Westminster Hall Sitting of 7 September 2004

Preamble
[SIR NICHOLAS WINTERTON in the Chair]

Road Safety
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I welcome you all back after part of the summer recess and express the hope that you are duly recharged and rested and that we can look forward to some excellent, constructive and responsible debates in Westminster Hall?
9.30 am
Mr. Richard Bacon: I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise the issue of road traffic deaths and road safety, which is of concern to many in the House, as is attested to by the attendance this morning. The United Kingdom has a good road safety record compared with many other countries. The Minister would probably agree that we are one of the world leaders. The latest figures from the Department for Transport show that in 2001 the UK suffered 3,598 road deaths whereas France, which has more than twice the land area, suffered 8,160. In Germany the comparable figure was 6,977 and in Italy 6,410. In Japan the number of deaths exceeded 10,000, which is horrendous. The United States has a larger population, but none the less the figure was a staggering 42,000. However, we have no reason for complacency.
Road traffic safety has undoubtedly risen up the agenda in recent months after being eclipsed by issues such as schools, hospitals and crime. I see that the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) is in his place. Just before the House rose for the summer recess he introduced an excellent ten-minute Bill, the Motor Vehicle Manslaughter Bill. I am sure that he will refer to that in his own contribution, should he be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
A number of serious cases have come to my attention since I became an MP. There is a wide range of issues to which one could refer in relation to road traffic safety and road traffic deaths. We could have a whole debate on rural speed. There is no doubt that while the Government have made progress in tackling speed, they have made more progress in urban areas than in rural. In a rural constituency such as mine, which has 122 parishes and where half the population live in a village of well below 1,000 people, casualties and accidents on rural roads remain a hugely significant issue.
I could spend much of the debate talking about motor cycles. Indeed, two of the cases to which I shall refer later concern motor cycle accidents. A constituent, who, I am pleased to say, is a safe motor cyclist, has drawn my attention to the problem of people who as teenagers or in their early 20s have experience of riding a low-powered motor cycle. Later in life, perhaps when they are more prosperous and have a family, they return to motor cycling after some 20 years and buy extremely powerful machines. They think that they are as adept at
182WH
riding such a machine as they were at riding, for example, a Yamaha 125 when they were 17 or 19. They are not. Many accidents are caused in that way.
Not only the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety but the Motor Cycle Industry Association has called for a review of direct access to high performance motor cycles. I come from the more libertarian wing of politics. I do not like unnecessary controls on people, but that is something that should be considered. Indeed, one case to which I shall refer involved a motor cycling instructor, whose capacity as a safe motor cyclist was not in question, yet tragically he was killed in a head-on collision with another vehicle.
I could talk about seat belts at some length. The campaign in the 1970s and onwards for people to wear front seat belts is being backed up by an ongoing campaign for belting up in the back, which most people support.
Drink-driving remains another area of concern. A not uncontroversial proposal has been discussed to reduce the alcohol content in the blood limit from 0.8 to 0.5 mg. That is of particular concern in rural areas, where often the only safe way to get to a pub is by car. The proposal is controversial, not least because most fatal alcohol-related accidents involve those who are way over the limit, not those who are around and about it. The Department for Transport has suggested that 50 lives could be saved if the limit were reduced to 0.5 mg. I suspect that that is within the margin of error.
I intend to concentrate on two issues. The first relates to the law in relation to road safety and fatal road traffic accidents. The second is speed cameras. I do not think that I could speak in this debate without at least referring to speed cameras, which are hugely controversial, not least in Norfolk right at the moment. The most prominent recent case involves my constituent, Mrs. Jenny Mason. In January 2003, Mrs. Mason's 42-year-old son Andrew was killed in a head-on collision with a car that had been attempting, unsafely, to overtake a lorry on the A1066 in my constituency. Mr. Mason did not have a chance. He flashed his headlights twice. He braked hard and veered into the verge. Unfortunately he crashed into the car. He was catapulted into the air, struck the roof of the car and landed in the middle of the road. He was a motor cycle instructor and had an advanced driving certificate. He had been due to give his daughter away at her wedding four days later. His wife, Mairi, describes the impact of his death simply:
"His mum lost her eldest son; I lost my husband and our three daughters their father. It has blown our lives apart."
Charles Wright, the 90-year-old who was driving the car involved in the accident, was charged with careless driving. He did not attend court for his prosecution because he claimed he was too frail, although he was obviously not too frail to get behind the wheel of a motor car. Originally he was given a £150 fine, ordered to pay £200 costs and disqualified from driving for 12 months. One can find many similar cases in different parts of the country. Indeed, were I to go through all the cases I have come across in preparing for this debate, there would be no time for any other contributions. No matter where one looks, one finds similar stories of people causing a death and being given a sentence that, in the eyes of most reasonable people and particularly in the eyes of the victims' families, is simply not just.

183WH
There have been a number of calls over the years in different Adjournment and other debates and most recently in the Motor Vehicle Manslaughter Bill proposed by the hon. Member for South Dorset for a change in the law. When the Minister addressed the Select Committee earlier in the summer on the proposals for a road safety Bill, he declined to propose a change in the law. One of my purposes in initiating this debate today is to give him the chance to reconsider whether a change in the law is now justified and apposite. My own feeling, looking at the various cases around the country, is that a change is now justified.
I will mention just one other case in passing because it comes from Norfolk, although not from my constituency. Mrs. Bridget Wall chained herself to the railings outside the House of Commons in late July before we rose because of the death of her son Adam, who died from head injuries received in a collision with a van that pulled out of a junction in front of him as he rode his motor cycle along the A47 at Walsoken in Norfolk. The driver later appeared in court, where he admitted driving without due care and attention; he was fined £180 and given six penalty points. In the Eastern Daily Press on 17 July, Mrs. Wall made a point that has been made by many other victims:
"I want people to be aware that the Government has violated human rights by not acknowledging the people killed. I cannot begin to mourn Adam until something is done about this gap in our legislation and until I have won this fight."
My constituent Mrs. Mason would echo those words. I am pleased to say that, as a result of her persistence, I was able to arrange a meeting between her and the chief constable of North Wales, Richard Brunstrom, who leads on road safety issues for the Association of Chief Police Officers. It was a very constructive meeting, and I thank Chief Constable Brunstrom publicly for meeting my constituent. That still leaves the question of what the Minister will do when the Bill comes before the House—I hope this autumn—because it is not clear that the Government have got the balance right.
At present, the law on this issue fails. There are several offences on the statute book relating to dangerous or careless driving. The first is causing death by dangerous driving, which requires the prosecution to show that the driving of the accused caused the death of another person, that it fell far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and that it would be obvious to such a driver that driving in that way was dangerous.
The second driving offence is dangerous driving, without causing death, which requires the prosecution to show that an individual's driving fell below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and that it would be obvious to such a driver that driving in that way was dangerous.
Then there are the careless driving offences. Under such an offence, an individual can be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention, and a prosecution will generally be appropriate when their driving shows serious miscalculation or disregard for road safety. Under the same section of the relevant legislation, an individual can be charged with driving without reasonable consideration, which is appropriate
184WH
when their driving behaviour amounts to selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness, or causes inconvenience to others.
Then there is an offence of causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs, and I stress the reference to drink or drugs because one of the central issues is that there is no simple offence of causing death by careless driving. The nature of the offence of dangerous driving means that the burden of proving that driving was dangerous results in prosecutors being reduced to offering a charge of careless driving, which has much weaker penalties. With such a charge, the magistrate must consider the seriousness of the carelessness or the lack of consideration that constituted the offence. The basic offence of careless driving—leaving aside the issue of being under the influence of drink or drugs—completely ignores the fact that a death has been caused, which is one of the most serious problems with it. As the law stands, no account is taken in many cases that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service bring before the courts of the fact that a death has been caused. That is the central issue, which I want the Minister to address.
What will the Government do to acknowledge the widespread feeling among our constituents, of all parties and in all parts of the country, that the law needs to be able to take account of the fact of a death, irrespective of other circumstances?
Peter Bottomley: Most of us will have had such constituency cases. In my case, a constituent called Callum Oakford died when a driver drove carelessly. My hon. Friend may want to invite the Minister to say whether the Government, if they have no solution, are prepared to allow a free vote on an appropriate Bill to make it possible for the effect of dangerous driving to be made known to the court. Most grieving families do not necessarily want a punishment, but they want acknowledgment of what has happened. That matters just as much whether the driver has been drinking, taking drugs or driving carelessly.
Mr. Bacon:My hon. Friend is right. The lack of acknowledgment is the central problem. I do not pretend that legislation can provide an easy answer, but he makes an interesting suggestion. If the Government are not prepared to introduce proposals, perhaps they will allow a free vote on the issue. I would like the Government to consider introducing a charge of negligent driving—an intermediate offence between careless driving and dangerous driving—to allow courts to take account of the fact that a death has been caused. Recognition is the most important issue for families.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Is it not the case that driving under the influence of drink or drugs is dangerous in itself? Surely there must be a presumption that anyone driving under the influence of drink or drugs should be charged with dangerous driving, whether he has caused an accident or not.
Mr. Bacon:I agree with my hon. Friend. As he has no doubt seen, the sad truth is that there are many cases in which it is not in dispute that people were under the influence of alcohol—in some cases it is not in dispute that they were banned from driving—but they are still

