significance.
Yesterday, I returned from a DTI trade mission in Malaysia, where I met representatives of some great UK manufacturers and exporters such as Rolls-Royce and Shell. They there are fighting for orders for their world-beating products and technologies—technologies such as the Trent 600/900 engine, which was developed in the UK through a great partnership between the DTI and Rolls-Royce, involving £250 million of Government money. It is now capturing more than a third of the world civil aero-engine market, and is an example of the Government backing the best in manufacturing. Indeed, I am delighted that the day before yesterday Bangkok Airlines announced that, having cancelled an order for two Boeing aircraft, it is now to order two Airbus 320s in contracts worth more than $100 million. Last year, for the first time, Airbus delivered more planes than Boeing—indeed, I understand that 305 were sold worldwide. These are good news stories, and there are a lot of them.
As Members know, I care passionately about manufacturing. I try to get out of the DTI to business one day a week, and when I do so I always visit a manufacturer. Manufacturing accounts for one sixth of our GDP and contributes in excess of £150 billion to our economy every year. There are some 3.5 million jobs in manufacturing, most of which are highly skilled, high-quality jobs, and of course there are millions of other jobs in the supply chain. When I visited the Swindon factory last year to see the 1 millionth Honda and the 1.5 millionth engine come off the production line, the head of Honda in this sector, Harada San, told me that 113 British manufacturers are in the supply chain for that factory. I am sure that a similar tale can be told in respect of the Cowley factory in Oxford, which I visited at about the same time in order to see the Mini.
I am aware of the importance of manufacturing, and so are the Government, which is why we held the first major review of manufacturing in 30 years, and set up the Manufacturing Advisory Service, which has been greatly praised here this morning. It is making a real difference to the quality of manufacturers in the regions by bringing the best together and by ensuring that everyone has a benchmark and the necessary mentoring. That is why, in the less than two years that the service has been running, manufacturers have made more than 20,000 inquiries, why 1,200 in-depth consultancy projects have been undertaken by MAS experts in the region—people who are themselves involved in
418WH
manufacturing and industry—and why the average improvement in the productivity of companies assisted by in-depth consultancies has been an estimated 38 per cent. That amounts to £38 million of added value to those companies since the 2002 launch, which has had a great impact on the bottom line.
Some serious issues have been raised and I shall address them in no specific order. One issue that affects us all is the failure of companies that get regional selective assistance from regional development agencies, and how we should treat them. I take a very serious and sober view of this issue, but I do not believe that a company such as Samsung set itself up to take £10 million from the Government and then walk away from an investment worth 10 times that amount. Collapses can occur in high-technology markets—a situation not helped by the general global downturn that we have experienced. I have met representatives of companies such as Corning, and I know that for personal reasons—they are not completely selfish, ruthless individuals—it is as difficult for chief executives to lay off workers in this country as it would be for us to face such difficult decisions.
I therefore urge a word of caution to Members. I want Samsung back here—I do not want it to go away with a bad taste in its mouth—but that does not detract from the comments that have been made about necessary accounting for the money, why it was spent, or whether the Government are getting a return for their investment. It is of course proper that the National Audit Office and others examine whether Ministers and their advisers are taking sound business decisions in allocating the money, but it is equally important to point out that companies that get regional selective assistance are not generally in it for the money. They want their product or service to be developed by a highly skilled local work force, and they are as sorry as anyone else when that does not work out. We should be very reluctant to make them feel worse than they already feel by making groundless allegations about what they may have done with that money or by making irresponsible demands for them to pay it back.
I agree that the facts on training are clear. In 1979 we were training some 180,000 apprentices, but by 1997 that figure had fallen to fewer than 90,000 people—indeed, it may have fallen to fewer than 70,000. Now, more than 230,000 people are undertaking modern apprenticeships. Last Monday, I visited a fantastic further education college in north Wales. Members will share my gratitude for the fact that, even though the skills do not relate directly to manufacturing, it has doubled the number of people undertaking plumbing and allied skills training. Notwithstanding the drive to provide more people with the opportunity to go to university, which I and perhaps the majority of Members present enjoyed, it is vital that further education courses and other courses get their share of the necessary resources and praise. We all know of constituents who are undertaking modern apprenticeships and training that, although not higher education, are of equal value to it.
The Government take offshoring very seriously. Earlier this month, the Secretary of State called together the CBI, trade unions and others to examine companies such as Great Universal Stores, which has brought back its outsourced Indian facilities to the United Kingdom

419WH
because it can guarantee quality and productivity here. I know from that meeting that not all the parties involved feel that protectionism offers any long-term solution, but we will do what we can to ensure that companies that are repatriating jobs to this country are regarded as exemplars, and that the lessons they have learned are communicated to companies that are thinking of outsourcing. Of course, the number of people working in call centres in this country—although not generally linked to manufacturing, call centres can play a role in the sale and servicing of manufacturing products—is at record levels and has been increasing, so the net gains to Britain have been good, which is in marked contrast to certain other countries that might be considered the protectionist model, not least the United States.
I shall not trade statistics on manufacturing, and I regret that there has been a dip in manufacturing output. However, we have enjoyed good increases in output, and Members will realise that although there has been a steady fall in the number of manufacturing jobs in all the advanced industrial countries, our output is at almost record levels—indeed, it is more than 25 per cent. higher than it was some seven to 10 years ago. In that respect, we are enjoying the results of a more productive work force.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby for giving me the opportunity to respond to this debate on the Government's behalf. If there are any points that Members would like me to elaborate on, I shall be more than happy to write to them.

Somali Community in the UK
11 am
Jeremy Corbyn: Good morning, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity for this debate on the situation facing the Somali community in the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] Is something wrong?
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): The correct nomenclature is Mr. O'Hara.
Jeremy Corbyn: Good morning, Mr. O'Hara. Thank you, Mr. O'Hara, I shall start again.
I am genuinely grateful for the opportunity to have this debate on the Somali community in the UK. Hon. Members will be aware that there was a debate last week, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) concerning the situation in Somaliland and aid to it. This is not a debate about the complicated political situation in Somalia or Somaliland, or about the questions of aid to those areas. It is a debate about the situation facing the Somali community in the UK, many of whose members have travelled to this country recently because of the desperate situation in their country—particularly in the southern part of Somalia—which has led them to be victims of the nascent civil war and of warlords. One hopes that there will be an effective peace process in that country, which will help reduce the tensions and enable people to live a much better and fuller life.
Many Somalis who have come to Britain have suffered the most horrific experiences. I want to talk about that issue and the plight of the Somali community in this country. My constituency has a considerable number of residents from Somalia, many of whom have come quite recently. I hold a special monthly advice bureau, with interpreters, for members of my local Somali community, so that we can discuss their problems and so that I can do my best to represent them. My constituency probably does not have the largest Somali community in the UK; many other constituencies in London probably have more Somalis, and Cardiff and other major British cities have substantial communities.
In meeting the local community, several things have impressed me. First is the sense of hurt that many Somalis feel. They have managed to escape from a dangerous situation and come to this country. However, our arcane immigration and housing procedures mean that if they cannot get full status to live here, they are unable to get access to permanent council housing. Therefore, they cannot get access to living permanently in a community and that in turn affects access to health, education, well-being and everything else. I will return to that a little later.
I thought that the best way to support that community was to recognise the great contribution that many Somalis make to our society, and to try to bring many groups in that community together. Therefore, I invited all of the Somali groups and communities that I could find to meetings here in the House of Commons, and I was amazed when nearly 300 people arrived for the first one.

421WH
We had a brief discussion about the history of the country from which everyone had come, but we had a much longer discussion about the situation in Britain. We then drew all those people together and decided that the important thing to do was to recognise the needs of the community in this country. From that idea, the Somali community as a whole put together a comprehensive report—I would happy to provide a copy of it to the Minister—outlining the kind of problems that its members face. Later on, the Government office for London also produced a report on developing good practice in service delivery to Somali communities in a number of London boroughs. That is a welcome initiative. Concerns on similar issues have been expressed by the Greater London authority, and indeed, that body has held meetings on the situation facing the Somali community.
Before I go through the problems that face the community, let me make it clear that it is important that we do not present Somalis as being victims or supplicants, or as people who are demanding something. It is a strong and vibrant community, which brings a rich cultural tradition to this country. The older Somalis, particularly those in Cardiff and in some parts of London, most of whom come from Somaliland and were traditionally involved in the merchant marine industry, have been here for many years. More recent arrivals make an incredibly strong contribution. It is a community that wants to work, succeed, survive and contribute. Therefore, when we outline the problems—I am sure that the Minister would agree with this—we are trying to enable that community to contribute much more to our society.
I have various concerns, and I shall go through them in slightly more detail in a moment. The first is the problem of family reunion. To say the least, it is traumatic when child asylum seekers arrive in this country and, because of the problems of the immigration service or of simple access to entry clearance officers in Nairobi—or any other place where the rest of the family happens to be—then have to wait years for the great day when the family reunion takes place. The trauma experienced by those child asylum seekers is tremendous. I have met several of those children in children's homes and other places, and it is something that will live with me for a long time.
The next concern is housing and the poverty that goes with the lack of adequate accommodation. There are a large number of single-parent households within the community, many of whom live in great poverty. Usually the mother is in charge of the children; they need better access to education and English language teaching opportunities. Above all, the community as a whole needs better access to the labour market and all that goes with it.
I want to go briefly through the main points of the report. Several working parties were set up, one of which dealt with the British media and their presentation of the community, which, on occasions, has been unbelievably appalling. There was a ludicrous story in several local papers about the Somali community stealing and eating donkeys. It was complete and utter nonsense. It was racist in its intentions and did enormous damage to the community. The police inquiry proved the whole story to be complete nonsense, but it was damaging and I had hoped that the press would have been slightly more responsible in their reporting.
422WH
The victimisation of young people, especially those who are subject to violent crime, is another concern. I cannot forget the day that a young Somali man in my constituency, Abdul Hamza, died as a result of a brutal attack just outside the home where he was living. The degree of racist violence in our society is unacceptable. It is appalling and the way in which the press report such matters is very important and must be handled sensitively.
There is the problem of young people who do not have sufficient qualifications and who are not achieving as much as they should do in school. The part of the report carried out by two youth groups was very instructive in that respect. It outlined the contribution that is made by Somali youth projects, but they are underfunded. We need to understand that there is a problem of cultural diversity as well as cultural tension within the community when parents and grandparents arrive in this country and pursue a fairly traditional sense of family relationships. To some extent, young people rebel against that and want to grow up as young western, liberal-minded people. That is fine. We welcome that, but that cultural tension must be dealt with, so that young people are proud to be Somalis living in our society.
Housing is a serious issue. There is a massive housing problem in London as a whole, as there is in most of the south-east. There is less of a housing problem in the north-east or north-west. In my community, those Somalis who have achieved permanent residence in this country often take others into their houses. Such people may well be asylum seekers who were distributed by the National Asylum Support Service to other parts of the country but, because of the racist threats that they faced there, have returned to London and live almost as homeless people on the floors and settees of other people's homes, often with little income. Poverty within the community is huge, but the sense of community support for individual families is great.
We must consider the problems associated with barriers to work because of institutional racism, the difficulties of finding appropriate interpreters to deal with individual problems and the provision of adequate access to further education opportunities, especially for Somali women. The report deals at some length with health problems. They range from the problems of those who have fled from the terrible, internal strife in Somali and who suffer stress and trauma and need support, to problems resulting from the use of the drug khat, although that is not the only problem. I do not wish to stereotype the community as being totally dependent on drugs. There is a drug issue, but there is a drug issue in the whole country and among young people throughout our society.
An issue that was interestingly discussed in part of the report was that of relations in Europe, and the way in which the EU and the European social fund and its derivatives can assist that community. I am grateful for the work that has been done by a number of MEPs, particularly Claude Moraes, in trying to represent the needs of that community in Europe.
The report, which I will provide to the Minister, shows the strength of feeling in the community, the high degree of education among many Somalis living in Britain, and their difficulty in finding access to work and employment. We are short-changing ourselves and the

423WH
community when there are asylum seekers who are highly qualified nurses, doctors and others with great experience who, because of problems with the immigration procedure and cross-recognition of professional qualifications, are living on benefits. They ought to be able to contribute to, and work properly in, our society. The Home Office is well aware of that waste of resources.
Dr. John Pugh: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I do not have a large Somali constituency in my constituency, but I wonder whether it will surprise him to hear of the following case. It was brought to my attention not by the Somali community, but by magistrates and lawyers who attended a legal case in which a Somali gentleman, who was refused asylum but was also unable to be repatriated by our Government, proceeded to work for cash. He endeavoured to put that cash in a bank, and produced false identification. He ended up being committed to the Crown court, and will probably get a jail sentence. He will ultimately be released, and will then have no alternative but to repeat the sequence of events. Does the hon. Gentleman not consider that situation intolerable? We are talking about a man who wishes to work. He may or may not have permission to stay in the country, but he has been rendered stateless by procedures as they operate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that that is of concern not just to—
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order. That is a rather lengthy intervention.
Dr. Pugh: It is—I apologise, Mr. O'Hara.
Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I fully understand the circumstances surrounding the case that he described. Clearly, if we do not give people an opportunity to work or receive some other reasonable income, they will be forced into all kinds of circumstances. I fully understand that, and it seems an awful waste of public resources to put such a person in prison when we denied them the opportunity to work in the first place. That is what we should consider.
The Government office for London's first report is welcome. It looks at issues of housing, empowerment and representation at local level. It suggests a need for support for community projects and advice, business advice, and support in training and advocacy work. It gives a good summary of some of the local community projects in London and gives great support for them. I went to the presentation conference organised by that body, at which there were representatives of many local groups, the police and local authorities. There was an understanding that we need better co-operative working on all that, but also that there is a serious underestimation of the size of the Somali population in London.
I have asked many parliamentary questions to various Ministers concerning the numbers seeking asylum, the numbers accepted, and the number of people that have not been accepted but whose cases are
424WH
pending, and whose families can therefore not join them in this country—that is a serious issue that the Minister will no doubt want to address. I have also asked questions about the degree of public funding and support for relevant and various Somali community projects around the country. I hope that the Minister will either give us some good news on that, or be prepared to consider the following question: are we fairly supporting this community around the country to enable it to contribute and promote itself in society?
During my many meetings with the Somali community, I have been impressed by several things. First, there is the sense of injustice about the victims of a war—victims of the civil strife—and all the trauma and horror that go with that. I have talked to young Somali children who have been through that, and they have witnessed things that none of us ever wants to witness; things that we certainly would never want our children to witness.
I recognise that Somali women are often the mainstay of the community. Often, they are living in poor circumstances and find life very difficult. They need support, opportunities for education, and better access to nursery support for their children so that they can educate themselves. The Somali community needs that lift and support so that it can make a greater contribution to our community, and allow its young people to lead richer lives as a result.
I am proud to represent my local Somali community, as, I am sure, are many other hon. Members. It is important that the Government recognise in their reply—I am sure that they will—that there is an opportunity to give much more help and support, which will be repaid many times over in the economic contribution that this important community makes to our national life.
11.16 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing today's debate. Adjournment debates are a good vehicle for focusing on issues affecting particular constituents, which sometimes are not given time in our other debates in the Chamber across the way. I also welcome my hon. Friend's constituents who have come to give him support.
I know that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in the concerns of all his constituents, but that he also recognises that, although people face common issues, each constituency has particular situations that can be exacerbated by several issues. Some of those issues can be caused by people coming to the UK fleeing, as he has eloquently said, the wars and horrors that many of us would find hard to conceive. People find themselves here and, having gone through the processes of being granted refugee status, wonder how they will be able to cope with language and cultural barriers, as well as with all the other problems related to a major city, such as housing, and access to employment, training and education.
The Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration have recognised that, as well as focusing on the asylum system and law, the Home Office and the Government must consider what their responsibilities are. The issue is

425WH
cross-departmental, and if we have given someone indefinite leave to remain, we must consider how we ensure that they are able to take up the opportunities that should be available. If we are honest, we have to say that for decades that side of the problem has not been attended to. That is why, regardless of where people of different cultural and ethnic communities come from, we still have problems with people being able to speak and read English, and with things that follow on from that, such as being able to take up education opportunities, work and volunteering—the very things that could help communities have their voices heard in the regeneration projects that this Government are funding across the country. Every community within a community should have its voice heard.
A key aim of the Home Office is to consider how we can support strong and active communities, while recognising diversity and realising that for some people we may have to think much more creatively about how we ensure that their voices are heard. Part of promoting good and active citizenship is about inclusiveness.
My hon. Friend did not touch on this, but it is important to acknowledge the rise in recent years of right-wing organisations in our elections. They use opportunities to create tensions, exacerbate problems and, in some ways, see difference as a bad thing, rather than recognising that diversity is a good thing. Perhaps we should think more about how we celebrate diversity and make sure that links between different communities within the larger community can be made. It is not a tale of two cities; we do not want that situation. We are trying to address the matter now; if we do not, that will allow the far right to take advantage.
The citizen unit is now in place in the Home Office. It will develop the active citizenship centre. We will ensure that every citizen can take part and be a strong voice in their local communities.
My hon. Friend mentioned legislation. He is constantly considering how we can improve entry clearance and ensure that people are dealt with considerately and effectively in the system. Some of that depends on the large number of applications that different entry clearance posts abroad receive. They are responsible for dealing with such applications abroad and they have targets for that. Obviously such targets depend on the number of applications, but they are trying to meet targets of three to six months.
Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister ensure that the posts abroad process things quickly and efficiently and that posts in the middle east, particularly Saudi Arabia, do not have a security system that makes it impossible for Somali people working there even to get into the building to make an application? I know that that sounds ludicrous, but one of my constituents had such an experience.
Caroline Flint: I will take that example away as something to consider and pass it to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, who will write to my hon. Friend. If there are specific examples, we want to hear about them to establish whether we can do anything to alleviate the situation.
We have also tried to consider the needs of Somali people who come to this country, in order to be better able to deal with their applications. There are some new
426WH
initiatives: one involves a Somali expert working in the asylum-screening unit. He sits in on the initial screening interviews and informs the decision-making process. That may be helpful: the issue is not just about refusals, but about granting people access and enabling them to move on in the asylum process. Language testing is also important so that at the screening we can quickly ascertain that a person is who they say they are. That is not a negative resource but a positive one, to ensure that people are identified quickly.
My hon. Friend mentioned children who come to the country alone. We are concerned about that, and my right hon. Friend is considering the issue. A UNICEF report last year discussed the issue of unaccompanied children who come to this country. With social services and other Departments, we are considering what we can do. Linked to that is how we liaise with such children's family members, who may be in their country of origin or in another country awaiting the chance to come to the UK.
Recognised refugees have access to housing and support, although my hon. Friend quite rightly mentioned some problems. I understand that there are particular problems in London. He also mentioned dispersal. The issue for London local authorities is not only space but the sharing of our responsibilities to provide accommodation to asylum seekers. The spreading of the responsibility further around the country was addressed. I hear what my hon. Friend says about the problems that occur when communities give accommodation in part of the country without the backup and support that are available in London. London and the other major cities have generations of development in this respect; my own area of Doncaster has not. However, we have put considerable effort into trying to make those communities also address such issues in ways they have not thought of before.
In my constituency, less than 1 per cent. of people define themselves as being from an ethnic minority. It is important to address these issues regardless of the number of people from different groups who are in our communities; otherwise we end up with a situation in which some parts of the country properly engage in them—in relation to not only refugees but the diversity of children coming into our schools—whereas other parts of the country, where people might not be so visible, do not properly address them. Although there are difficulties, it is important to do that. Even if there is only one Somali family in Doncaster and their children are entering our schools, it is important that they receive some support—just as it is for those groups around the country that have the added resource of community support. We try to do what we can in that respect.
My hon. Friend raised a number of housing issues. I have mentioned employment, training, education, health and welfare rights. Many of those issues are about people being able to access services and make demands about what they want. The situation can be undermined if people in different communities feel that services are not relevant to them and do not address their needs. Some people also cannot engage because they do not have a voice, as they cannot speak English as well as they speak their first language. That is part and parcel of what we have to address.

427WH
We have to deal with the situation of people who have been here for many years, as well as that of younger groups and children when they are born. We must have different strategies to deal with those different generations. As my hon. Friend said, the Government office for London has been working hard to tackle some of those issues.
I want to mention a project in Toxteth run by the Merseyside Cultural Organisation. It provides support and advice to local residents, many of whom are asylum seekers and refugees from the Somali and Yemeni communities. It runs a community interpretative course, language courses, weekly cultural classes for children, weekly benefits advice and Jobcentre Plus surgeries. From what we have seen so far, that project shows that there is enormous potential for the development of self-help services in such communities.
My hon. Friend made a very important point. We must not just provide services that we think are right for different communities or tell people how they should do things; we must recognise what the problems are and respond to them according to local needs. Self-help is also important, which is why we need to make sure that the Somali community and many others are able to get involved in these projects.
Another example of such projects is the new deal for communities project in Bristol. It has shown how local residents can actively engage in improving their localities. There are also a number of other projects. It is important to recognise that although new deal projects and neighbourhood renewal projects are not necessarily directed at one community, we should
428WH
encourage different communities to engage in them so that economic and social renewal means as much to them as it does to anyone else.
I have been making the point that neighbourhood renewal projects and new deal for communities projects should address the issue of drugs as well as improving the built environment and looking at jobs. Social issues are very important. Under the refugee integration challenge fund, we fund the East London Somali Association. That project aims to help Somali refugees to access services and to understand and take advantage their rights, and to offer emotional and physical support to people who have suffered terrible horrors, which is why they are here in the first place. It also aims to help Somali refugees to help themselves and to solve problems associated with their refugee status. We are also developing a programme of learning for new arrivals, which will include Somalis. That will build on the active learning for active citizens project.
We are considering ways to address the problem of khat misuse. We are commissioning research that will give us an update on the Griffins report of—I think—1998. It will look at the relationship between khat use and other drug use, khat and crack use among Somali women and a number of other issues. In our drug strategy, we are also looking at diversity. We know that we cannot make assumptions about drug use. We have to understand it. We also have to understand—
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended till Two o'clock.

Air Transport White Paper
2 pm
John Barrett: It has been almost two months since the Department for Transport published its much-anticipated and much-delayed White Paper, "The Future of Air Transport." When the Secretary of State made a statement to the House last December, time constrained and limited the number of questions that could be asked, and as a result many Members here today were unable to ask questions. When that issue was raised on points of order, Madam Deputy Speaker said that there would be many more occasions on which the White Paper could be discussed. This debate is the first such occasion, and it is to the Government's discredit that they have not afforded Members an opportunity during their time to discuss what is an important national issue and, for many of us, a major constituency issue.
For both of those reasons, I am pleased to have secured today's debate. Despite time constraints, I hope that I will be able to allow many Members to raise specifics points, ideas and concerns. For my part, I want to make some general comments about the overall implications of the White Paper. I am sure that Members will understand, however, if I focus some of my remarks on Edinburgh airport and the impact that the proposals will have on those of my constituents living around it.
The fact that almost 500,000 responses to the consultation papers were received illustrates the interest that people have in the issue, and the importance that they place on it. For all concerned, the fact that the White Paper was published after great uncertainty and delay was welcome. Many people are now in a clearer position than they were before, but others face even greater uncertainty. In some cases, that uncertainty could go on for the best part of 15 years.
Mr. John Taylor: On the question of uncertainty, I have something in common with the hon. Gentleman as regards Birmingham airport. Is he satisfied that there should be a voluntary blight compensation scheme funded by the airports, or should there be a standard national compensation scheme whereby everybody at least knows where they stand?
John Barrett: I shall talk about blight and compensation later. I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that constituents living in areas that have to be protected for airport expansion cannot have their future put on hold, as is currently planned for many people. The Government have estimated and made projections for transport growth, and have produced a set of plans on which such growth can be accommodated. That, in its most basic terms, is predict and provide, and few outside Government believe otherwise.
One of my greatest concerns about any airport and air transport expansion is the environmental impact. After all, air transport remains one of the most polluting forms of transport and any significant increase in air travel could wipe out all gains in CO2 emissions, which the UK will have to meet under the Kyoto protocols. The fact that the Government devoted an entire chapter
430WH
of the White Paper to environmental impacts shows the importance that they place on the issue. The question is, what do we do to minimise the impact and ensure that the air industry makes an appropriate contribution to meeting the environmental costs that are incurred?
Unfortunately, the Government's chapter on the environment did not go down too well. The Aviation Environment Federation described the measure contained in the White Paper as "inadequate and ineffective". The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution said that
"the White Paper fails to take account of the serious impacts that the projected increase in air travel will have on the environment. It favours commerce over vital carbon dioxide reduction measures."
Other organisations, such as the Environment Agency, were equally critical. It is regrettable that there is a strong feeling among the environmental lobby, which was part of the consultation process, that its views were ignored.
David Taylor: Is not the core challenge the fact that, in the period covered by the White Paper, CO2 emissions from aircraft may rise from the proportion that they contributed in 2000 of 5 per cent. to 30 per cent? Should there not be fiscal incentives to tackle that problem?
John Barrett: I agree that the air industry gets off relatively lightly. There is not an even playing field for how alternative forms of transport are taxed. We will address the fiscal action that could be taken later.
The White Paper effectively pins environmental hopes on air traffic measures—more research and development and, most of all, emissions trading. However, it entirely lacks any sense of urgency and any practical targets as to how the industry's impacts on climate change will be controlled. The aviation industry supports an open emissions trading scheme but has called on the Government to resist introducing any other interim taxes or solutions. That is not surprising, as no industry wants to pay more tax—just as the average constituent does not enjoy paying income tax. However, those taxes are for a common good. The aviation industry is unlikely to be incorporated into international trading schemes until 2012, and progress so far does not fill me with confidence. Doing nothing in the short term is not an option.
Last year, the Environmental Audit Committee produced a first-class report entitled "Budget 2003 and Aviation", which laid down an environmental challenge for the Government on air transport. I agree with that Committee's frustration about double standards over transport taxes. We tax car fuel to high heaven, but aviation fuel gets away relatively scot-free. We slap VAT on to vehicles but not on to passenger tickets. There are a number of inequalities in fiscal measures in different areas of transport.
This is not only about fiscal measures. If the Minister's Department truly believes in an integrated transport policy, there must be a much greater focus on air-rail substitution. I was disappointed that in a White Paper of 49,000 words, only 560—little more than 1 per cent. of the entire document—were devoted to air-rail substitution. It concerns me that the Government are not taking this matter as seriously as they could. Short-haul flights are the most polluting flights.