185WH
let off with what most members of the public would view as a cursory slap on the wrist. If someone is driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or driving without insurance or when they are banned, there ought to be a presumption that those factors are taken into account in determining the penalty. In all events, a death, no matter how it was caused or the extent of the culpability of the driver, should be taken into account.
One must be able to imagine circumstances in which a death is caused in an accident but the driver is not culpable. I happen to know of a case in which someone driving through a green light, with a passenger seated to the left of them, was hit by someone coming from the side, killing the passenger. The person who hit the car was on a red light. In that case, the driver was not culpable and yet he was driving a vehicle in which someone was killed. It is not a given that the fact of a death should render the driver liable to prosecution. In the case that I have just cited, the other driver was probably liable. The facts should be available to the court, so that it is able to make a full, informed decision, because families of victims need acknowledgment of what has happened.
It should be possible, though not always necessary, to take full account of the consequences of drivers' actions in sentencing. It ought to be possible to define an offence of negligent driving, which would explicitly recognise that serious injury or death had been caused, by defining a duty of care that, if breached, would render the driver liable to more severe penalties such as imprisonment, disqualification or community service. I am not a lawyer, and the hon. Member for South Dorset might say that if we introduce an offence of negligent driving we might encounter the same problem that we have with dangerous and careless driving—namely, defining the degree of dangerousness or carelessness.
I do not stick rigidly to the idea that the offence should be called negligent driving. It is possible that a better route would be to define an offence that takes into account the fact of death rather than the quality of driving, as in the proposals made by the hon. Member for South Dorset for an offence of motor manslaughter, and a further offence of aggravated motor manslaughter. I am agnostic about that, and I am interested to hear what the Government have to say. There must be a method of changing the law to get the acknowledgment, which is lacking, into the courts.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says, but I hope that he will return to his starting point. The crucial matter is to reduce the number of deaths and serious accidents involving motor cyclists. Much of what he says about changing the law is absolutely right, but I hope he will stress the fact that we must not allow people who have been off a motor cycle for many years to go back on one without being fully trained. That is probably the cause of most motor cycle deaths today.
Mr. Bacon: I look forward with interest to the hon. Gentleman's speech. The very first thing that I was sent when I arrived at the House of Commons three years ago was a little pen pot from the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, showing down the side statistics for the number of deaths and serious injuries per 1 billion passenger miles on different forms
186WH
of transport. I vividly remember that the figure for travelling by air was 0.1 deaths and serious injuries per 1 billion passenger miles, the figure for travelling by train 0.7, the figure for travelling by car 40-something, the figure for travelling by bicycle in the 800s, and the figure for travelling by motor cycle about 1,400. There is no question but that motor cycles are the most lethal machines on the road.
Given how phenomenally fast motor cycles are, and how great their acceleration, there is a case for saying that if someone wishes to have a very powerful Ducati, BMW or Harley Davidson, they should undergo special instruction. I am sure that Mrs. Mason, whose son was a motor cycle instructor, would support that. I look forward to the contribution of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who was quite right to say that we must focus on accident reduction in all possible ways.
Other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall refer to just one further subject: speed cameras. They have become controversial recently. Perhaps the truth is that everyone would like a speed camera outside their house or near where they live, but does not want the inconvenience of speed cameras elsewhere. If they are being reasonable, most people accept that speed cameras have a role to play.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson)indicated assent.
Mr. Bacon: I see that the Minister agrees. I suspect that most people would also agree, however, that speed cameras are not sited purely according to safety criteria. I wait to hear him laugh and nod just as vehemently as he did at my previous point, but he does not. That is because the Government maintain what most people do not believe—that there is no question of speed cameras being sited on any ground other than safety. They maintain that speed cameras are purely about safety and that the motive of revenue simply does not enter people's heads. The Minister might be right about that, or he might be wrong, but I support the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) to have a review of the position of speed cameras, and I would like to have a sensible debate on the basis of facts.
I gave an interview on my local radio station this morning, which cut to a report from someone standing next to a speed camera on Grapes hill in Norwich that is perhaps the most notorious in East Anglia. There is no evidence at all of a cluster of collisions there. The site is a major urban dual carriageway that goes downhill, and I have been informed by Mr. Barry Parnell of the average speed at which motor cars are clocked there. He was the chief executive of the Norfolk safety camera partnership until he resigned earlier this summer following the issue of a report, still not made fully public, commissioned by the chief constable of Norfolk, Andy Hayman, on the criteria by which safety cameras were being installed. Mr. Parnell has since said, however, that his resignation was for entirely unrelated reasons.
The camera has now been turned off, although it is still in situ and may be turned on again. Most residents of Norwich and people who visit it from outside, including the many who live in South Norfolk but work

187WH
in Norwich, are bewildered as to why the camera is there. As I have said, the road is not the site of a collision cluster or an accident blackspot. I tabled a parliamentary question to try to find out how much revenue had been raised by the speed camera, because allegations were floating around, although I do not know whether they are true, that that camera had raised revenues of many hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not more.
It seems to me that the way to get round the problem is to make quite clear, and to publish on a website, the safety criteria used for each speed camera and the revenue that each raises.
Mr. Jamieson: The information is there.
Mr. Bacon: It is there now, is it? I am grateful to the Minister for telling me that, because when I tabled a parliamentary question not long ago, I was told that the information was not collected in that form. If that is correct, it is a welcome advance.
The Minister and the Government have not yet succeeded in bringing people all the way with them. If asked, most people say that there is some merit in speed cameras. I think that most people who question the placing of speed cameras on some sections of the highway would still acknowledge that cameras have a role—particularly, for example, outside schools.
In my constituency, I am pleased that, following pressure from me, the local district councillor and the school, the county council has agreed to introduce a speed limit of 30 mph in a small lane parallel with the A140—but some miles to the east—just outside Shelton with Hardwick community school, in what was a 60 mph zone. That limit was plainly unsuitable outside a small rural school where at 8.30 in the morning—I have stood outside to watch—a large volume of traffic avoiding the A140 on the way into Norwich comes round a corner at high speed, to meet school buses and parents dropping off their children. Some juggernauts come the other way, also to avoid the main road. I am pleased that the council has seen fit to introduce a new speed limit there.
In a conversation a few weeks ago, the Minister pointed out to me that counties have the capacity to introduce any speed limit from 20 mph to 70 mph on roads under their control, subject to the national speed limit—those were his words. When I talk to local county officials, I sometimes get the feeling that they tend to blame central Government, and when I talk to central Government I sometimes get the feeling that they tend to blame local government. The Minister said—and I take it that he is correct—that the power exists for counties to exercise much more latitude than they are sometimes willing to. Too often, they seem to be waiting for further guidance from central Government when they have the autonomy and capacity to act in many cases. I am grateful to him for that point.
All I say about speed cameras is that a policy that allows, encourages, permits or requires a speed camera on Grapes hill in Norwich, where there is no accident or collision cluster, but that does not require one outside Shelton school—as a matter of common sense, most
188WH
people who visit that site would say that it was a good idea to force cars to slow down before they reach Shelton school—is plainly in need of adjustment. The plain fact is that the Government have not finished their work in making the case to the public on the issue of speed cameras. If they are to bring the public with them, they need to be more open and straightforward than they have sometimes given the impression of being. For a Government who have been dedicated to the proposition that perception is reality, there is a little way to go. I hope that the Minister will agree.
In conclusion, let me reiterate my central point. I want the Minister to address the issue of road traffic accidents where a death is caused and to consider the possibility of making a change in the law, by introducing either an offence of negligent driving that allows the fact of a death to be taken into account, or an offence of motor manslaughter, so that the families of victims in many different constituencies throughout the country, who have felt so aggrieved and let down by the justice system, feel that they get their day in court.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I help the House before I call the next speaker? There are 14 Back Benchers present, of whom eight have applied to speak. The winding-up should begin at 10.30, give or take a minute or two, so we have slightly more than half an hour to get at least eight speakers in. That is up to the House.
9.59 am
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) on obtaining this important debate. As joint chair of the all-party group on road safety, I know only too well the cost to families and communities of deaths and injuries on our roads.
The Government have done much to tackle road safety issues, not least by radically expanding the number of speed cameras. I very much welcome that because it has been hugely successful in reducing the number of accidents, as has the legislation on using mobile phones. Of course we all welcome the Government's commitment to bringing in a road safety Bill.
However, in this Room we all recognise that there continue to be more than 40,000 largely avoidable deaths and accidents on our roads every year. That is why so many people have turned up for this debate. In addition, in this country we must recognise that dangerous driving is endemic. When last recorded, the UK had the fourth worst record in western Europe for child pedestrian deaths. However, I am pleased to congratulate the Government again because, to their credit, they have committed themselves to reducing child deaths by 50 per cent. by 2010.
A great deal more must be done. If we are to achieve our aims, we must listen to people working in road safety. I recently chaired a meeting held by Brake, the road safety charity. It has launched a campaign entitled, "Watch Out, There's a Kid About!" calling for the Government to get tough with dangerous and speeding drivers. I shall return to that later.

189WH
I must say that I was disappointed with the recent announcement of a reduction in penalties for speeding motorists and I do not think that it was welcomed by the vast majority of road safety campaigners. In the neighbouring constituency to mine there is a very good campaigner—a woman who set up the charity, Support and Care After Road Death and Injury, after her 27year-old son was killed by a drink-driver. She was absolutely disgusted that the Government had come up with such an idea. She believes that
"the Government are sending out a very mixed message to the public."
In Halifax, the Calderdale road safety officer said that, although there might be a case for graded penalties,
"I do take issue with some of the gradings. I mean for example, the new rules would mean that speeders who travel between 31 and 39 mph in a 30 mph limit would be given two points and a £40 fine. Compare this with the fact that a pedestrian hit by a car travelling at 30 mph has a 50–50 chance of survival, but if they are hit at 40 mph, 19 out of 20 pedestrians will be killed."
Brake's chief executive, Mary Williams, who is well known to the Minister, went even further:
"We are shocked and appalled at this proposal, which flies in the face of the facts of speed."
She went on to give some examples that are already well known to us all. There is a lot of opposition to the Minister's proposals to bring in the grading system. It is also sad that the proposals were announced only five days after Joshua Berrill, aged two, was dragged to his death by a hit-and-run driver in Birmingham and was left lying in the road outside his grandparents' house.
The "Watch Out, There's a Kid About!" campaign is all about trying to do something about the issue. I shall briefly go through some main points of the campaign that are well worth supporting. First, we would like increased penalties for speeders, because we believe that they are ridiculously low. Some fines are less than one would get for littering, and many of us believe that they should be raised and that more points, not fewer, should be put on the licences of speeders. It must be said that the limit is not just the limit; it is the law. It is certainly not a target speed that drivers are allowed to exceed.
The second point is that we would like motor murder charges to be brought against hit-and-run drivers who kill. There should be a maximum sentence of life for the worst offenders. Thirdly, it is crucial that there should be 20 mph zones around all schools, and 10 mph home zones in heavily residential areas. Presently, they occur only in little pockets around the country and are not standard, which leaves many communities furious about fast roads—the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) graphically outlined an example in his constituency near a school. We are right to demand reduced driving speeds in vulnerable areas.
Fourthly, the campaign calls for a scrapping of restrictions on the placement of speed cameras, which say that four deaths or serious injuries must have occurred before a camera can be put up. That is a shocking rule if one considers how the parents of little Joshua must feel; at least three more people must be sacrificed on that danger spot before a camera can be installed.
190WH
Fifthly, the campaign calls for something that many road safety people are seeking: automatic number plate recognition cameras.
Mr. Jamieson indicated assent.
Mrs. Mahon: I see that my hon. Friend is nodding so I hope that we are on to a winner. Such a measure would catch unlicensed, uninsured joyriders, whom we all have in our constituencies. They travel at the most excessive speeds and cause many tragedies in our communities. We want these practical and do-able measures implemented. They are sensible and would help to further the Government's laudable campaign to reduce child deaths on our roads.
I want briefly to address sleep disorders and their effect on driving, which is a road safety issue that I have recently been campaigning on. I welcome the Government's think tank that focuses on the dangers of driving while tired. It is doing some very good work and I hope that sleep disorders will be included in the future. To a certain extent, that issue has been neglected. According to the British Medical Journal, 20 per cent. of all motorway accidents are caused by excessive sleeplessness and more than 300 people a year are killed as a result of drivers falling asleep at the wheel. Some of those accidents are caused by people who have an undiagnosed sleep disorder. Clinical remedies are available for such people and, therefore, there must be joined-up thinking between the Department for Transport and the Department of Health to educate the general population. More money should be made available for sleep centres, and for treatment, which is cost-effective. However, it is a matter for the Department of Health.
It is estimated that sleep disorders, such as obstructive sleep apnoea and narcolepsy, affect about 770,000 people in the UK. That is a similar number to diabetes or people who suffer from severe asthma, yet it is overlooked. Such disorders may be easily treatable. The Royal College of Physicians points out that there is a particularly high incidence of sleep apnoea among professional drivers, as it is more common in middle-aged men who are overweight. A survey of 35 professional drivers at one depot found that nine were at an extreme or high risk of that condition and four were at risk of other sleep disorders. Therefore, the matter is well worth examining and I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
I want to allow other hon. Members to speak, as it is important that they highlight what is happening in their communities. I thank the Government for what they are doing and say to them that we want more.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I make a further plea for brevity.
10.8 am
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I have listened to your plea, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and if I speak for longer than five minutes, I am sure that you will let me know.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) on securing this important debate and on the extremely sensible points that he made. I want to dwell on the safety of vulnerable road users—

191WH
pedestrians, riders and, in particular, cyclists. I have been championing cycling for many years in the House. I am sure that hon. Members remember the Cycling Safety Bill of 1993 that I introduced—perhaps not. I was persuaded to be the chairman of the all-party group on cycling and I am still its vice-chairman. I will not dwell on the benefits of cycling.
This summer the Government have been ranting on about obesity and I have therefore noticed it. The British population are getting disgustingly fat—never mind obese. One can see it when one wanders around. The Minister looks surprised, but that is what his Government have been talking about and they are right. The benefits to health of bicycling and of taking exercise are well known. Anyone who went to work today knows how congested our cities are and there are also leisure aspects of cycling.
I applaud the Government's 2000 White Paper, which said that they wished to see cycling—the number of cycle trips—trebled by 2010. That is a good idea and I would love to see it happen. Unfortunately, in the first two years after the Government's White Paper the number of cycling trips decreased. Indeed, the Office for National Statistics found that
"25 per cent. of people who can ride a bicycle, do so less often than they did two years ago."
A third of people walk less than they did two years ago.
There has been a reduction in cycling accidents, but that has been accompanied by a reduction in cycling. I have not been on a bicycle since over an hour ago. I do not wish to sound pious; cycling is the easiest way for me to get to the House of Commons from my house. I took my children—they are only seven and five—cycling on Sunday, and they adored it; we went on a 3-mile ride. That is great from a leisure point of view.
Motorists find cyclists an irritation, particularly on the tiny lane near where I live. Motorists whizz past and terrify my small children and me. Some of them do not even slow down to 40 mph on that small lane, although they should not be going faster than that. Things are similarly bad in cities.
Why do people not cycle? The question is simple, and can be answered in one word: danger. Cycling is very dangerous and people fear the danger. The Office for National Statistics found that almost three quarters of people agreed, and 47 per cent. strongly agreed, with the statement:
"The idea of cycling on busy roads frightens me."
It frightens me, too. People are frightened, and the attitude of drivers—including those of us in this Chamber who can drive—is to blame. We cannot wait, we are in a hurry; we are perhaps late for an appointment or want to go out to dinner. Whatever the reason, we rush past and do not give people the time that we should, and we do not slow down as we should.
Of course, the problem is not just the fear but the reality of danger. A cousin of mine was killed in a bicycle accident on Clapham common about 14 years ago. I was talking to a journalist from the Gallery only yesterday who was limping and on crutches, having fallen off a bicycle—although that was through no fault of a driver. She said that she expected to be hit about three times a
192WH
year by cars in London. That is pretty serious. I do not get hit so often, but perhaps that is because I am rather larger than her and eyeball the motorists.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk said how dangerous cycling is, and made the point that there are 800 deaths and serious injuries per billion passenger miles among cyclists. But how do we make cycling safer? We used to be told in the highway code:
"All drivers should give a pedal cyclist a wide berth of at least six feet."
That advice was dropped some 20 years ago—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—but, in any case, I assure hon. Members that that never happens. One is lucky to get six inches, let alone six feet.
To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, if one hits, knocks off and kills a cyclist, the charge is most likely to be careless driving. However, hitting a cyclist is in itself a dangerous act, and there should be a presumption of dangerous driving. I understand that if one is found guilty of dangerous driving one automatically loses one's licence for two years. If the accident is the cyclist's fault, the motorist would not be found guilty, or the charges would be dismissed. I would like to make all motorists, including those in this Chamber, realise the seriousness of the issue of vulnerable road users, who are outside the little metal box in which we motorists are rushing to our appointments. We motorists should understand that we can be lethal.
The consequences of dangerous acts must be brought home to people. I suggest that there should be guidance—I do not think that the matter needs legislation—for the police or the Crown Prosecution Service to say that motorists who hit cyclists should be charged with dangerous driving.
If any of us were caught driving while over the limit—I am sure that none of us would ever do that—we would lose our licence. We may not even have seen another road user. Any motorist who has struck a cyclist, pedestrian or horse has already endangered life, if the accident was his or her fault. We have today already heard of several tragic deaths. Road safety for vulnerable road users could be improved if the CPS and police took such occasions more seriously, instead of wondering whether they would get a case through, and if Government guidance said that anyone who hit a vulnerable road user should be charged with dangerous driving.
10.14 am
Jim Knight: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) on securing this important debate.
My interest in road traffic deaths and road safety results from the tragic deaths of three constituents since I was elected in June 2001. Anthony Wakelin was killed in October 2002, Tom Dowdney died a year later, and Claire Clements died last April. All were killed due to, at best, the carelessness of drivers. None of the victims' families received any justice in the courts following those tragedies, hence my ten-minute Bill introduced on 13 July, to which the hon. Member for South Norfolk referred. It aimed to introduce new offences of motor vehicle manslaughter and aggravated motor vehicle manslaughter. I have since received a very positive