431WH
An excellent report by the Commission for Integrated Transport of only two days ago showed the degree to which short-haul flights could be replaced by high-speed rail. With the proper investment, Edinburgh to London rail times could be as short as two and a half hours. That journey takes me three to four hours on average—it took my assistant more than four hours today. Such times could easily be reduced if the present journeys were substituted by good high-speed rail links.
I checked the flight information for Edinburgh airport today. Of the 103 arriving flights, some 65—almost two thirds—were from airports that can be reached by rail. If the Government were to take on the mantle of air-rail substitution, we could help protect the environment and reduce the passenger forecast on which they have made so many of their projections.
Edinburgh airport is in the centre of my constituency, so I have another reason for taking a strong interest in the Government's aviation policy. It has already experienced considerable development and expansion. Between 1993 and 2002, passenger numbers increased from 2.5 million a year to almost 7 million. It makes a massive contribution to the economy of Edinburgh and the rest of Scotland. Many of my constituents are employed as airport staff, security personnel, hotel and car rental staff, and so forth. However, the airport's greatest contribution is perhaps that it acts as a gateway to the rest of Scotland—people arrive in Edinburgh, the capital, and they then move on elsewhere in the country. That brings millions of tourists to a city that is heavily dependent on tourism. It also brings businessmen and women to the rapidly expanding business parks around the city, such as Edinburgh park. It is also increasingly used by politicians who are visiting the Scottish Parliament—or who will be when, as is hoped, it is completed later in the year.
The White Paper lays out a strategic plan for the airport. The Government were right to put an emphasis on making the maximum use of the airport's existing facilities—increasing terminal capacity, extending the current runways and taxiways and increasing capacity, and specifically increasing the number of direct international air links. That will be of great benefit because it will bring more people to the city and offer my constituents greater choice for their holidays and business trips.
The biggest and most headline-grabbing part of the White Paper for Edinburgh was the go-ahead for a new parallel runway that will be constructed by about 2020. It does that on the basis that passenger demand will increase to 20 million passengers a year by 2030. Now many people, including some very knowledgeable people within the air transport industry, have told me about their doubts about whether that figure is realistic. They say that the true figure will be considerably fewer than 20 million per annum. BAA plc has acknowledged the great uncertainty contained in the Government's projections of air transport levels. That is why I said that the decision on the second runway did not have to be taken at this stage and that land to the north of the existing runway should be conserved for possible future use.
432WH
However, the Government decided to take that decision now, stating in paragraph 5.7 in the White Paper that
"there is…a good economic case for a phased development…constructing a new parallel runway, probably around 2020".
I hope that the Minister can explain why the Government have come out in favour of a second runway when clear uncertainty over passenger numbers remains. Why does his Department conclude that a second runaway is needed for 20 million passengers a year, when Gatwick handles more than 30 million passengers a year with only one runway? If he simply responds by saying that there would be smaller planes and that that means more plane movements, I must return to what I said earlier about air-rail substitution.
I deviated quite strongly from the White Paper about the second point in paragraph 5.7, which states that there should be
"more use of the current crosswind runway for departing aircraft—although this will provide only a relatively small amount of additional runway capacity".
Of course, there is strong case for having a standby runway in the event of essential maintenance or for other reasons. However, there is a world of difference between using the crosswind runway on the odd occasion that it is required, and using it for all departing aircraft, as the White Paper proposes. When do the Government predict that the crosswind runway will start being used more "intensively", as they put it? The White Paper, in paragraph 9, states that it would be used only "for a limited period." With the new parallel runway not expected until as late as 2030, a potential 26 years is hardly a limited period.
The Secretary of State, in both written answers and answers given to me on the Floor of the House, has made much of the issue of noise improvements for people living in Cramond, which is part of my constituency. That is all fine and well, and I welcome those improvements, which will be seen by my constituents in that part of the city. However, the Minister's Department never makes any mention of the hundreds of people in North Gyle, Gogarloch and Wester Broom, which are parts of my constituency, who will experience a significant increase in noise levels above their houses.
Will the Minister—he may have to write to me on this point—tell me more about the safety issues surrounding the use of two intersecting runways at the same time? I have been advised that such a scheme could break Civil Aviation Authority rules, and that there is no similar scheme in any other UK—or even European Union—airport. On a practical basis, the idea of using two runways that lie almost perpendicular to each other simultaneously sounds dangerous to me, and I fly out of the airport every week.
The White Paper has added considerable uncertainty to about 33 households in my constituency, which are within the new airport boundary—as outlined on page 66. I accept that the map is only indicative. However, it is safe to say that the airport will have to expand its boundary and that the map took in households in Carlowrie and Lennymuir. For all intents and purposes, those people have—as I mentioned earlier to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor)—had their lives put on hold while the local planners updated and while BAA came forward with concrete plans.

433WH
Some of my constituents have contacted me to say that they are suffering from stress. Some are uncertain about the future schooling of their children and all of them are effectively living in unsaleable properties. I have impressed on BAA the importance of keeping those residents fully up to date with any developments, whether they be positive or negative. As hon. Members can probably imagine, in such small communities rumours can quickly evolve. My office has already had to deal with a number of the concerns of local residents—those are only the people who live within the boundary of the new airport. Many thousands of people live—and will be affected—immediately outside the airport.
I am hopeful of having a meeting with BAA management in the near future, at which these concerns can be raised and expected time scales for action can be agreed. I strongly believe that BAA should enter into early negotiation with these residents about buy-out schemes.
Mr. Paul Truswell: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a need for airport operators to be required to publish a plan which describes future developments, the impact that they will have and what is being done to address that impact, so that there can be full public participation in that process?
John Barrett: We certainly agree on that point, although the planning process in Scotland may be slightly different from that in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. However, a major worry for constituents is that they are being kept in the dark—either deliberately, or by omission, because someone has not bothered to contact them. People should be brought into the dialogue at an early stage, and the airport operators are the ideal organisations to do that.
As I said earlier, in the case of my own constituency, waiting until BAA needs the land, possibly in 15 years' time, is not an option. I accept that planning issues north of the border are not an issue for the Minister, but I hope that he will work closely with Scottish Ministers to ensure a cross-border policy that protects the interests of those people and no doubt thousands more who are in a similar position throughout the UK.
The decision to propose an airport plan that takes over the land currently occupied by the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland was also very disappointing. The Department for Transport estimates that the Royal Highland showground would have to relocate by 2013. I appreciate that those issues are beyond the Minister's remit, but I tell him that there is considerable opposition to moving the showground. More than £10 million has been spent in the past four years developing the site into a world-class exhibition area. Since the first show there, 40 years ago, the showground has developed into a major centre that now attracts more than 1 million visitors every year and raises more than £200 million for the local economy—hotels, bed and breakfasts and shops throughout the city benefit from it. I cannot think of any other site in or around Edinburgh that can provide 18,000 sq m of space and parking for 20,000 cars. The proposal would mean that the show would have to move out of Edinburgh, and some have estimated the cost of moving to be about
434WH
£500 million. I make no comment on who would pick up the bill. The society itself has understandably produced a number of determined statements opposing the idea of moving, but I have no doubt that the issue will rumble on for quite some time.
I shall end my remarks on a positive note. I was in complete agreement with the conclusions in the White Paper on the importance that it placed on improving surface access to the airport, and in particular the emphasis placed on the airport-rail link. The information document produced by the Scottish Executive at the beginning of the planning development for the rail link showed that only 16 per cent. of passengers travelling to and from Edinburgh airport did so by public transport, which is an outrageously low figure. That has put considerable strain on traffic flows on the A8—the nearest major road to the airport—and has added to the considerable pollution faced by my constituents in the villages of Ratho Station and Newbridge.
The detailed rail-link plans unveiled last week are a considerable commitment and run contrary to many of the doom-and-gloom predictions that such a scheme would never take off. Work is now expected to start in two years' time, and although there may be some disruption while construction takes place, I am hopeful and confident that people will benefit from an excellent new service from 2010.
I am aware that many other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. I hope that this will not be the last opportunity that we have to discuss the White Paper and that the Government will not leave it to Back-Bench Members to test their luck in further Adjournment debate ballots. In the meantime, I look forward to the Minister's comments on the issues that I have raised.
2.19 pm
Mr. Tony Colman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) on securing the debate. I also echo the comment that he made at the beginning of his remarks—more than 150 Members stood to catch Mr. Speaker's eye at the time of the original statement. It is a pity that since that statement was made in December there has not been a full debate on the matter on the Floor of the House. This afternoon, Mr. O'Hara, nearly 15 hon. Members are seeking to catch your eye, and it is a shame that the debate is so truncated. I will therefore keep my own contribution short.
I wish to make three points on behalf of my constituents in Putney, of which the first is the omission of rotary-wing aviation from the White Paper. Perhaps there is a sister or daughter paper that I have not identified—I understand that some 27 papers were published last night, and it might be contained in those. I am concerned that heliports and helicopters are not properly dealt with.
The Battersea heliport is just over the border in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton), but entry and departure from it is along the river between the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) and mine. The route should continue along the river and turn north or south at Barnes common and the wetland centre, but it has not been

435WH
followed. I have had meetings with Battersea heliport representatives. I wish the Minister to ensure that there he has control not just over fixed wing, but rotary wing aviation. The helicopters have to come in below the Heathrow flight path, and they are coming in far below it. That problem is becoming much greater, particularly with the deviation from the route that I described, and is hitting people in east Putney and Southfields.
There is a need to ensure that security controls cover not only the larger helicopters, but the smaller ones, which are currently not regulated and offer a considerable potential terrorist threat to London. The British Helicopter Advisory Board would like the Minister to take those matters forward in a daughter document dealing with rotary aviation.
Secondly, the proposal to end the alternation of Heathrow runways, which is covered in the White Paper at paragraph 11.66, was reported in the press on the basis that it was about to happen almost overnight. On reading the document, it can be seen that that proposal is not due to come into force immediately. My discussions with officials at the Department have led me to believe that that is potentially about five years off, if it will even happen then.
There will be full consultation with all Members and groups. Before the consultation starts, an air quality study will be needed to validate and improve the noise modules relating to what any potential change in alternation would mean in terms of the appalling conditions that my constituents in Putney would suffer not every other week, but every other day.
Mr. David Wilshire: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that there is a range of opinions about the future of Heathrow. However, the one thing that unites us all is an implacable opposition to any change to alternation.
Mr. Colman: I am extremely pleased that that unites everybody in the Chamber. The Minister should make it clear that the end of alternation is a tentative proposal and does not have the support of the Government at this time.
Thirdly, I should like to deal with the third runway at Heathrow. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will be able to catch your eye, Mr. O'Hara, and will go into that matter in significantly more detail. I was pleased that the EU NOx limits were quoted and must be met in terms of any possibility of a third runway. I was pleased to hear from Jeff Gazzard of the Aviation Environment Federation, who said:
"The White Paper puts a really big barrier in the way of more development at Heathrow—legally enforceable 'never exceed' air quality limits are good news for the people of Putney. The EU limit for Nitrogen Oxides, produced in increasing volumes by aircraft exhaust emissions over West London, will undoubtedly have a major effect and could well limit future growth at Heathrow. The Government, airlines and BAA simply have to comply and actually work to reduce pollution in real terms."
Amen to that. In the Minister's response to a debate on sustainable aviation on 18 November, he said:
"I look forward with some trepidation to the next ICAO meeting because ICAO … needs a kick up the proverbial backside to push things on far more than it has done…We can
436WH
act as an exemplar to ICAO to pull its finger out and get things done more readily." —[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 18 November 2003; Vol. 413, c. 246WH.]
I am not sure whether it is good or bad news, but ICAO, in its meeting last week, failed to set strong limits for nitrogen oxide emissions for airports, and by doing so made it almost impossible for a third runway to be built at Heathrow. The Minister could not attend that meeting but I hope he will be able to attend future meetings. In a sense, the officials did the people of Putney a good turn by not objecting to the weak NOx standards that were set at the time.
I have been brief, as many of my colleagues want to speak. The White Paper sets the limits on NOx, which means that the third runway will not be built. I should like confirmation that the Government are not proposing the end of alternation and I look forward to stronger controls on helicopter use, especially the use of the Battersea heliport.
Mr Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): I remind hon. Members that winding up speeches in the debate will start at 3 o'clock.
2.27 pm
Mr. Peter Lilley: I shall be brief. I simply ask the Minister why, in the case of Luton, he has backed a different proposal from the two options on which consultation was taken? Why, instead of building a new runway, is he proposing to build more than a kilometre of additional runway at the end of the existing one, which points into my constituency? Why has he ignored the fact that the consultants ruled out such an option before the original consultation document? Why has he ignored the fact that the original consultation document stated that if a new runway was built at Stansted and at Heathrow, the proposed additional runway would be twice what was needed and, by implication, should not be built? Why, in the White Paper, have the Government doubled their forecast of the use of Luton if runways are built at Stansted and Heathrow? Why is the Minister proposing that Luton should be expanded to the size of Gatwick, although the surface area of the airport is only 40 per cent. of Gatwick's? Luton depends far more on people arriving by car as there is no direct rail access, and it gets a higher proportion of its revenues from parking charges.
Finally, why do the Minister's proposals make no provision for new infrastructure to cope with 30 million passengers being disgorged on to the already overcrowded roads of Hertfordshire, with the inadequate rail infrastructure?
2.28 pm
Mr. Alan Hurst: I am grateful to have this brief opportunity to argue against a further runway at Stansted.
Most hon. Members will have driven through the Stansted area on the M11 and some will have gone to the airport, but many may not be aware of the nature of the countryside and the heritage that surrounds Stansted airport. It is generally recognised as an area of unspoilt countryside and historic villages; my constituency includes Finchingfield, which is often regarded as the most beautiful village, if not in England, certainly in