193WH
response to my proposals from people all round the country. I hope that the Government, and particularly the Home Office, are listening. The Minister has given evidence to the Select Committee, and we have heard about the Department for Transport's proposals for graduated speeding penalties and the Police Federation's proposals for an offence of using a car as a dangerous weapon. However, we have not heard anything from the Home Office in response to the Halliday consultation. If nothing else, I am here today to encourage the Department to respond and to take action.
The Government's record is generally good. As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) told us, the number of deaths or serious injuries is down by 20 per cent., and for children it is down by a third. We all welcome that, and I applaud the general approach of prevention and trying to change driver behaviour. I welcome the 20 mph speed limits that we are increasingly seeing around the country, including in the village where I live. We now have cushions, humps and indeed the full chicanery running through the village. It is not attractive, but it works and sadly it is necessary.
As long as drivers take the car for granted as our own private space, regard it simply as a means of getting from A to B and forget that it is a lethal weapon, we will need ugly traffic calming in villages, speed cameras—however unpopular they may be—and tougher penalties for drivers who kill. That is the missing element in the Government's approach: they are not coming forward with tougher penalties. There was a minor change in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to the penalty for causing death by dangerous driving, but we need to go much further, which is why I am impatient about the Home Office dragging its feet.
Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Yesterday was the second anniversary of the tragic death of Jessica Leigh who, at the tender age of 14, was knocked down and killed by a young motorist who was speeding but walked out of court with just a £300 fine and six penalty points and who is still driving. Does not that sort of case cry out for the measures that my hon. Friend is advocating?
Jim Knight: Certainly, and I am sure that that case echoes many that we have heard about at our surgeries and through our postbags. The problem that the Crown Prosecution Service and the police have in proving dangerousness means that the charge becomes one of carelessness, hence the very lenient fines and the injustice felt by the families when the person can continue driving. It is that gap that the hon. Member for South Norfolk referred to.
I will not regurgitate everything that I said when I introduced my ten-minute Bill because it is on the record, but I want to respond to what the hon. Gentleman said about that gap. I am flexible about the solution to the problem of bridging the gap. He has made proposals that we need to consider. Currently, I agree with the charity RoadPeace that defining words such as "dangerousness", "carelessness" and "negligence" is difficult and provides a field day for solicitors and barristers. Such definitions focus first on the nature of the driving and not on the death. I propose
194WH
a charge of motor vehicle manslaughter because it would make the death the starting point for the investigation and the legal system's consideration.
However, whatever the solution, as long as drivers such as James Boffey get away with a £200 fine for killing the likes of Anthony Wakelin in my constituency, and as long as victims and their families fail to receive justice and the Home Office continues to drag its feet, I and many others will continue to raise the issue in this House.
10.19 am
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) on his excellent speech. I will be brief.
Norfolk is a fairly sparsely populated county, but it covers a large geographical area and contains a large number of small country roads. Cars and motor cycles are getting more sophisticated and much more powerful, and public transport is notoriously sparse and inadequate. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, there have been a significant number of high-profile road traffic fatalities in Norfolk and some have involved motor cyclists. He referred to a case in his constituency and also touched on the Adam Wall case, which took place in Walsoken on the A47 in my constituency, although Bridget Wall—his mother—is a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). I have been involved in the case, in which a van pulled out of a minor road on to the A47 as it was getting dark. There is no question but that its driver was driving dangerously, and when he pulled out, the motorcyclist had no chance whatever. Adam Wall was tragically killed, which has devastated his family.
There is undoubtedly a gap in the legislation in this country. Relatives are asking not for revenge but for recognition in the law of the victim's rights and an acknowledgement of the fact that someone has died. When someone is convicted for careless driving, with just a fine and points on their licence, it often leaves the victim's family angry and bitter. It does not enable them to achieve closure.
I can talk from personal experience. My stepfather was killed in 1978 when driving south on the A1. A lorry had crossed over the southbound carriageway and was squatting in the central reservation, but had left part of its trailer just in the fast lane. There were no lights on that section of road, my stepfather's headlights would have been dipped, and he tragically went under part of the trailer and was killed instantly. The driver was convicted of careless driving and fined about £40. That obviously left us with a sense that there had been no recognition of the fact that someone had died, never mind that the outcome had a profound impact on the insurance situation.
That was a long time ago, and the A1 has become safer. There are fewer gaps along it, and lorries now have lights on their trailers. As I am sure the Minister will tell us, road safety is improving all the

195WH
time. However, my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk has made a compelling case for a change in the law. In my judgment as well as his, we need a new offence of causing death by negligent driving. At the very least, there is a need for an intermediate offence between careless and dangerous driving. I support him 100 per cent. in his campaign, in the same way that I support the excellent campaign by Bridget Wall, the mother of my constituent.
Finally, I endorse what my hon. Friend said about speed cameras: yes to them outside schools, in residential areas and at accident blackspots, but no to them on open stretches of road where there is no history of accidents.
10.23 am
Mr. Liam Byrne: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) on raising this vital issue, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) for introducing the case of Josh Berrill, a young boy who was knocked down and killed in my constituency on Burney lane—a road that the Minister knows.
Josh was just two years old and was due to start back at his toddler group on Monday. The hearts of everyone in the city went out to his mum and dad, and I must praise their fortitude and courage in championing a campaign for change. I praise, too, the Birmingham Evening Mail, which has added its voice to the campaign. The parents are determined to ensure that something good will come out of the tragic incident, because the fact is that young Josh was not the first but the third boy to die on Burney lane. The fact is that a child a week is knocked down and hurt in and around Washwood Heath, and the fact is that, nationally, children from less privileged backgrounds are five times more likely to be hurt by cars.
The Government have worked hard in the area and given a substantial amount of money to Birmingham city council. However, it is now clear that a cheque is not enough to deliver change, and I hope that the Minister will support the work of local residents in pressing Birmingham city council to fast-track road safety improvements in and around my constituency. Road safety is not just vital for rural areas, as the hon. Member for South Norfolk has highlighted, but a live issue in our major cities and towns.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: A commendably brief speech. I call Mr. Mark Lazarowicz.
10.24 am
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) for securing this important debate and to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) for highlighting in a moving way the consequences that a death on the roads has for families in our constituencies. That reminds us that although we may have a good record compared with other countries in Europe, last year 3,400 families experienced the personal tragedy that
196WH
arises from a death on the roads. Although we may never reach a zero death rate on our roads, we should aim for that, and take forward positive measures to improve safety for all road users, whether pedestrians, drivers or cyclists.
In the limited time available to me, I want to make three points. First, I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) said about the need to move ahead with the Halliday review on driving offences. It was commissioned in 2003 and was meant to appear in the new year of 2004. It is now some way past the new year and hon. Members will be aware that the review arose from a wider interdepartmental review of traffic penalties, which started in 2000 and concluded in 2002. It is now four years since the review process began, so it must be concluded quickly.
Secondly, there is the issue of drink-driving. One of the most worrying recent trends has been the way in which, after more than two decades of significant advances in combating drink-driving, casualties from drink-driving have begun to rise again. In 2002, there was an increase in fatalities and serious injuries of some 10 to 20 per cent. compared with four years previously. That is extremely worrying. A number of measures have been proposed to tackle that rise, and it is time to consider greater use of random testing and intelligence-led breath testing. In the UK, we conduct a breath test for only every 67 drivers, whereas the average European probability of being breath tested is one in 16. It would be worth considering a change to that policy.
Thirdly, I agree with the concern expressed my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) about the consultation on speeding penalties, and particularly the suggestion that there should be a reduction in the penalty for lower levels of speeding. That sends out all the wrong messages, and underlines the view held in some quarters that a little speeding does not really matter. That is a dangerous attitude and I hope that the Government will resist invitations from certain quarters to follow that line. I understand the case for increasing the penalties for exceeding speed limits by a high amount, but reducing the current level would be a bad step. One of the problems is that speed limits are not effectively enforced, or rather that offences are not always pursued for speeds below 40 mph. That must be tackled, so it would not be right to reduce the penalties at the lower level.
On the positive side, it is possible to make a difference to road safety. I am pleased that in my own area in Edinburgh there has been effective work between the city council, the police and various other agencies, which has had a real impact on deaths and injuries on the roads. One particularly important statistic is that last year, for the first time since records have been kept, not a single school-age child was killed on the roads in Edinburgh. It may be difficult to maintain that record, but I hope that we can, combined with reductions in other deaths and injuries on the roads.
The effective use of a combination of measures such as education, traffic engineering, 20 mph zones and traffic calming can make a difference, along with the use of speed cameras. The police in Edinburgh have said that the package of measures has made a major contribution to the general reduction in deaths and injuries on the roads in the city. As other hon. Members have said, the number of deaths on the roads has fallen

197WH
during recent years, although there have been worrying trends in more recent years. Nevertheless, every death and injury on our roads is a personal tragedy for the families of those involved, and any measures to make a significant reduction in the toll of death and injury are to be welcomed. The Government are going in the right direction. I urge them to continue along the lines that they have taken in recent years, and to resist those who spread urban myths about speed cameras being a means of raising revenue and the rest of it.
I do not want to spoil the all-party bonhomie, but I have to say that it is a bit rich that some Opposition Members contribute to the spreading of urban myths and so help to denigrate the important effect that speed cameras can have in reducing deaths and injuries on the roads. I urge the Government to continue with their programme, and to resist robustly any attempt to reduce the effectiveness of measures designed to deter speeding drivers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the assumption that he will speak for no longer than three minutes, I call the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan).
10.31 am
Mr. John Grogan: I shall make three points in three minutes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The first is to do with driver tiredness. My constituency will long be associated with the Selby train crash, which was ultimately caused by driver tiredness. I congratulate the Minister on the many activities in the Department that have highlighted that issue since that time, particularly the "Think!" road safety campaign and its publicity on driver tiredness. A summer radio campaign integrated with publicity about speeding and drink driving has just finished. There is a whole array of different advertising now, which is planned throughout the year, and that campaign is a model of its kind.
However, I want to press the Minister on an issue related to driver tiredness that was highlighted in the Yorkshire Post during the summer—the idea of French-style rest areas, which was floated by Ministers in 2002. They would be something less than service stations, but have basic toilet and rest facilities and play areas for children, perhaps. I understand that by 2006 there will be an experiment with rest areas on motorways, although there may be planning problems. There are arguments both ways on this issue; the facilities have to be reasonably substantial to have real effect. I would appreciate it if the Minister said something about that.
I turn to the issue of motor cycles. I live in a constituency not dissimilar to that of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), who introduced this debate with such intelligence. It is a big, rural constituency in the biggest rural county in England, North Yorkshire, on whose roads 28 motor cyclists were killed last year. The county has no speed cameras at the moment. People will want to scrutinise the road safety proposals for the county that the police and the county council will bring forward at the end of the year. If the police do not decide to go down the path of speed cameras, rigorous questions will be asked about the notion that there are no sites that justify the placement of cameras in North Yorkshire at the moment.
However, the police have been involved in many good initiatives. The "Handle it or lose it" campaign, centred in Sherburn in Elmet, provides a plan on the web of
198WH
accident blackspots that motor cyclists should avoid, which has been very good. I support the hon. Gentleman's proposal to have another look at the law in relation to middle-aged men, whom The Sunday Times has referred to as men aged between 30 and 60, which includes most of us here today. Under-21s have to spend two years riding lower-powered bikes before graduating to higher-powered bikes—should that not be the same for everyone?
I shall make my final point in just a few sentences, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although a cheque is not sufficient to ensure road safety, it is necessary. I have 88 villages in my constituency, and, as the hon. Member for South Norfolk said in introducing the debate, speed and road safety are the No. 1 issue in rural areas. In Selby we have the Selby bypass, and the Minister has been involved in the Bilborough Top works on the A64. None of that would have been possible without public expenditure. I hope that in summing up for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) will say what assurances he has from the shadow Front-Bench Treasury team that road safety and highways will be a priority should there ever be a Conservative Government again, because it is important to maintain expenditure on road safety for many years to come.
10.35 am
John Thurso: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) on introducing the debate in an extremely thoughtful and serious way. The topic has brought out a degree of unanimity in the Chamber, which is one of the best reasons for coming back from the recess for this short period.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), have spoken about the need to change the law, and I would certainly favour such a change. Two options have been proposed. However, as I think the hon. Gentleman said, the main point is not which option is right, but that one of the options should be implemented. I slightly favour the view that the starting point should be that a death has occurred and that the charge should be based on that, but the views expressed by the hon. Member for South Norfolk could equally be the answer. I would support any change in the law based on either option, and such a change is urgently needed.
It is worth putting what we are talking about into context. The 2003 figures, which I obtained from the Department for Transport, show 3,508 deaths and 33,707 serious injuries. Of course, those figures do not include many lesser injuries that go unreported. As others have said, the total is roughly equivalent to a Hatfield and a Potters Bar incident in the United Kingdom on a daily basis. If those events were taking place on the railways, in aeroplanes or on any mode of transport other than our roads, there would be a public outcry. One of the most shocking parts of the statistics is the number of child deaths: 4,100 in the last year, 58 per cent. of which—some 2,381—involved pedestrians. Quite apart from the huge personal distress that all those cases will have caused—instances of which have been described by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber—it is estimated, according to the Government's own figures, that road accidents cost the economy some £3 billion and the NHS some £l billion.