437WH
Essex. Nearby is Great Bardfield, the home in the 1950s of a renowned group of artists. This unique area of countryside would be greatly damaged if the expansion envisaged in the White Paper were to go ahead. Until 1998, the throughput of passengers was about 7 million, then came cheap flights and bargain-basement aviation, which has boosted the turn around at Stansted to almost 19 million. The growth is based on the giveaway flight policy.
In Belgium, there was a recent ruling against cross-subsidy, which may knock cheap flights there on the head. There may be similar prohibitions here in a year or so to prevent cross-subsidy. If that comes about, the number of passengers using Stansted will not grow at anything like the rate that it has in the past few years. In respect of Stansted, the White Paper is based on the use of the motor car and road transport; indeed, it queries the existing rail capacity for Stansted and makes no detailed analysis of how it could be increased if the colossal increase envisaged takes place.
The reliance on roads is contrary to so many other policies that the Government are bringing forward. The expansion of Stansted is based on that concept, and can only be further detrimental to that part of Essex and Hertfordshire. The White Paper chooses the most expensive option: building a runway a considerable distance from the existing runway and outside the existing boundaries. Consequently, there will be extensive acquisition of land, far beyond what would have been contemplated if other available options had been adopted.
The White Paper states that
"The area around Stansted has an attractive, varied landscape. with many villages and smaller settlements, including much valuable architectural heritage. We believe that these characteristics should be preserved as much as possible".
The White Paper goes on, along the lines of, "I hear what you say, but at the same time it is important to consider the potential growth of the airport". Later, it states that the
"new runway at Stansted would require a substantial land take and the loss of around 100 properties. The loss of two Scheduled Ancient Monuments and 29 Grade II listed buildings was a cause of particular concern in the consultation."
The report recognises that problems are there, but has very little to say about how they will be dealt with. It goes on to generalise blight, as other hon. Members have mentioned. It comes up with suggestions—frankly, quite inane suggestions—that people might be helped to relocate before the airport is built. It is very difficult to relocate when one's property is blighted. I am pretty certain that such help would not include financial help.
I understand that those who represent areas adjacent to other major airports have been affected by noise for far longer than we have, but the White Paper anticipates that by 2015, 8,000 residents in north-west Essex and Hertfordshire will be affected and that by 2030, 14,000 will be affected. In my view, the entire judgment is flawed and adds to the overheating of the economy of the south-east. It contemplates a vast increase in Stansted's work force, although the unemployment levels are way below the national average. Extra employees could only come to Stansted using the road system. Although that is being improved, the numbers of employees and passengers that would be generated would be immense compared with what we have known hitherto.
438WH
The thinking behind the White Paper is misconceived. It would be far better if we took a more realistic view of the place of air transport in our economy and if we thought again about the over-subsidy of air transport that takes place in practice, the obsession with cheap flights and the failure to address the taxation question. If all those points were considered more thoroughly, the villages in my area and in the adjacent constituencies, the ancient monuments and the listed buildings could still be there for generations to come.
2.34 pm
Mr. John Randall: We are all grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) for securing the debate. I have sympathy for all those affected by the blight of airport expansion.
I am pleased to see that Members for the Cliffe area are representing those who are not here today. Perhaps we can all drop out one by one. If the Minister wants to respond to fewer people, he should take Heathrow out of the equation and we will be quite happy.
I have asked several times what sustainable aviation actually means; I am always promised an answer, but I am still waiting. What do the Government propose to do about aviation emissions, which, as the Minister will realise, are the most rapidly growing source of emissions in the UK? Something has to be done about that problem, or it will drive a coach and horses through the Government's climate change policies.
Mention has been made of Heathrow and air pollution, which, as far as I can see from the White Paper, is our best reason for not allowing any further expansion. I have a few questions about that. Who will do the monitoring, how can we be sure that it will be independent, and which Department will pay? I hope that the money will not come from the ratepayers of Hillingdon. Who will make the decision? How open will it be about where the monitors will be? Over what period of time will the monitoring take place? I would like to see what figures we have already, to see whether the reduction is genuine.
I am getting a bit cynical in my old age, so I wonder whether alternation is simply being threatened. Alternation would be a living hell. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) recognises that it is a terrible option, and I wonder whether that threat is a way of ensuring submission: the Government will put pressure on the local residents, saying, "If you don't start agreeing to a third runway, I'm afraid you'll have to have alternation, and that'll be worse." Perhaps I am over-sensitive.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West mentioned that some of the issues that have come out of the White Paper were not in the consultation paper. A sixth terminal for our area in west London was not mentioned in the consultation paper. Whether Northolt would have to close if a third runway was built and whether realignment would be needed were mentioned during the course of the consultation, but residents of my constituency and surrounding areas had no idea what implications a third runway might have for their lives.
There are questions that I would really like answered, but most of all I ask the Government to try to find some time so that we can discuss in more depth not only the

439WH
issues that are relevant to our areas, but the whole subject of aviation and its sustainability. Otherwise, in effect, there will be just a statement and a few questions.
2.37 pm
John McDonnell: I echo the request for a full debate on this issue. Yesterday, the Minister kindly published the 27 supporting documents for the White Paper. Those papers contain more pages and words than the Hutton report, but are probably more directly related to identifying the true elements behind the Government's decision. The papers contain many details that few hon. Members have been able to take in in the 24 hours since they were published. They contain elements that allow us the opportunity—I put it no stronger than that—to contest some of the published conclusions in the White Paper.
When the White Paper was published, several of us made it clear that we did not believe that the Government had taken fully into account the environmental issues affecting our areas. In fact, it is evident in the papers published yesterday that there still has not been an overall environmental impact assessment of the development of Heathrow. Looking at the papers, I doubt that the other proposals in the White Paper have been assessed in any depth. In addition, the supporting papers prove our contention that no adequate assessment was made of alternatives to Heathrow, and that the White Paper contained no adequate appraisal of the economic case for development other than at Heathrow. I will discuss that briefly, drawing on the papers.
Although I congratulated the Government on the publication of the White Paper and do so again today, because this is the first time that any Government have said to the aviation industry that it will not automatically be able to develop further at Heathrow, I am worried about the change of emphasis that occurred in the weeks before the White Paper was published. Most hon. Members expected the Government to conclude, based on submissions from a range of interests that included the aviation industry, environmentalists and local communities, that there would be no third runway unless air pollution and other environmental effects were tackled. However, the Government's position changed subtly, but importantly, from, "No third runway, unless," to "Yes, a third runway, if." That brings me on to the point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). We want to debate in detail on the Floor of the House how the "if" relating to air quality is assessed. I have read the paper on air quality assessments that the Government published yesterday. Despite all the measures proposed by BAA to reduce the impact of emissions in the area, my constituents will still be poisoned by air pollution under the 2015 to 2020 timetable.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) mentioned, we were relying on the industry to take responsibility for the development of new technology. The Minister made it clear in the last debate that pressure would be applied at the meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organisation to set stronger environmental limits for future aero-engines,
440WH
but in fact the limits that have been set are extremely weak. There will continue to be a lack of pressure on the aviation industry to improve its technology to reduce emissions and the environmental and health impact.
When the White Paper was published, we were told that all examination of the options in the south-east had been undertaken fundamentally. Several hon. Members in various debates have emphasised the Marinair proposal, which examined how, in the long term, airports could be located out at sea, so that they had a minimal environmental impact. The published assessment of Marinair, which was not reported in the White Paper, states:
"The development of a major airport offshore is entirely feasible and offers advantages of high capacity and much reduced environmental impact."
The costings of Marinair, as outlined in that publication, compare favourably with the realistic costings of the development of a third runway at Heathrow and of the blight and loss of homes, schools and community resources that would result from that development. However, that information was published yesterday in the supporting paper, not in the White Paper.
The White Paper debate focused on the economic benefits of airport development, particularly in the south-east, and the fact that Heathrow is fundamental to maximising those economic benefits. The supportiing paper published last night on air traffic demand and airport capacity stated:
"Calculations reported in "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East", show that the greatest economic benefits accrue from a dispersed pattern of activity around the South East—and not from concentrating capacity at a single new 'megahub'."
That is completely contrary to what the aviation industry told us and to statements made by Ministers and others.
It is worth examining the 27 papers. There is a paper on Northolt that illustrates the impact on air traffic control and the risk to Northolt's current capacity for military and other air traffic. That warrants a separate specific debate, and I am sure that the hon. Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for Uxbridge will encourage that debate.
I suggest that, when we have a wider debate, the Minister comes forward with strategic proposals rather than a commentary. The first proposal should be about monitoring air pollution. All of us facing new developments want independent monitoring of air pollution in the area, and an independently set baseline for our airports. We want to establish adequately funded local working parties of all stakeholders to enable transparent and open ongoing monitoring. European Union experts who can compare airports throughout the EU should be included. We need to revisit the development of aero-engine technology and its relationship to global warming and try to develop an international strategy to reverse some of the decisions that have been made. I also plead for support for local primary care trusts in monitoring the health impacts of airports. We know about the Chicago research that has demonstrated a link with cancer, but the experience of primary care trusts and GP surgeries in our areas suggests that respiratory conditions are caused by airport development.

441WH
I want the wider debate to tackle blight. The White Paper refers to the need to safeguard land in my constituency for a third runway, which means that people no longer have security in their home and long-term future. Blight affects more than homes: three schools are situated along the proposed runway, which means that 1,400 children may be displaced at some point. I do not believe that they will be displaced, but that is a risk. No proposals have been made about the impact on long-term education planning in my borough of the runway being built.
Referring to the south-east and east of England regional air services study, we need to identify the accurate information in the 27 documents that we have been given. I was told that that 300, not 33, buildings would be affected, but a study launched by the Government 10 years ago said that 4,000 homes would be affected and 10,000 people would be displaced or would find themselves living in an area that was so polluted that they would be poisoned. We need the debate to draw out the accuracy of the papers that have been published.
The cost assessments of individual developments have not been as robust as possible in term of embracing the full range of concerns, and we have not addressed the problem of terrorism and the threat to airports. That was mentioned in relation to helicopter pads, but there has been no assessment by independent experts of the risk caused to urban populations by siting airports so close to them, particularly in view of the fact that the risk of terrorist attack is greatest on landing and takeoff.
We must restructure the debate to develop a strategy in which all stakeholders can participate. We need a national aviation advisory forum of which the Government can ask questions and which can commission independent research to advise the Government on future policy. Until we have that, we will continue to rely on research by BAA, British Airways or others that, even with the best of intentions, is always tainted by their objective of further development.
2.48 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier: I shall speak briefly about an airport that has not yet been mentioned. East Midlands airport is sited wholly within the county of Leicestershire, but has recently changed its name to Nottingham East Midlands airport. That may interest the hon. Members for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) and for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) and those of us who live and work in Leicestershire. No one is better qualified to comment on the subject than my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), who lived for many years in Leicestershire and previously represented Derby, North.
The airport company undertook no consultation about changing the name of the airport. Interestingly, the same company owns Manchester airport, and we suspect—we can do no more—that the desire to increase the number of night flight freighters coming into and out of East Midlands airport has much to do with the capacity of Manchester airport, which is reaching satiation. The company wants, understandably, to
442WH
ensure that its business and ability to expand are protected, so that should its desire to expand Manchester become unwelcome, it can use Nottingham East Midlands airport, as it is now called, to increase its business.
I do not base my remarks solely on suspicion. I understand that the largest freight airport in Belgium is coming under considerable local and national political pressure. Companies such as DHL, which do an enormous amount of freighting work, might remove themselves from the Belgian airport and seek to relocate to East Midlands airport. That is not merely a fanciful fear: East Midlands airport already has planning permission for three new freight cargo terminals, resulting in 220,000 sq ft of aircraft accommodation in addition to the existing capacity of 210,000 sq ft.
That is the background. I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) wants to catch your eye, Mr. O'Hara, so I shall be brief. Not only will the increase in flights lead to increased movement of aircraft into and out of East Midlands airport, but the new flight path for the freighters will be over south and east Leicestershire, which covers my constituency and those of my neighbours. Aircraft altitude is apparently measured from sea level. Many of the villages in my constituency that will be directly under the flight path are 500 to 800 ft above sea level. The relative distance above the ground of the aircraft as they come into and out of East Midlands airport will therefore be much less than the measurements indicate. The noise factor will be huge. As the aircraft take off from East Midlands airport they will be using maximum thrust to get their heavy loads airborne, and as they come into land they will be doing the aircraft equivalent of braking. The noise from their engines will be at its worst and they will be at their lowest as they fly over the villages in my constituency.
There has been precious little consultation by the company that owns East Midlands airport, by the Civil Aviation Authority, or by any of the other interested Government bodies to assist my constituents and those of my neighbours to come to terms with the proposal to increase the number of aircraft flights at night. The territory of the airport comes under Leicestershire county council, which has not been consulted at all. The district councils, particularly those on the east and south of the county, have received precisely one letter each from EMA. Had EMA been interested in consulting prior to submitting its proposals to the CAA and persuading the Government to allow them to proceed, one would expect it to have done rather more through advertising and publicity schemes to make its plans better and more widely known. It has not done that. It took action at a public meeting on 19 January in Billesdon in Harborough district to bring the company face to face with the scale and intensity of public concern. Now, we are beginning to get some sort of action from the company. I ask the Government through the Minister to ensure that it is not too late.
Some other Members of Parliament and I will meet the chief executive tomorrow and we hope to see the Secretary of State for Transport on 23 February. In the meantime, I ask the Minister to ensure that the CAA and the airport company fully comply with their moral, if not legal, obligations to consult fully with the affected