199WH
Several hon. Members talked about trends in road safety, and it is true that for most of the post-war years things have been steadily improving year on year. A number of factors are responsible for that. One is the education of drivers, which has been improving through the driving test mechanism and through education on television and in other ways. Secondly, there has been an increase in legislation. Thirdly and very important, there have been huge improvements over many years in the safety of cars—improvements that have not yet manifested themselves to the same degree in other vehicles. Road engineering has also been an extremely important factor in improving safety.
Above all, there has been a change in public attitudes. Thirty years ago, the attitude to drink-driving was, "Oh, what a shame you got caught"; today, no one would think that a drink-driver was anything other than an antisocial criminal. It is, however, worrying that in recent years the trends have started to slow down and, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) pointed out, have in some cases even reversed. Drink-driving is an example. During the recess, I had a meeting in my constituency with the area commander for Ross-shire. Incidentally, talking of large constituencies, I can safely say that mine is the largest represented in this Chamber today. The commander told me of a very worrying trend, which is an increase in the number of drink-drivers. It is being seen in two groups. One is middle-aged people—people of about my age, in other words—and the other is very new, very young drivers. Drivers in their 20s appear to have taken in the message about drink driving very well, but the commander has noticed that that is not the case for those other two groups.
In addition, we are talking about not people just over the limit—the chap who had two drinks that were slightly bigger than usual—but those who are two, two and a half or three times over the limit and serious transgressing. We need to look again at how we can combat that. The commander's view is that the problem is coming back because there is less advertising and, perhaps, less concentration on drink-driving because to a certain extent we had won the fight in the past. Reducing the limit for alcohol in the bloodstream from 0.8 to 0.5 mg will continue the campaign of awareness, although it will not affect those people who drive when they are two or three times over the limit.
My second point is about speed. I have never particularly liked the slogan "speed kills", although it is perfectly accurate. People of my age think that they are experienced drivers who transgress just a little bit and that the slogan does not apply to them. When they are told that speed kills, their immediate impression is of a boy racer in a souped-up little car who is driving many miles an hour over the limit.
I travel every week—sometimes many times—on the A9. I have often come up behind respectable-looking people in respectable-looking cars that potter along at 50 mph—I sometimes wish that they would go a bit faster on the open road—but then disappear from my view when the road goes into a town or village and I slow down to 30 or 40 mph, whichever is the limit. It is clear that the driver has not slowed down at all. There is a
200WH
huge gulf in the understanding and awareness of such so-called experienced drivers as to what speed does and how it kills.
I am concerned about the Government's proposals, particularly as they relate to the 30 mph limit. Frankly, the difference between 30 and 39 mph is literally that between life and death. I accept the principle that a more serious offence should result in more serious punishment, but I am very concerned that relaxing the penalties will send the wrong message about what we want to achieve, remembering that 58 per cent. of children who are killed are pedestrians, most of them probably in an area with a 30 mph limit.
I would like to have covered many more points in this comprehensive debate. My last point is about uninsured drivers. It is reckoned that they are 10 times more likely to have been convicted of drink driving, six times more likely to have been convicted of driving an unsafe vehicle, and three times more likely to have been convicted of driving without due care and attention. I urge the Government to give full and immediate attention to the Greenaway report, which was published recently. Having listened to all the considered contributions of hon. Members today, I suggest to the Government that the time really is right for a road safety Bill that deals with all these matters. May we please look forward to one in the Queen's Speech?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I commend the Liberal Democrat spokesman for his brevity.
10.43 am
Mr. Christopher Chope: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) on introducing this very important debate. When we had a Conservative Government, we had a full five-hour debate on road safety on the Floor of the House almost every year. The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) asked what priority a Conservative Government would put on road safety. By our very actions we demonstrated when we were in government that we took road safety extremely seriously.
It is a pity that so many hon. Members who wanted to participate in today's debate have been unable to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), a distinguished former road safety Minister, was here and would have liked to participate. The remarks of many others have been cut short because of the time constraints. The first thing that the Minister can deliver is a guarantee that we will have a full day's debate in Government time on this important subject.
Of course, the Government's problem is that their record is not very good, unlike that of the Conservative Government, under whom the number of deaths on the roads fell by thousands. The number of people killed on the roads fell by more than 1,000 when I was the road safety Minister for two or three years in the early 1990s. More than 1,000 fewer people were killed on the roads each year as a result of Conservative policies. The most recent statistics show that more people were killed on the roads in the United Kingdom in 2003 than when the Government took office in 1997. It is hardly surprising that the Government do not want to debate the matter, because they know that they are on the back foot. They

201WH
have alienated thousands of motorists by insensitive enforcement through speed cameras, while ignoring the serious issues that affect so many road users, whether pedestrians, cyclists or car drivers.
The number of people killed on our roads last year was more than 3,500. In the period 1984–93, deaths on our roads were reduced by 32 per cent. In the 10 years since 1993, deaths have gone down by only 3.8 per cent. That shows that more than 1,000 deaths on the roads each year are attributable to the Government's failure to maintain the reduction in fatalities on the road that was commonplace between 1984 and 1993. There are many reasons why we had a successful policy during that period, but there is no time to go into them today.
What is going wrong? Why are we in this situation? There has been a vast increase in the incidence of driving while under the influence of drugs, which is associated with the Government's failure on drugs policy in general. There has also been an increase in the number of people driving under the influence of alcohol. The number of people killed and injured in crashes involving a driver over the alcohol limit has risen to 20,000—the highest since 1990. Meanwhile, the number of traffic police has fallen by 11 per cent. since 1996. Fewer breath tests are being carried out, there are fewer prosecutions for driving without due care and attention and fewer bad drivers are being brought to book.
There is an epidemic of driving without insurance and without a licence. People talk about penalties and the need for more disqualifications, but so many people who are disqualified immediately get back behind the wheel. There are many people driving without road fund licences, and the rising incidence of people failing to stop after an accident is a worrying trend. They leave people dead or dying in the road and drive off, and there is far too much of it. In my constituency, as I am sure is the case in other hon. Members' constituencies, there are too many horrendous examples of that. Road safety is in dire straits, and the Government are far too complacent about it.
People have rightly concentrated on fatal accidents in which the victim was blameless, but let us also consider those fatal accidents in which the road user was at fault but death was a disproportionate consequence of their error of judgment. The Department for Transport's road safety research report on dangerous driving and the law identified 5,780 fatal accidents for which information was available. Of those, 2,581–44 per cent.—showed that the driver at fault was killed. In 1,171 cases, or 20 per cent., the pedestrian at fault was killed. It is no consolation to us to say that they were at fault. They did not expect their error of judgment to result in their death. Just outside my constituency, a pedestrian walking across the road using her mobile phone stepped out in front of a newly qualified young driver, and there was nothing he could do to avoid the impact. That pedestrian did not deserve the consequence she suffered.
Would we not be better off with more education? I ask the Minister to take up the message about education and, particularly, the campaign by the Institute of Advanced Motorists, of which I am proud to be a member. I joined when I was the Minister with responsibility for road safety. Indeed, it should be compulsory for all road safety Ministers and transport Ministers to pass the Institute of Advanced Motorists
202WH
test. Furthermore, it would set a really good example to the country if all Members of Parliament took the IAM test.
I shall conclude by quoting the advice given by Bryan Lunn, the IAM chief examiner, in the current edition of Advanced Driving, the magazine for advanced motorists:
"I would like to see driver and rider education given a much higher profile in the Government's Road Safety Strategy. Engineering and enforcement can only achieve so much and are, in the main, negative strategies. The third and fourth road safety Es—education and encouragement—are much more positive. The truth is that some current engineering solutions and enforcement campaigns to support the Government's Road Safety Strategy are frustrating or alienating large sections of the motoring public. We need the full support of drivers and riders if we are going to achieve a reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured on Britain's roads each year. By giving education and encouragement a higher profile in the Road Safety Strategy, we are much more likely to get that support."
I heartily endorse that important message and I hope that the Government will take some action.
10.51 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I am glad that we have had the opportunity of kicking off this short part of the parliamentary timetable with such an important debate. I wish to start by congratulating the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) on his sensible, thoughtful and mainly consensual approach to the issue. It was in contrast somewhat to the approach taken by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), although he highlighted the importance of the issue to all Members of Parliament—as have many contributions to the debate. We all know of examples of incidents in which children have been killed and know of families who have lost fathers, mothers and loved ones. All of us have experienced such consequences at some time or another.
I wish to put the debate into context from the Government's point of view. We need to correct some of what was said by the hon. Member for Christchurch. It will be impossible for me to answer in detail all the points that have been made, but I shall endeavour to correspond where appropriate. Car ownership in the country is growing. The number of vehicles on the road is increasing by about 1 per cent. per year. There are more vehicles on the road throughout the world. In fact, last year there were nearly 1 million deaths as a result of road accidents in the world. As the hon. Member for South Norfolk said, given the number of vehicles on the road, this country has a good road safety record. Other countries, not only in Europe but throughout the world, are looking to see how we have been so successful. I emphasise to the hon. Member for Christchurch that we have been successful over many years—for probably 30 or 40 years. As a result of several measures, Labour and Conservative Governments have been successful in gradually reducing the casualties on our roads.
Four years ago, we published our road safety strategy entitled "Tomorrow's roads—safer for everyone" in which we set out targets of a 40 per cent. reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured and a 50 per cent. reduction in child casualties because, although our record is good overall, the record for deaths of and injuries to children is not as good as it should be. It does not compare with that of one or two of our European partners. We were also aware that children who live in

203WH
disadvantaged areas are especially vulnerable. As my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) said, such children are particularly at risk.
To put the matter into context for the hon. Member for Christchurch and to get it on the record, I want to explain that the 2003 casualty figures show a continued progress downwards in the number of road casualties. The total number of deaths or serious injuries is 22 per cent. below the baseline that we took from the year 2000.
Mr. Chope: What about the deaths?
Mr. Jamieson: I will come to that in a moment. There has been a 22 per cent. reduction. There has been a 40 per cent. decrease in deaths of and serious injuries to children. In three years, we are more than three quarters of the way to the 50 per cent. reduction, which is not a catalogue of failure. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman tried to make some sort of party political point out of the matter.
We are being successful. That success is not due to the Government alone, but to local authorities controlled by all three parties—and, in Scotland, perhaps also by other parties—working together with us and taking those issues seriously.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about the number of deaths. The number of deaths on the roads has remained at a plateau of approximately 3,500. Over the years, the numbers of deaths and serious injuries fell in parallel, but four or five years ago the number of deaths reached a plateau, whereas the number of serious injuries continued to decrease. That trend has also been observed in other European countries. We are not entirely sure why it has happened. Half those casualties are people inside vehicles, so despite all the work that we have done on issues such as seat belts and on making cars safer, the number of people killed in cars has remained static.
Another contributory factor to the deaths is two-wheelers—an issue raised by several hon. Members. We have considerable concerns about people on two wheels; we want to encourage motor cycling, but we want it to be safe. We set up the Advisory Group on Motorcycling, which has been meeting for some time and which, for the past year or so, has been under my chairmanship. The group has recently made a number of suggestions and recommendations, which we are examining closely to see how safety for motor cyclists can be improved without discouraging people from taking up motor cycling.
The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) may have made a slip of the tongue when he said that there were 4,100 children killed
204WH
each year on the roads. I think that he meant to say "killed and seriously injured". Only 171 children were killed on our roads, but that is a lot of children—the equivalent of a medium-sized primary school. Nevertheless, those numbers are being driven down each year, which is to be welcomed.
The hon. Member for South Norfolk raised the issues of motor cycling and of drink-driving. The latter is still a matter of concern to a number of hon. Members. The number of people who are drink-driving is probably increasing again. The vast majority of people in the UK, young and old, take that matter very seriously. However, there is a group of people—younger men and, to some extent, younger women, in the 20 to 30 age group—who cause those casualties. That is a matter of concern, and some of our advertising and effort has focused particularly on that group. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the appalling deaths of his constituents, and other hon. Members have experienced similar situations. They focus our minds on the issue.
The announcement of the outcome of the preferred options on the review of traffic penalties was made in July 2002. One of the consequences of that review was that the penalty for causing death by dangerous driving was raised from 10 to 14 years' imprisonment, which came through the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Other changes will also be made, when parliamentary time allows. I cannot predict what will be in the Queen's Speech, but I hope that there will be a road safety Bill. It is possible that I may still be the Minister who sees that Bill through, but that will be determined by events this week. Such changes will include proposals for a separate review of road traffic offences, and will deal with the problems of dangerous and careless driving. We will shortly be consulting on those issues.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, it looks as if time is running out. A number of issues remain to be discussed about cameras and their placement. I assure the hon. Member for South Norfolk that we received reassurance from the partnership that the cameras in that area were all placed in locations where there had been casualties. If hon. Members have any doubt about such issues, they should get the figures from their partnerships, or look at the Department's website, which contains most of the material and deals with some of the more detailed issues.
This has been a short debate; I hope that we can have a longer debate on the issue another time, because there are so many enormously important matters to be addressed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the Minister for his measured reply and I congratulate the House on the quality of the debate. We now move to our second debate, initiated by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda).

Parental Leave
11 am
Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: I welcome you back from the summer recess, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and hope that you and other hon. Members have had a good break.
I am delighted to have secured this debate on an issue of direct importance to 12 million parents and their dependent children. All parents have a responsibility to provide financially for their families through work; however, parenthood is about not just time, but emotional support and practical help when times get tough. The debate is of great significance to many hon. Members, as well as to those outside Parliament; my predecessor stood down after one term in the House because, as is well recorded, she had a young family.
I shall be brief, as in addition to spokesmen for the opposition parties, other hon. Members wish to contribute. I shall outline the background, assess the effectiveness of the legal framework and offer suggestions that I hope the Minister will find helpful about the steps that can be taken to enable parents to fulfil their responsibilities to themselves, their families and the wider society.
First, I pay tribute to the hard work of colleagues such as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), who is keen to try to come and play a part in this debate. She has tabled a number of questions on this topic, and I shall say something about them and about the answers that she has received. Secondly, I pay tribute to the trade unions—I know that the Minister will wish to do the same—especially my union, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which has campaigned tirelessly on the issue, and Connect, the union for professionals in communications, of which I am also a member and a former employee.
The Equal Opportunities Commission, too, has played a leading role in forming a coalition of almost 40 organisations, all calling for greater support for parents and carers. They have campaigned actively for working parents to have the opportunity to achieve a sustainable work-life balance, and their campaigns are more relevant now than ever before.
The context of the debate is one in which millions of mothers and fathers constantly juggle their responsibilities in an attempt to achieve a semblance of a work-life balance. Thanks to this Government's policies since 1997, approximately 10 million parents are in work, including 58 per cent. of women with pre-school children and 78 per cent. of women with children aged between six and 13. There may be more people in work, but that has thrown up a number of new issues. A third of fathers work more than 50 hours a week and 14 per cent. of fathers work 60 hours or more a week.
As hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise, what is at issue is not just the need of parents to spend quality time with their children. We must also acknowledge that there are unforeseen and unpredictable circumstances in which parents need time off, such as when a child or child minder is sick, or when a child has to be taken for an emergency medical appointment. In addition, there are routine occasions such as meetings with teachers, sports days, assemblies
206WH
and so on, and times when children just need extra time and support from their parents. As is well documented, those who do not receive such support can go on to develop serious behavioural problems. Much of the work that the Government have tried to do over the past seven years has aimed to create that bond in the early years so that parents and children can enjoy that nurturing experience that it is to be hoped will make society a better place for tomorrow.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): My hon. Friend will acknowledge the Government's attempt to deal with the long hours culture by signing up to the working time directive. We have an argument about the opt-out clause, but the directive restricts people to working 48 hours a week.
Mr. Dhanda: I certainly do. My hon. Friend makes a good point. I was working in the trade union movement when we signed up to the directive. It was one of those champagne moments of the Labour Government. I will talk later about that directive and other European directives that are particularly relevant to parental leave.
What is the Government's role in this whole area of parental leave? At one end of the spectrum is the view that parents' responsibility to their children is an entirely individual matter, that there is no need for Government support and that any obligation on business will be inherently detrimental to enterprise and the operation of a free market. I strongly oppose that view, and I would like to think that hon. Members on both sides of the House do too. At the other end of the spectrum is the argument that able parents should be entirely free to stay at home while drawing a full income from their employer or the taxpayer and that this obviates the need for them financially to support their families themselves. I will not subscribe to that position either. However, sometimes parents need help and support for their children.
The Government should not take on parents' duties for them, and I do not think anyone argues that they should, but they should enable parents to fulfil their duties. That is important. Parental leave provides one such avenue, but the issue is much wider than that. Since 1997, the Government have taken a holistic approach. My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned one of the measures that have been introduced—the working time directive. In 1999, the Government introduced provisions of the European directive on parental leave, which entitled parents who had worked for the same employer for at least a year to 13 weeks' unpaid parental leave if their child was born on or after 15 December 1999 and had not yet reached the age of five. Subsequently, as my hon. Friend will be aware, the TUC challenged the ruling and the scope of the directive was widened so that it applies to all parents with children under five who get a proportion of that paid leave. I hope he agrees that that was a welcome measure.
Each parent of a disabled child under the age of 18 for whom disability living allowance is paid is entitled to 18 weeks' unpaid parental leave. Parents also have the right to take time off for dependants, although it is unpaid. As with all these forms of parental leave, that is a stumbling block for low-paid workers—a point on