443WH
people in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and obviously, speaking as the Member for Harborough, south-east Leicestershire.
There is a great deal more I could and want to say. I hope that the Minister will understand that the calm and rational way in which I make this complaint is no indication of the great sense of ill use felt by my constituents. I can assure him that EMA will have a lot more trouble unless it is more thoughtful and more sensitive to the entirely legitimate needs, desires and wishes of the people of south and east Leicestershire. I look forward to his assurance that he will apply pressure on them and the CAA.
2.55 pm
Mr. Mark Todd: I will concentrate on one point. My constituency borders East Midlands airport and many of its flights traverse villages along the Trent valley. I accept the growth of the airport within its existing capacity, and welcome the fact that no second runway has been encouraged by the White Paper. I welcome the alternative provision for express freight within the UK. The implicit strategy of concentrating everything at East Midlands airport was both logistically crazy and extremely damaging to local residents.
The critical question is how are we to achieve the stringent noise controls referred to in the White Paper as a requirement for granting support for expansion? We must recognise that local negotiations about those controls are inequitable. A well-resourced, large company deals with a diverse range of small councils, individuals and representative groups, who desperately need a template on which they can base their negotiations so that they know what sort of things they are supposed to achieve from the process. I will list some of measures that I wish to see in place.
First, there must be clear targets for the obligation to use chapter 4 aircraft—and any subsequent technological standard of aircraft. Secondly, provision must be made showing how to limit flight volume and noise generated, particularly at night. The consultation paper made it clear that three-minute intervals between night flights were a possibility, but that is unacceptable to residents of my constituency. Thirdly, there should be clear obligations regarding surface logistics. Public transport links to East Midlands airport are all but non-existent. It is a freight airport, and reliance on the road system to transport that freight to other places is completely against Government policy.
Fourthly, I expect some attempt to be made to control the routes of aircraft heading in to land. At the moment, the airport authorities seek to control the routes of aircraft taking off and track them—including the times that they fly over my house. We must attempt to control the landing routes as far as possible. I recognise that weather and other conditions make that harder, but it should be possible to make more effort than is currently undertaken. Fifthly, the airport is popular for aircraft training of various kinds, and trainees often chose to fly at antisocial times. Those flights should be controlled.
Sixthly, there should be clear parameters for the various types of ground operation that generate noise. There should be a package of compensation measures
444WH
aimed at those whose houses are closest to the airport. My constituency contains few such houses; most are in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor). I give the airport authorities credit for thinking about that matter. Seventhly, there should be transparency about the monitoring process. Currently, monitoring is done however the airport authorities choose. There should be an independent audit trail.
Finally, and critically, all controls should be clearly related to the growth of traffic through the airport. It is surely in the best interests of the airport and people in the area to have some certainty about the future. The company can then invest in the airport knowing that, provided that it stays within the controls, it can achieve what it wants, and residents will not have to revisit the issue time and again.
I wish I could speak more on that subject. I look forward to speaking on it again.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): With an eye on the time, I call David Wilshire.
2.59 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: I take your point, Mr. O'Hara, about three o'clock and will tear up 90 per cent. of what I was going to say.
Of those constituents of mine who have jobs, 26 per cent. depend directly or indirectly on Heathrow for their livelihood. It is therefore not surprising that I focus not only on the environmental issues, but on the economic issues as well. I accept that there is a hugely powerful economic argument in favour of ensuring that Heathrow remains Europe's No. 1 hub airport, but if that means further growth, it cannot be growth for its own sake. That is the starting point for my concerns.
There are good reasons to worry about the future of Heathrow. Some 13,000 jobs are being lost there and another 3,000 job losses were recently announced. It is difficult to say exactly how many, but at least 10 per cent. of those 3,000 who are leaving are likely to be my constituents. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that I want to talk about economics. There is the problem of the loss of routes at Heathrow and a possible worry about the growth of hubs elsewhere in Europe. Like the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), I accept that there are huge and serious environmental issues to consider. However, I do not have time to list them.
I also agree with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who said that we need more facts. There is claim and counter-claim, assertion and counter-assertion: we need the truth. The ultimate decision at Heathrow must be that if those environmental issues cannot be overcome, there cannot be another runway. We need first to decide whether they can be overcome.
The only thing that I have time to say to the Minister—I hope that he will respond to it—is that airport White Papers always produce a huge volume of correspondence of shrill campaigns saying, "Don't do this here. Do this, that and the other somewhere else." I carried out research in my constituency, which could not be any closer to Heathrow and managed, one way or

445WH
another, to get some 35,000 questionnaires to my 70,000 constituents. Just over 51 per cent. of the replies said that they supported another runway and just over 47 per cent. said that they opposed it. I plead with the Minister not to listen exclusively to pressure groups. He should do the research and ask everybody involved because the replies are sometimes different from those that the pressure groups adopt.
Mr. Knight: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. It is important in such debates that every hon. Member who wishes to catch your eye has the opportunity to do so. I am willing to sacrifice two minutes of my winding-up speech, and I invite the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) to do likewise, to enable my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) to catch your eye.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): The next person to catch my eye on the Government Bench will be the Minister.
Mr. Knight: I am happy for hon. Members to have half a minute each, as it is important that their voices are heard.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): What does the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) wish to do?
Mr. Paul Marsden: I am more than happy to give up a minute of my time, as I shall keep my remarks very brief.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): We are running out of time: we have only 27 minutes left. We should proceed. Much as I appreciate what the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) suggests, I do not think that we can achieve the outcome that he seeks.
3.4 pm
Mr. Paul Marsden: I shall be more than happy to take any intervention.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) on securing this important debate. The subject is of great concern to many of his constituents and literally millions of other people across the country. It is disappointing that two months after the publication of the White Paper, we are still waiting for the Government to give us some real time in which to debate it. I agree that it is only right that those with real constituency issues should be allowed far more time to air their grievances and concerns because the issue will affect future generations. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will reply not just to questions raised today, but to the concerns of those who are unable to contribute.
The Liberal Democrats want air travel to be sustainable, but the fear is that the White Paper only pays lip service to that. It says:
"The Government invites airport operators to bring forward plans for increased airport capacity in the light of the policies and conclusions set out in this White Paper."
There is almost a presumption that that is going to happen, no matter what, but we think that it should be a last resort. [Interruption.] I am more than happy to give way; the Minister is muttering, but he is more than welcome to intervene.
446WH
The Minister must acknowledge that the White Paper's approach is flawed. The blame cannot be completely laid at the Government's door. Eleven years ago, a Conservative Government were warned about an increase in air traffic and that something needed to be done urgently, but the problem was not addressed then.
There are some key predictions with regard to environmental issues. Some 500 million passengers will use UK airports by 2030, the south-east will need the equivalent of three more runways by 2030, and ticket prices may fall by up to 60 per cent. If we manage demand better, those predictions may turn out to be totally wrong.
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the European directive on strategic environmental assessment will come into force on 21 July? That assessment requires plans and programmes that have an environmental impact and that are in the process of being prepared, to have an environmental impact assessment before any decision is made. The directive warns that it is retroactive for any plans and programmes that have not completed all legislative phases of the procedure and achieved final adoption by 2006. The spirit of the directive would have required the horse to be put in front of the cart and for an environmental impact assessment to have been carried out before the White Paper had been published.
Mr. Marsden: The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. I hope that the Minister will address it.
The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) mentioned concerns about air pollution at Heathrow. By 2015, the air around Heathrow will contain higher concentrations of nitrogen dioxide than are legally permitted by the European Commission, even without a third runway. Emissions from airports and vehicles using the road access routes are a major contributor to that. The Government are not addressing those fundamental environmental concerns. As the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said, there should be a full impact assessment for every regional airport.
The consultation process has been flawed. It started in July 2002. We want an end to the predict-and-provide approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West mentioned that. There has also been no proper assessment of the fact that the aviation industry receives an £8 billion subsidy from UK taxpayers. The assumption that air travel will simply increase and more capacity will be required will presumably lead to more subsidy also being required, which will come from the taxpayer.
I appreciate that some residents have legitimate concerns about whether the capacity of regional airports will be increased, but we must make better use of their existing capacity. The right balance must be struck. My hon. Friend said that it is clear that we need direct international connections between the regional airports so that we do not have to funnel everything down to the south-east, as we are currently do. We are not moving in a sustainable direction.
I want quickly to mention fuel taxation. There is no defence for rail paying 3p a litre duty and private motorists 45.8p a litre duty on their fuel while airlines pay no duty. That is not right and it is not in line with

447WH
the lip service that the Government pay to sustainability. Airlines currently pay about 18p a litre for their duty-free fuel. I suggest that a duty of 3p a litre, at the very least, would bring the industry in line with the costs currently paid by other operators of public transport.
There are many concerns about connecting with hub airports in Europe. There are also concerns about landing fees and departure tax. I want the Minister to reply to the welter of issues presented today. I also hope that he will deal with the demand for a much wider debate to be held on the Floor of the House as soon as possible.
Mr. Knight: I am disappointed, Mr. O'Hara, that you did not act on my point of order. Perhaps I should place on record that I meant no slight.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): The right hon. Gentleman can achieve the same purpose by being generous by taking interventions from his hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman).
3.10 pm
Mr. Greg Knight: I want to place on record, Mr. O'Hara, the fact that I meant no slight to the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell). He was sitting studiously, so I thought that he had become a Parliamentary Private Secretary and was not seeking to intervene in the debate. I hope that he will have his day on another occasion. That underlines the point that the Government should have provided Government time for the debate on the Floor of the House.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) on securing this interesting and useful debate. I am probably the only Member here today who, at one time, lived near an airport. My house was next to Derby airport. That is not so grand as it sounds as it is a field in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd). I did not suffer the sort of horror stories that we have heard from some hon. Members today, although on one occasion I recall that an aircraft that had run out of fuel nearly crash-landed on the top of one of my classic cars, which gave me some cause for concern.
I want to start my remarks by reminding hon. Members that we have recently celebrated the centenary of powered, controlled flight. It is therefore right and proper that we place on record the congratulations that many of us think are due to the United Kingdom's aviation industry for playing a major role in both civil and military aviation during that period. Aviation is critical to the UK's prosperity and we must all recognise that air travel is essential for business and for economic success. About 180,000 people are employed directly by the industry and more than 500,000 jobs depend on aviation.
Much of our tourism depends on the availability of air travel; people in more remote parts of the United Kingdom often require air services for essential journeys. I applaud the industry for successfully competing in a deregulated market in recent years and
448WH
on opening up air travel to all through lower fares. The British people and the airline industry want not only improvements but certainty. That is of particular importance to those living close to our airports. I must say to the Minister that the White Paper has not ended that uncertainty. In many respects, it has prolonged it and we regret that.
The inadequate consultation process has been widely criticised. I hope that the Minister will admit today that the process was flawed. As he knows, the Government were eventually forced to extend the consultation process because, to start with, they failed to include Gatwick in their proposals. The Environmental Audit Committee has been particularly critical of the Government and of the fact that the airport consultation process did not include a formal environmental impact assessment. Indeed, the Government did not even follow their own guidelines, so at some point we must have an apology from the Minister about that.
I must tell the Minister that the flaws in the White Paper are so serious that that is likely to lead to sustained legal challenges in the months and years that lie ahead. I am not talking only about Gatwick: the proposed new runway at Birmingham airport was not subject to proper consultation as the Government refused to reissue the consultation documents to include some aspects of the proposals.
The south-east has been mentioned by some hon. Members. As for Stansted, can the Minister tell us what plans he has for extending the M11 and creating a dedicated rail link? How does that fit in with the Deputy Prime Minister's recent announcement of his plans to build thousands of more homes in the M11 corridor? Does it not show that one Department appears not to know what another Department is planning? How does the Minister intend to resolve that apparent contradiction?
Noise control has also been mentioned. I refer the Minister to paragraph 3.14 on page 34 of the White Paper, which makes a commitment to introduce new legislation to
"strengthen and clarify noise control powers both at larger commercial airports and at smaller aerodromes."
Can the Minister tell us when he expects that legislation to be introduced? When it is introduced, will it be subject to the pre-legislative scrutiny process? In our view, it should be. This is not a party issue; members of all parties have a genuine constituency interest in introducing the right legislation.
On page 35 of the White Paper, the Government dismiss the idea of making any changes to the Land Compensation Act 1973. Will the Minister look at that again? Some of us think that there is a case for looking at some aspects of that Act, especially the provision that does not come into play until 12 months have elapsed after a development. There is a case for revisiting that.
Mrs. Spelman: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister lies the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. I am sure he is also aware that in that Bill are requirements for community involvement before any decision making. There are also provisions for compensation for blight, which go beyond the airy-fairy suggestion in the

449WH
Department for Transport's White Paper that somehow the airport operators must find all the money to provide for standardised blight. There seems to be a lack of joined-up thinking between those two Departments.
Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I hope that the Minister can prove to us that the Government have at last got their act together on this issue.
Page 38 of the White Paper deals with local air quality. I wonder what the Minister meant by the following paragraph:
"local authorities and transport bodies working with airports to limit road traffic emissions associated with air passengers and employees, including through increased use of public transport".
What changes does he think that he can make by encouraging more passengers to use public transport to go to the airport? The likely effect will be insignificant. Does he accept that not all travellers can use public transport when going to an airport?
As for Heathrow, part of its environmental impact is generated by road congestion in the area, yet the White Paper makes it clear that the Government have no further plans for motorway widening. Will the Minister reflect on that? If traffic is kept moving in the vicinity of Heathrow, would that not, by itself, make a large contribution to improving air quality?
The hon. Members for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) and for Edinburgh, West both mentioned fiscal proposals. What discussions is the Minister, or his counterpart at the Treasury, engaged in, not only with our EU partners but with other countries, to introduce some form of fiscal scheme? He will agree that if we were to introduce a scheme on a unilateral basis without securing agreement elsewhere, it would have an extremely negative impact on our industry, and would do little to solve the problem.
The issue of safety, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), is important. We welcomed the Government's announcement to introduce air marshals. We realise that the Government need to be careful about what they reveal about their plans, but does the Minister accept that announcing a number of security measures can in itself inspire public confidence? Will he update us on some of the issues mentioned in relation to the programme of action on page 146 of the White Paper, in particular on the action points that it indicates will be implemented in 2004?
Air travel has shown the fastest growth of any type of travel in recent years, but changes are needed to reflect the growing concerns of the population, not just around London airports but throughout the UK. I hope that we will hear some answers to those problems from the Minister.
3.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): To the extent that I can answer 14 contributions in nine minutes, I shall endeavour to do my best. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) on securing the debate and I welcome the chance to respond on behalf of the Government.
At this stage, I want to take a thematic approach to some responses, and I apologise to hon. Members if I do not deal with every local issue. Before publication, I met
450WH
at every opportunity Members who wrote to ask to see me about any specific or general issues. I have since told them that the White Paper marks the start of the next process and is not its definitive end, especially not, as has been suggested, in the case of airports, where we start from the premise of optimising existing capacity. That brings with it a range of issues before we get on to talking about additional capacity, such as in the case of East Midlands airport. Those matters are worthy of discussion, and I thank everyone for the serious way in which they have been discussed.
I will not dwell on partisan points about the consultation process, which, however flawed, elicited 500,000 responses. Nor will I dwell on the delay to the White Paper that was caused in part by that consultation process. I want to concentrate on some broad themes. Anyone who knows anything about the genesis and history of what used to pass for aviation White Papers will understand that to describe the paper in a dismissive way merely as "predict and provide" is simply wrong. By any token, that description is wrong if one reads the whole piece. It is not simply a matter of "predict and provide". Indeed, in his own words the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) belied the notion that the paper was so by saying that it forecast 500 million passengers and three new runways in London and the south-east. If he looks very closely, he will see that we are only giving the two.
Mr. Marsden: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. McNulty: No, I will not. I do not understand how that is "predict and provide".
I say to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West that I am more than happy to see him and discuss further the particular issues. Representatives from The Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland have already met the Secretary of State, and there is still much to be discussed by the Department for Transport, Edinburgh and the Scottish Executive. I am more than happy to pursue that.
To dwell on one local issue, there is a particular safety issue in using the crosswind runway, which I have visited, as it will be used only for departures for a limited period. The interaction between the main runway and the crosswind in the limited times that it will be used would not impact on safety. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was in error when he read from the White Paper that all departures would be from the crosswind. Clearly, it does not say that. It says that some departures would be from the crosswind runway "for a limited period." I am happy to discuss local and wider issues with anyone, and am meeting representatives from the East Midlands airport in a few weeks to discuss its name change. The three real themes that I have picked up on—
Mr. Paul Truswell: Will my hon. Friend the Minister give way?
Mr. McNulty: No, I will not give way, with respect. I have about six minutes left, and I want to do justice to earlier comments.
Three major themes that emerged were: the environment, which is entirely proper; what I would call master planning; and infrastructure or surface access

451WH
issues. Again, in comparison with any other White Paper or substantial policy document on aviation, the White Paper goes some way in trying to redress the balance between environmental concerns and the future of the aviation industry. Indeed, on pages 40 and 41, paragraphs 3.40 to 3.43, we talk about emissions and other issues that hon. Members have raised, and about the adoption by airports, airlines and air traffic controllers of working practices that minimise the impact of their activities. In addition, they discuss research and development by aerospace manufacturers of new technologies to reduce climate change. We will press them on all of them.
The White Paper also talks about voluntary actions by airlines, airports and aerospace companies to control greenhouse gas, the point about the International Civil Aviation Organisation and action at a European level. We say clearly in paragraph 3.42:
"We reserve the right to act alone or bilaterally with like-minded partners if progress towards agreements at an international level proves too slow."
The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) is right in the sense that there are elements of things that one can do at a national level, at regional level and at international level. We need to take the balance and interaction of all three enormously seriously.
The comments made by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and by others about specific local infrastructure are again well made points. Throughout chapter 12—under delivering surface access improvements—we say that we would expect those matters to be addressed.
On some of the other points raised about environment, investment and appraisals—and others too—a strategic policy document, which will be a material planning matter when it comes to discussion of planning applications, should not be confused with the planning applications themselves. Many of the points that are worthy of substantive consideration that are made by hon. Members are rightly matters of detail for planning applications, not for a strategic policy document that lays out where the Government think that aviation should go in future. That applies to the
452WH
points raised by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) about environmental impact assessments, the issues about blight and everything else.
Mrs. Spelman: I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that the legal opinion on this matter is that the White Paper is very prescriptive and that it goes beyond being purely a strategic document. If a legal opinion on that is not enough, take the view of the public who, once faced with the White Paper, will feel powerless to challenge it.
Mr. McNulty: The hon. Lady should not traduce the planning process in such a way, and her constituents—and anyone else who does not like the absolute detail that is subsequent to any area addressed in the White Paper—should make full use of that planning process. Her point on public consultation in the genesis of regional spatial strategies and the local development framework is well made and it is statutorily in the Bill now in terms of planning and compulsory purchase.
All those processes are not precluded or ignored by the White Paper; it is not a planning document. It says quite clearly where we think that aviation should go over the next 30 years. It is entirely in order, by the by, for anything that we have rejected or something else to drop out of the blue in terms of an application. Nothing in the White Paper precludes anyone from making any sort of application that they want in terms of airport capacity. The White Paper is the way in which the Government suggest that things should go over the 30-year horizon. It will be a material planning matter when it comes to inquiries and applications. Given that it is a material matter, it will be incorporated into strategies. Therefore, the strategic policy document should not be confused with the planning document.
I know that I will run out of time. However—this is for the business managers, not for me—I would welcome a fuller debate on this issue, either on individual matters and applications or in a broader debate than that. I would say, not least because of the 27 documents and because of a range of work programmes, that we have held up pending the publication of the White Paper. However long it may seem to individuals—given their serious concerns—it is a tad premature to have that fuller debate until everything is in the public domain that needs to be there. Many things were held up because of the process—
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order.

Dental Services (East Devon)
3.30 pm
Mr. Hugo Swire: I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss the provision of dentistry in East Devon.
The chronic shortage of dentists in East Devon is by no means a recent phenomenon. It is widely acknowledged that there has been a long-standing need to develop capacity, especially in Exmouth, and the problem is simple: as dentists who do work on behalf of the NHS become exclusively private practices or retire, they are not being replaced. At a time when the East Devon primary care trust recognises that capacity should be increasing, it is being lost.
The East Devon primary care trust underlined the uncertainty among dental professionals about the future of their businesses and pointed out that no practices in East Devon were registering new NHS patients. The emergency dental clinic based in Exeter is testament to that dire situation, as shortages in my own and neighbouring constituencies have led to extreme pressure on the service and a tripling of the number of patients attending the Sunday session. The primary care trust notes that the services are struggling to manage the demand from patients. Because there are so few NHS dentists, the emergency clinics are being stretched to breaking point.
The growing population in Exmouth should have necessitated two extra dentists to cover the demand, but instead it has lost one and is shortly to lose another. No successors have been appointed and, with local practices full to capacity, patients wishing to register with an NHS dentist are faced with unacceptable journeys—in some cases, round trips in excess of 50 miles—just to see a dentist.
The retirement of Martin Lewis and that of Bernard Jones, whose practice is on the Exeter road, will result in some 5,000 people having to re-register with practices as far away as Cullompton or Crediton. There is even talk locally of patients having to travel as far as Plymouth. For many, that is too much of a strain. One of the reasons for Mr. Jones's retirement is the cost of adapting his premises to meet the terms of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. A further problem in Exmouth is with Mr. Alistair Danby's attempt to open a clinic in Rolle road. I urge the primary care trust and East Devon district council to resolve the matter urgently and help to locate Mr. Danby in suitable premises in Exmouth.
Some 32.3 per cent. of my constituents are of pensionable age, the second highest proportion in the country, compared with a United Kingdom average of only 18.5 per cent. Not only are there many older, vulnerable people in my constituency, but because of demographics and the sparseness of settlements, it is tricky for many people to travel so far to see a dentist. In my constituency, only 5 per cent. of people use public transport as a means of travelling to work; the United Kingdom average is 14.6 per cent. That shows that access to public transport is limited in many areas, and it is relatively slow, time-consuming and costly and for many older people it takes a great deal of effort.
Surprisingly, East Devon is the 139th most sparsely populated of the 659 constituencies in the United Kingdom. The access domain of the indices of
454WH
deprivation 2000, which ranked all 8,414 wards in England based on the April 1998 boundaries by geographical access to services, showed that East Devon contains many wards with low-ranking access to services.
Colaton Raleigh, Beer, Colyton and Sidmouth Rural are all in the top 25 per cent. most access-deprived wards in the United Kingdom, while many parts of Exmouth are in the top 50 per cent. Not having a dentist within easy reach merely exacerbates the problems that many of my constituents already face.
In assessing the cost and time of making the seemingly inevitable journey from Cullompton to Exmouth, I have acquired the following figures: a daily bus pass from Exmouth to Cullompton costs £6 for an adult, £4 for a child and £3 for an old-age pensioner. That is by no means the worst of it. If, having been in the unlikely but extremely fortunate position of catching a bus from Exmouth, one were to catch a connecting service from Exeter without any delay, it would take one and a half hours to reach Cullompton. In the very best case scenario, that would involve a three-hour round trip. In reality, that journey is likely to last anything between four and five hours, which is quite simply preposterous.
Scores of letters from concerned constituents, extremely worried by the prospect of having to travel so far, have prompted me to secure this debate. I have also received my first ever letter from a stalwart of Exmouth, the Exmouth town crier, the estimable Tregarthen Gibson. He asked for my help for the population of Exmouth, which is, after all, Devon's largest town. Unless we get urgent extra dentistry in Exmouth, even Mr. Tregarthen Gibson's teeth might be under threat. The prospect of a whimper rather than a cry from our town crier is too tragic to contemplate—but I digress.
A typical letter comes from Mr. Yorke from Exmouth, who, reliant on incapacity benefit and pension credit like many others, has been told that he will have to travel to Cullompton to register with a dentist. He says:
"I find it appalling that to get dental treatment I am expected to make a round trip of about 40–50 miles. To do this on public transport would probably take me a whole day and cause me considerable pain and distress."
Exmouth town council has also written to me, expressing its concern about the shortage of NHS registered dentists. It outlines two very important factors as to the effects the shortages are having.
"Appointments have to be made some 3 months ahead in many cases as dentists' books are full. The result is that problems can soon turn into an emergency, resulting in premium charges being levied. Private treatment is already expensive for the average person. The number of Dentists who are practising National Health Service Dentists are now few and far between."
I do not wish to trespass on my neighbour's turf, but during my research for this debate I spoke to David Lidden, whose dental practice in New street, Honiton looks after the Swire family's teeth. His story is not untypical. The practice consists of four dentists, each of whom see 30 to 40 people a day, not so much to earn money—although that is unquestionably a factor for some dentists—but to get through the ever-increasing numbers of people queueing to see them. The result is that the dentists cannot spend enough time with each patient, and are, in David Lidden's own words, administering "pastoral care"—that is, putting patients

455WH
out of pain—nothing more. The practice has an average 10 calls a day from people inquiring about treatment. The practice policy is not to turn people in acute pain away; none the less, they turn people away each and every day. I will not stray over the border any more; I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) wishes to contribute to the debate.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order. Has the Minister agreed that the hon. Lady may speak?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): I am happy for the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) to take part, as long as I have enough time to reply.
Mr. Swire: I took the precaution of telephoning the Minister's office this morning to clear that in advance.
Dr. Kenneth Croft, a dentist based in Exmouth, is extremely concerned about the shortages and the proposed changes to the dental profession. His concerns relate largely to the uncertainty that will hit the profession when the budget and commissioning for NHS dentistry devolve to primary care trusts from 1 April 2005. There is consternation about the many unknowns that face dentist professionals. As such, many are not prepared to wait and are opting instead for the relative security of exclusively private practice.
Dr. Croft is as anxious as any other dentist about the outcome. He says:
"Dentists are cagey as they don't know what's going on so won't take on NHS patients".
Many are frustrated because they do not yet have the details to enable them to plan and budget for the changes. Payment is projected to be based on 2002 earnings while taking account for inflation by 2005, yet dentists who already own computer equipment will be expected to upgrade it so that they may be monitored by the local primary care trust. For Dr. Croft. that has been estimated at £4,000. He argues that that is an investment that dentists in their mid to late fifties, who are nearing retirement at 60, simply will not make.
I asked Dr. Croft about the additional £10 bounty that I read was being offered in parts of Exeter—a claim made by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw). I understand that that has been dismissed by many local dentists as nothing more than a gimmick. I will give an example to show why. Dr. Croft charges £31 for a private assessment with X-rays, and is paid £6 for an NHS assessment. With the extra £10, he would receive only £16, which is just over half of what he would receive privately.
Dr. Croft is, unsurprisingly, cynical about what the Government are doing, and sees it as being along the lines of dentists making the investment and the Government taking the credit. He believes that the Government are ultimately trying to force dentists out of the health service. With the retirement of Bernard Jones, there will be seven registered NHS dentists left in Exmouth, of whom one is part-time; I hope that the reduction stops there, but I doubt that it will.
456WH
The Government also appear to be failing in getting the public to take oral health seriously. When my party left office in 1997, 68 per cent. of under-18s were registered with dentists. By December last year, that figure had dramatically reduced to 60 per cent.—a reduction of more than 1 million teenagers and children. Likewise, for over-18s, the figures make for worrying reading: more than 52 per cent. were registered in 1997, but that has dropped under the Government to 45 per cent., which represents 3 million fewer people registering.
Speaking in the House of Lords on 1 December 2003, Lord Colwyn, himself a dentist, alluded to many of the problems facing dental surgery that Dr. Croft referred to. In his anticipation of the abolition of the Dental Practice Board in 2005, he said that
"we must not forget that there are practice owners who have borrowed money, mortgaged their houses and invested capital to provide the premises from which this service is to be provided, and they are now going to be subjected to a limited income. It will be obvious to the Minister that no one who has invested in their own business in this way will be happy with this restriction. So there is still a real risk that many dentists will either leave the NHS or increase their private work in the face of this uncertainty."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 December 2003; Vol. 655, c. 134.]
Until the Minister addresses those genuine concerns, we cannot hope that the situation with which we are faced will improve. Also, when will the review of the dental work force—promised in 2001 by the then Minister with responsibility for dentistry, Lord Hunt—be published?
The British Dental Association believes that there is a need for a 25 per cent. increase in the annual graduation figures for dental students. There are currently 800 a year. Last year, there were more entrants to the General Dental Council's register from abroad than from new graduates in the United Kingdom. Many of the issues surrounding the dearth of NHS dentists may partly be explained by the fact that dentistry's share of total NHS spend has fallen over the years from 5 per cent. to 3 per cent.
Such experiences are being repeated not just in my part of Devon but all over the county. In North Devon, the same problems emerge. I have spoken to Orlando Fraser, the Conservative prospective parliamentary candidate for North Devon, whose research suggests that, because of the past parsimony in respect of NHS funding, more dentists are choosing to treat only, or mostly, private patients other than children and pregnant mothers—a development that he says is leading to shortages of NHS dentists in North Devon and, by inference, greater waiting times for NHS patients.
The problem that we must overcome is not just a short-term one; it is a medium and long-term one, too. It is not just local, but national. However, despite promises of cash injections by the Government, it has become apparent that newly qualified dentists, crippled by debt, are avoiding NHS work. Young dentists are opting for better-paid private work rather than NHS jobs in clinics in a bid to improve their finances faster.
A British Dental Association survey found that average debt among dental students rose by 23 per cent. in 2002 alone, with final-year students being an average of £12,700 in debt. The percentage of graduates with debts over £30,000 has also more than tripled since 2001.

457WH
A third of those taking part in the survey said that their level of debt would influence their career choice, with the influence stronger where there were higher levels of debt.
A survey published earlier this year found that over half of dentists' income comes from treating private patients and that more than a quarter of UK dental patients now pay privately for their care. A report by the Audit Commission published last September showed that 40 per cent. of dentists will not take on new NHS patients. We have even heard that the Welsh Assembly has begun offering grants of up to £50,000 to encourage dentists to set up practices in areas where the shortages are worst. A team from Pembrokeshire's local health board is apparently combing recruitment fairs as far afield as London to try to find more dentists.
It is quite possible that we will end up with a better system as a result of "Options for change"—which, incidentally, was last heard of in a military context as there was a 1991 paper with the same name. The fear is that by putting dentists on a salary, which is what it will do, fewer patients will be treated. What can the Government do? I hope that the Minister will resist the temptation to throw figures at us this afternoon as the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), does when questioned. We hear that a total of £1.2 billion is devolved to primary care trusts; £59 million—
3.47 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
3.59 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Swire: This morning, BBC Radio Devon asked me, in a rather cynical fashion, what the point of the debate was, as if it would not achieve anything, but I earnestly hope that it will. I hope that the Minister will not re-announce the old figures of £1.2 billion and £59 million—all the figures that have been thrown around the Chamber over the past few months. I also hope that she will not blame everything on the last Tory Government and what happened back in 1992. Equally, if she refers to the 20 per cent. cuts, that argument is wearing a bit thin, given the pronouncements made this morning by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) that we would at least match, if not exceed, Labour's expenditure on the NHS.
If the Minister's mailbag in Welwyn Hatfield is anything like mine, she will be aware of the problems. I hope that she will give some hope to my constituents who, as I hope she will have realised from what I have said, are increasingly worried about the lack of dental provision.
4 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) on securing the debate. I shall add some points to those that he made, because part of East Devon district overlaps with my constituency, and we adjoin the city of Exeter. I, too, speak on behalf of constituents in East Devon, including very elderly frail people, some of whom are in residential care. For
458WH
example, there is a lady in residential care in Broadclyst, in my constituency, whose dentist in Exeter no longer takes NHS patients.
In the Mid Devon part of my constituency, there are practices open—in Crediton, Cullompton and Tiverton—but the problem is the time taken to journey there from East Devon, coupled with the fact that no more dentists in the city of Exeter are taking on NHS patients. Over the past month I have corresponded with Jill Ashton, chief executive of Exeter primary care trust; she tells me that the trust urgently needs the dental access money that the Government have promised. It intends to use that money to give financial support to existing practices so that they can take more NHS patients, and to use it for out-of-hours work. I am concerned that if no one is taking on any more NHS patients in Exeter or in East Devon, the pressure on the Mid Devon part of my constituency will become acute.
The Minister should bear it in mind that that money is urgently needed. The primary care trust has to bid for it, and I do not know how long the process takes. I hope that she can give us some reassurance that that money will come through to the trusts very shortly.
4.2 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) secured the debate, because it has given us the opportunity to discuss dentistry in East Devon and NHS dentistry in general.
The oral health of the population has improved enormously since the NHS was set up. However, that improvement has been uneven and there remain areas, both in inner cities and in rural England, where dental disease remains high. The Government are committed to reducing those health inequalities. Equally challenging is the fact that, in some areas, people have difficulty in finding an NHS dentist—a problem that the hon. Gentleman highlighted.
Hon. Members will be aware that dentists are self-employed, independent contractors, and that they can accept as many or as few NHS patients as they wish and alter that commitment at will, without reference to the primary care trust. In addition, dentists can, quite legally, accept only certain categories of patients, such as children and adults who are exempt from patient charges.
The existing funding arrangements are unsatisfactory because they reflect the history of dentists' varying willingness to treat rather than the NHS's need to secure dentistry. That goes back a long time in the history of dentistry. If dentists in an area reduce the amount of NHS work that they do, the associated financial resources are reduced and that money is lost to the PCT. We therefore recognise that primary care organisations—in England, the PCTs—have little influence and few levers with which to manage the dental service at the local level, or to make the best use of the £1.8 billion, including patients' contributions, currently spent on general dental services.
Against that background, the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 is now on the statute book. One set of clauses that was welcomed

459WH
by both sides in both Houses covered the reform of NHS dentistry; that was the first real reform since the NHS was established.
We know that in some areas our constituents experience problems in accessing NHS dental services, so it might help if I make it clear that our policy—as expressed in the recent Act—aims to change the status quo, rather than to maintain it. It aims to widen access to NHS dental services and provide a more up-to-date legal framework that will better allow primary care trusts to develop and plan those services strategically.
The general principles proposed for the new primary dental service were set out in the report produced in August 2002 under the leadership of the then chief dental officer, Dame Margaret Seward, "NHS dentistry: Options for change". The report built on the outline programme for NHS dentistry that was set out in the NHS plan of 2002. One of the key recommendations of "Options for change" was that there be local commissioning of high-quality dental services, responsive to the needs and wishes of patients and better able to address inequalities in oral health. The report proposed that money should also be devolved to the local level to allow PCTs to secure provision of the new services. Under the new legislation, which provides a framework to take forward "Options for change", PCTs are given new powers to provide or secure the provision of primary dental services. The existing powers, under the National Health Service Act 1977, will be repealed to make way for new dental services contracts between PCTs and dental practices. The key aim of local commissioning is to provide a greater degree of operational control for the NHS locally, addressing the problem that I identified earlier, so that it can match planned services to the financial resources available to it. That would mean contracts for an agreed level of service over a fixed period of time, to be delivered to agreed quality standards.
The new system will make it possible to pass to PCTs the £1.2 billion of financial resources that are currently held centrally. Current spending will be protected and, once the reform system is in place, it will be possible over time to adjust and grow NHS allocations to take account of the health inequalities that would persist under the old system. As I have said, existing patterns of expenditure on dentistry reflect the varying willingness of dentists to treat, rather than the needs of the NHS to secure dentistry. In the longer term, NHS funding allocations for dentistry will need to take oral health needs into account, as general allocations currently do in relation to general health needs. The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 will result in a modernised primary dental service, properly integrated with primary care services in the rest of the NHS.
Following the publication of "Options for change" the dental profession was invited to come forward with ideas for testing the proposals in the report. The response was overwhelming: work is under way with dentists in 50 different sites testing ideas, 20 of whom are considering ways of paying for the service. We already have five years' experience of local commissioning of dentistry under the personal dental services pilot programme, where resources are devolved to the front
460WH
line. Those pilots are now treating 750,000 people a year and have shown what works well and what less well. The field sites are building on that learning to refine a simple but robust "base contract", which all PCTs and dentist should have in place by April 2005.
Dentists' gross earnings will be protected for three years from April 2005, and will be assessed on the most recent gross earnings, and we are in discussion with the dental IT system suppliers in preparation for that change. More detailed proposals have been sent to the BDA in recent days, which hon. Members may not have caught up with yet. That would be understandable.
The main issue, which is difficult to address locally, lies with work force numbers. It has proven very difficult to attract new dentists into the East Devon area, either for GDS or salaried posts in the dental access centre. There are a number of unfilled posts across the South West Peninsula area. Numbers of dentists in the general dental services nationally are now fairly stable after steady increases for many years, but the current GDS system has provided no method of securing any overall increase in the volume of NHS treatment provided by an increase in the work force. That underlies the need to move to the new contractual framework that I have set out.
The review that was undertaken in response to the Health Committee report fully involved the dental profession—professional bodies, the BDA, dental academics and so on. We expect to announce the outcome of that review shortly. We are taking measures to sustain NHS dentistry until implementation of the Bill allows the NHS to address local historical anomalies. Last August we announced additional funds to support PCTs as they get to grips with the new agenda. We have established an NHS dentistry support team backed by £9 million to help PCTs tackle local access problems in the run up to local commissioning in 2005.
Last September we announced additional funding of £65.2 million to support change and help improve access quality and choice for patients. That funding is now being targeted at PCTs where access is a real problem: £35 million is being used to enable PCTs to improve access, choice and quality for patients, £30 million is being used for information technology to integrate dentistry, and £200,000 is being used to develop dental leadership skills. That funding comes on top of the £9 million that I mentioned. A further £15 million of revenue in 2004–05 for access was announced on 25 November 2003.
Of course, the hon. Gentleman has brought to our attention the local position in East Devon. In my early remarks, I noted that there was a high level of discontent with the current arrangements. Dentists tell us that the current remuneration system feels like a treadmill, it is the main cause of dissatisfaction amongst dentists and patients, it is regarded as inefficient, and it leads to poor-quality services. It is the main barrier to dentists agreeing to undertake NHS work. Notwithstanding that, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) has spoken about the availability of dentists in parts of her constituency. The picture is not universally difficult, even in East Devon.
The new legislation will establish a new foundation for taking forward NHS dentistry by agreeing longer-term contracts between PCTs. I am aware that the East

461WH
Devon PCT is working on a plan to improve access to NHS dentistry in its area. Over £1.5 of the access money that we have announced is available in the South West Peninsula strategic health authority area. How that money is to be used to improve access is a decision for the NHS to take locally.
Finally, an increasing number of dentists committed to providing NHS services have indicated that they cannot wait until April 2005 to move away from the treadmill that I mentioned. PDS pilots offer PCTs and dentists an opportunity to experience the new ways of working in advance of the implementation of the Act in April 2005.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order.

Whistleblowers (Employment Tribunals)
4.13 pm
Ross Cranston: First, I must declare my interest as a member of the council, and formerly a chairman, of the charity Public Concern at Work. It gave me great satisfaction that, within weeks of the 1997 election, the charity was able to promote with the Government the Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), that became the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. That legislation has been in force for four and a half years, and appears to be working well. It has become an international benchmark, while at home it is one of the few employment law measures of the past 15 years that has not been criticised by either business or unions.
The essential change that that legislation secured is that, where there is a danger of threat to the public interest in the workplace, employees can now be assured that the law will stand by them and provide a safe alternative to silence should they speak up for the interests of others. In order to strengthen organisational accountability, the law encourages the employee to raise the concern internally first, if that is practicable. The Act also protects disclosures to regulators and the wider public. It does that by providing that if employees are sacked or victimised by the employer for public interest whistleblowing, they will be fully compensated for any losses.
One consequence of that legislative framework is that, if employees are victimised or sacked for internal whistleblowing and then settle their employment tribunal claims, the danger or threat to the public interest will remain concealed unless they decide to disclose that the information or their claim is on the public record, which was Parliament's intention when it passed the 1998 Act.
Three current examples of such a threat will suffice to illustrate the importance of the PIDA legislation. First, someone victimised because they warn an employer about the dangers facing migrant workers engaged to gather cockles at Morecambe bay. Secondly, someone forced out for questioning an employer about the validity of the statistical approach used in legal proceedings to assess the risks of cot death. Thirdly, someone sacked for challenging the way that a major insurance company has misled investors about the strength of its assets by understating the impact of the guaranteed annuities that it provides.
Let us say that in each of those cases an employee brings a case under PIDA. If the employer settles the claim, there is a suggestion that information about the wrongdoing would be confidential and the claim would be kept out of the public domain. The suggestion is that that should be the case even though the claim is brought under the Act in a public forum at public expense and relates to a danger to the public. If that were the case, the only way for that information to reach a regulator or those at risk would be if the now ex-employee made a further disclosure after settling the claim. That places too heavy a burden on an employee who has already lost their job through raising the matter. It does not make sense that advancing the public interest should be delegated to a private citizen.
Let me recount some history. In 2000, the Employment Tribunals Service refused to give access to any information in PIDA claims. It maintained that

463WH
such access would assist the activities of ambulance chasers that made unsolicited approaches to parties. That was despite the Department of Trade and Industry's accepting that, for example, Public Concern at Work had a legitimate right to information about PIDA claims, especially the perceived wrongdoing, the person to whom the concern was disclosed, and the reprisal that the employee claimed to have suffered. That organisation rightly argued that it needed that information to monitor how the Act worked and to advise employers and employees accordingly.
Public Concern at Work sought judicial review of the decision and the High Court ruled that it was entitled, under the then rules, to know the gist of whistleblowing claims brought under the Act. Addressing the issue of public interest, the conclusions that Mr. Justice Jackson reached were:
"(1) There are respectable and conflicting arguments as to whether the disclosure of details of claims initiated in employment tribunals is in the public interest. The policy arguments are not so overwhelming in either direction that I should strive to avoid what appears to be the natural meaning of the regulations.
(2) It is sometimes embarrassing for a party to employment tribunal proceedings to have certain details of his claim made public. On the other hand, claimants in the court suffer similar embarrassment. That is part of the price which all citizens pay in order to have the benefit of an open system of justice.
(3) It has always been the policy of the law that, so far as possible, litigation should be conducted under the public gaze and under the critical scrutiny of all who wish to report legal proceedings.
(4) The principle of open justice applies to employment tribunals with just as much force as it applies to court proceedings".
Although the court ordered that Public Concern at Work should be given access to PIDA claims, the effect of the judgment also applied to all employment tribunal claims. That prompted the CBI, which accepted that there should be access to PIDA claims, to express concerns about general access to all employment claims.
Immediately before the summer recess in 2000 the Department of Trade and Industry introduced the new regulations without consultation. Those required that for the first time the addresses of the parties should be placed on the public register, which could only assist the work of ambulance chasers.
The Minister's predecessors insisted that the regulations were temporary while the issue was given proper consideration. During the next 12 months DTI Ministers gave written undertakings on six occasions that the issue would be consulted on in a "fair, reasonable and informed" way, as the present Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), said. The issue was touched on briefly in the 2001 consultation paper titled "Routes to Resolution". Despite the failure to set out fully the background that I have outlined, twice as many respondents to that paper favoured making public the particulars of employment claims as those that opposed it. Three times as many respondents would have preferred the position that existed prior to the temporary regulations. Incidentally, the 2000 regulations remain in place.
464WH
Let me turn to the current consultation paper on the draft revised employment tribunal regulations and rules of procedure, which was issued in December 2003. I am disappointed that the section of the paper on the register may mislead consultees. The paper begins the story in August 2000, thereby avoiding some of the background that I have outlined. It suggests that the current regulations reflect the status quo and omits to mention that they form a temporary measure that removes the public's right to know the gist of claims being brought in employment tribunals. It makes no reference to Mr. Justice Jackson's judgment, which I have quoted, nor does it detail the public interest reasons that his lordship relied on in favouring open justice. It does not say that the 2000 regulations for the first time required the register to detail the addresses of parties, thereby causing the Government to receive, in its own words, which I accept,
"numerous complaints from parties who have found it very intrusive and highly unwelcome to be contacted by third parties offering advice or other services."
The paper then refers to the earlier paper—"Routes to Resolution"—and says:
"A large majority of respondents opposed"
any change to the rules to make available the particulars of a claim. Given what I have said, that is not a complete analysis of the responses to that earlier consultation document.
In setting out the case for and against an open register, the paper suggests that there can be no right to know the gist of tribunal claims without also revealing the addresses of the parties, and thereby enabling unsolicited and unwelcome approaches to be made to them. As with the earlier consultation, no reference is made to the public interest in open justice. That omission is more surprising when the paper states:
"On the other hand each individual claim is a private matter. Individuals have"
a right
"to privacy."
As I said, Mr. Justice Jackson held that right to be overridden by the public interest in open justice. The paper goes wrong in suggesting that the present level of public access to information about employment claims is greater than that in the civil courts. Under civil procedure rule 5.4, as has always been the case in the High Court, the public have the right to inspect the document by which a claimant initiates proceedings.
The paper sets out five options in paragraph 70. Unfortunately, the options do not include any suggestion of returning to the trouble-free position prior to August 2000, treating whistleblowing claims differently, or including on the register the gist of employment tribunal claims. It is with considerable regret that I have to tell my hon. Friend the Minister that I find it difficult to reconcile the current consultation with the undertakings that his hon. and right hon. Friends have given to consider this matter and consult on it in a fully informed way. As an aside I have to express considerable surprise that Public Concern at Work was omitted from the list of pre-consultees.
On the substantive policy, the correct way forward would seem to be for the new rules to provide a right of public access to claims brought under PIDA and, I

465WH
suggest, the responses too, to ensure that anyone seeking the information can see a balanced picture. The CBI has stated that there should be access to PIDA claims. The TUC, among others, has also accepted that they should be treated differently from other employment claims. After all, PIDA is legislation that the House passed about public interest disclosures. I emphasise that. It seems paradoxical, to say the least, to disapply the basic principles of open justice from such claims, whatever reasons there are for doing so for other employment cases. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues will see the merit of the approach that I have described and accept that it is the correct way forward.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order. I ask hon. Members to bear it in mind that the debate will finish at 4.43 pm and the Minister needs at least 10 minutes to respond adequately.
4.25 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) for initiating this short debate. I am also grateful to the Minister for indicating that he would accept a brief contribution from me.
I was, in one sense, the parliamentary means by which the measure went on to the statute book, because it passed through the private Member's Bill procedure. Its passage was achieved only because the measure had the committed support of the Government, including the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who was then a Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry. He was a constant supporter of the concepts behind the Bill after it first emerged during the last Conservative Government's period of office. I am therefore grateful on a number of fronts: getting the Bill on to the statute book could not have been achieved without the Government's support; and, by the time it was introduced, I had convinced the Conservative Opposition that it was a necessary and proper measure, so it completed its passage without opposition in the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
When I introduced the Bill, there was a right of access to the gist of a claim. The essence of the debate is that that has since been removed, in circumstances that have caused the ombudsman to investigate. I make it clear that, whatever the outcome of that investigation, I would have put the provision in the Bill as a matter of policy if I had had the slightest idea that the DTI would be minded to keep such information secret. I know that the Government at that time were aware of the implications of making information available.
Mine is a simple point, because the case has been laid out well by the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North. The Government should honour what was a clear understanding, even though that is not, in itself, a big deal. I hope that the Minister will make that clear this afternoon. I have reason to know that he is one of the world's greatest experts on Burns—indeed, no man knows more about the sense of liberty and fairness that runs through the works of Burns. I hope that, as was the case last night, he will give us a bonny answer.
4.28 pm
Tony Wright: I thought that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who is my neighbour, would continue for a little longer. Indeed, I was not even sure that I would be able to contribute because of the need for the debate to stop by 4.43 pm, but perhaps I can detain colleagues for a moment.
We all like to claim some role in the paternity of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, and I want to enter my claim. It began life as a ten-minute Bill many years ago under a previous Government. I was delighted when, after one or two little episodes on the way, it finally saw the light of day through the efforts of my neighbour. Under the Conservative Government, it was opposed: they would not accept it, so it went through the process and was destroyed. I am delighted that it was a Labour Government who produced this major public interest legislation.
Two questions matter to me. The first is, how on earth was the mess that was forensically described by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) allowed to happen? The parliamentary ombudsman is to conduct an investigation into whether the consultation procedures were maladministrative. To be fair to the Government, they have made great strides in improving the quality of consultation and have strict rules about how it should be conducted. To test whether they were followed in this case is a depressing, but important exercise. My concern is about the process and whether the consultation worked well enough.
My second concern is more fundamental. The only question that needs to be asked is: where does the public interest lie? Hon. Members will recall that that question was endlessly, but interestingly, debated during the passage of the 1998 Act. The question now is whether the public interest lies in having it known what claims made under the Act are about. We have only to ask that question to know the answer. Of course we need to know that if we are to make any judgment about how the Act is working and if the public interest is to be maintained.
My conclusion is simply that if we are to be consistent with the founding principles of the 1998 Act, we must know the basis on which claims are made. I am sure that the Minister, who is full of good sense and generosity, will agree and will reply in an encouraging way.
4.32 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): I apologise to the Chamber on behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers, who has ministerial responsibility for this subject. He has other duties, namely the matter of aerospace, to deal with in the House at this time. I am glad to be able to stand in for him, particularly in such distinguished company.
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) on securing a debate on such an important matter. It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who did so much to advance the cause and secure historic legislation. It is a pleasure also to listen to my hon. Friend the Member

467WH
for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) who, as well as being Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, played a significant role as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Lord Chancellor when the legislation was debated. We await his memoirs with great interest.
I want to touch on the core of the issue. I remind the Chamber that the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 came into force in July 1999 as an employment protection measure. It added whistleblowing to the statute book and made whistleblowing on wrongdoing in the workplace an employer's responsibility. It ensured that protection against victimisation was available as provided by the Employment Rights Act 1996 and allowed workers who are victimised to complain to an employment tribunal and to receive unlimited compensation.
The measure that we are currently discussing, which is the subject of a consultation paper, has been commented on by informed outsiders. I pay tribute to the work of Public Concern at Work and Guy Dehn in highlighting their concerns about the content of the consultation document, and those concerns have been echoed and elaborated on by hon. Members today. The Government believe that there is a need for a public debate on the future of the register of employment tribunal applications. The current open consultation is designed to help colleagues to judge where the balance of public interest lies. None of that removes the importance to Public Concern at Work and other such organisations of information on employment tribunal claims. Their interest will be an important consideration in the Government's judgment about the future of the register.
The register of applications serves a number of important purposes for the moment. It allows information about the enforcement of employment rights to be publicly available. It assists bona fide special interest groups, such as Public Concern at Work, who may wish to monitor certain types of case and allows them to monitor the Act. It also enables those who have particular services to offer, such as employment law advice and representation at a tribunal, to make unsolicited approaches to applicants. Provided that solicitors and others advertising their services act with due propriety, the Government's view is that they are capable of significantly extending access to justice and the rule of law to individuals.
Concern has been expressed about the number of so-called ambulance chasers who have been touting for business in ways that have received unfavourable publicity. There have also been allegations of blacklists of employment tribunal applicants, which may be checked by certain unsavoury organisations before
468WH
recommending staff for recruitment. One of the recommendations of the employment tribunal system taskforce, which hon. Members will know is an organisation made up of tribunal judiciary, ACAS, the TUC, the CBI and other representatives of tribunal users, said that the register of applications should be abolished. The consultation document ensures that all possible views are included.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase, the question about the public register of tribunal applications continuing unchanged is posed, and posed directly, in question 16. I should not like him to think that the document was produced by anyone with a closed mind or preconceived notions or that it was merely an insignificant consultation paper that could not influence decisions that have already been taken. That is far from the truth. With the number of PIDA applications rising in recent years—there were 524 two years ago and the last available figure showed that they had risen to 657—there is clearly a demand for this and there have been some well-publicised cases.
I have noted with concern some of the key points that have been made. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers is willing to meet my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North and other hon. Friends and Members to discuss their concerns and to take on board the points that they are making both on their own behalf and on behalf of their constituents and special interest groups.
It is in everyone's interest to ensure that there is as much public disclosure as is practical and that this type of legislation is as effective as possible. I, for one, do not want to see anything that might deter people from using the power that they have been given and enlisting any help they may need to pursue their claims. Nor is it desirable that other responsible people should not have access to a database. The consultation document is about how the practical database may be made available. It also takes on board views directly opposed to those that have been expressed today, such as the employment tribunal system taskforce's view that the register should be abolished.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers will review all representations that are currently being made on the consultation paper both by hon. Members and informed outsiders and weigh them up seriously before coming up with the final proposals, which will be subject to debate in Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Five o'clock.