207WH
which I shall elaborate later. The measures have none the less been a great stride forward since 1997. It is also important to recognise that these policies fit into a much wider approach to families, of which child care is one part.
Since 1997, more than 920,000 new child care places have been created, benefiting well over 1.6 million children. Free part-time nursery provision has guaranteed education for all four-year-olds and now all three-year-olds too. The 524 new local Sure Start programmes for families living in disadvantaged areas have made a huge difference, not least through the five programmes in my constituency. I know that those programmes have made a huge difference throughout the country.
Let us not consider parental leave in isolation; there are many ways in which different Departments are striving to make work-life balance a reality. Many of the provisions that came into being in 1999 under the European directive on parental leave—particularly the ones I have described— apply to children under the age of five. It is the view of many in this House, and of trade unions such as USDAW, that those provisions should be extended. The Government should consider extending them to those above the age of five, and even to those up to the age of 16.
The Government make the good point that we need to invest more in the early years to invest in our society's future. I agree with that, but in dealing with society today, we find that a great deal of legislation is focused on antisocial behaviour. Any parent will say that one of the most difficult times to be a parent is when one's child is a teenager. I see the Minister nodding. I am happy to give way to him; he can tell us of his experiences.
Mr. Sutcliffe: The reason why I had my head in my hands is that I have a 15-year-old son, so I know exactly what my hon. Friend means about the difficulties of teenage years. He is a wonderful son. I have two other sons, aged 31 and 29, and it does not get any easier.
Mr. Dhanda: I will take the Minister's word for it. I got married only last year, and I do not have any kids yet, so it is not a direct problem for me.
I want to talk about the take-up of paid and unpaid parental leave. Figures produced by the Department of Trade and Industry in 2001 showed that just 3 per cent. of parents had exercised their right to take parental leave. In a written answer on 15 June, my hon. Friend the Minister stated that take-up was 8 per cent. of eligible female employees and 10 per cent. of eligible male employees among those whose employers provided parental leave. However, that figure was based on employees who were aware that their employer provided parental leave.
According to a Department for Work and Pensions survey, barely a third of eligible men and women were aware that they were entitled to parental leave. Only a quarter of mothers and fathers were fully aware that they had the right to take 13 weeks' unpaid parental leave after working for the same employer for one year. Interestingly, awareness and take-up of the right were much higher in higher paid, more highly educated
208WH
groups and in workplaces with more pro-work-life policies and trade union recognition. I am sure that the Minister will have something to say about that, because it is particularly relevant that there is a greater awareness where there is trade union recognition.
Such a level of take-up will be considered unacceptable by many people in this House, including me, and especially those of us with a passionate interest in the welfare of people facing low pay and poor conditions. I would be grateful if the Minister advised us of the steps that his Department will take to increase take-up.
The problem is replicated in the take-up of paid leave as well. Some employers provide payment for parental leave and take-up is much higher among employees who are entitled to partly or fully paid leave, particularly among men, who are paid disproportionately more than women. We have talked about how low take-up can be in respect of unpaid, but there is a significant increase in the case of paid leave. If we consider some of the statistics in relation to take-up, we find that 22 per cent. of women took the opportunity to have parental leave when it was partly paid, and 40 per cent. when it was fully paid. When we examine the figures relating to men, we see that take-up of partly paid leave goes up to 34 per cent., and for fully paid leave among men it is a whopping 57 per cent. That is hugely significant. It shows the much greater demand for parental leave if the financial sacrifice can be alleviated, especially among men, whose salaries are usually greater—although I know that the Government are looking to introduce measures to equalise the gender pay gap.
However, relatively few parents take that entitlement to paid leave. Awareness of entitlement is much higher among women than among men. Statistics purely on awareness show that three times as many women as men are aware of part-paid leave but that the gender gap reduces to half in respect of fully paid leave, of which far more people are aware. Those findings suggest that payment for parental leave could be a means of significantly increasing its take-up. I will welcome the views of my hon. Friend the Minister on that.
My office has done a lot of work with the House of Commons Library to find out what is going on with parental leave around the world. There is already provision for paid parental leave in many countries. In Austria, a flat-rate allowance funded by the state is available for working couples during parental leave. In Canada, parental leave is paid by unemployment insurance, where a family is eligible for unemployment benefits. In Denmark, parental leave is paid by the state at a flat rate equivalent to unemployment benefit. Such a system can work, and has worked, elsewhere. USDAW is urging the Government to build on their successes by extending paid parental leave, and I would appreciate the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister on that issue. Is his Department actively considering that approach, and what work has been carried out to establish the effectiveness and feasibility of paid parental leave? What conclusions, if any, has he drawn from any such analysis at this stage?
An understandable concern is that putting further obligations on businesses could harm their ability to make profits and create jobs. Those of us from a trade union background are all familiar with that argument. It should not be dismissed lightly, but neither should it

209WH
be taken as a given. There is a strong business case for paid family leave. It can help to reduce sickness absence. Claims of unwarranted sickies have been in the headlines recently, as they often are, but they are not just about stereotypical malingering workers wanting a day off. When a child is sick, parents put them first and take time off work to be with them. If the only basis for them to do so is to take sick leave, they will choose that option, as a recent survey by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has shown. I understand that the Government's research confirms that where there is some form of paid family leave, there is less unauthorised absence and less unplanned lateness.
In addition, the Industrial Relations Service has found that two thirds of employers said that recruitment, retention and employee commitment and motivation had all improved following the introduction of family-friendly working practices. Paid parental leave could therefore aid the health and stability of businesses.
Looking at the bigger picture into which parental leave fits, I want to consider other ways in which the Government could improve the work-life balance for parents. I know that some such measures fall outside the DTI's remit, so I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to speak in detail about them, but it is important to raise them because this is a cross-Government matter. I want to highlight the fact that this is a wide issue that requires the support of many Departments and other agencies. For example, longer school opening hours to provide wrap-around education and child care could help working parents enormously. The Department for Education and Skills has already released funding for 250 fully operational wrap-around schools, which will be set up by 2006. Two thirds of schools offer some kind of out-of-hours support for parents; extending that provision will enable us to maximise the potential of children while helping parents to go out to work.
I have already mentioned the EOC, which has been campaigning on the highly relevant issue of pregnancy discrimination. That term refers directly to any disadvantage a woman can face at work that is caused wholly or partly by pregnancy. Each year, up to 1,000 women in England and Wales take legal action claiming that they were sacked because they were pregnant. Others have faced pay cuts, demotion or hostile treatment—and not just at the hands of the United Kingdom Independence party. I want there to be more support for families and also to provide more support for employers by making them aware of the law and giving them the help they need to prevent pregnancy discrimination. I would welcome any information that my hon. Friend could give about what the Government plan to do in this area.
My message is a positive one. Parental leave is not a zero sum game between the rights of parents and the needs of business. Bosses benefit from productive, motivated and happy employees. Children benefit from having parents with the time to nurture them. Making it easier for parents to take leave can aid the stability of business and the emotional development of children, and support the strong families on which our communities and our society rest.
11.22 am
Beverley Hughes: I greatly welcome the opportunity to contribute, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) on his foresight in seeking a debate on this very important topic and on his success in securing it. I also join him in acknowledging the work of USDAW in representing the interests of people—mainly women—in the retail sector, for whom this is a very important issue.
Balancing the care of children with paid employment is a daily problem for many working parents, as most of us who have been there recognise. Parents do not want just to juggle those things in the precarious way that many of us have had to do. They want to ensure the best possible care for their children. Many families want to enable both parents to keep a toehold in the world of work and need to do so in ways that maximise their family income.
Trying to achieve those three objectives presents many parents with challenges on a scale that they find overwhelming. As family structures are diversifying and employment patterns, particularly for women, continue to evolve, it is unsurprising that the tension at the interface of these two worlds has become ever more acute for many parents.
We should disabuse ourselves at the outset of any impression there might be—not here, but outside this place that this is a difficult issue only for professional parents juggling children with two well-paid jobs. It is of course an even more difficult issue for lone parents and parents with limited earning power; for them, the options are even more limited. This matter is as much about social justice and extending opportunities to lower-income parents as anything else.
Some may still argue that this is essentially a private matter, and in terms of the particular arrangements that individual parents make, I agree that it is. However, I want to construct most of my arguments around the belief that what happens in practice when parents try to arrange child care and juggle it with work matters particularly profoundly in three areas that I hope nobody would disagree are very important parts of public policy.
The first area is outcomes for children. Children's experiences during their earliest years have profound and enduring impacts on their life chances and opportunity for social mobility later on. Their performances in tests at 22 and 42 months, before they even get to school, are very strong predictors of educational attainment by the age of 25 or 26, when life chances and social mobility are largely set. So in those early years, the quality of the care that young children receive—how stimulating and emotionally responsive it is—is critical. That is one of the important issues that justify the Government's role.
The second issue, of course, is gender inequality at work. The pay gap has been mentioned and it is perhaps the clearest example of employment inequality, although there are others, including career progression for women. In large part, the gap is due to mothers' role in the labour market and the highly gendered division of labour that flows from it in the domestic sphere. We all agree that this area of public policy needs addressing,

211WH
and the extent to which we help parents—not just mothers, but fathers, too—to share child care and paid work is critical.
Last but not least, it is bad for UK productivity and, in particular, for individual businesses if those businesses must lose valued employees simply because options for combining child care and work are limited. Those three social and economic issues—outcomes for children, gender inequality at work and the success of British business— are crucial, and no responsible political party can ignore them. The Government must provide a range of options from which parents can construct their own arrangements, while promoting progressive, modern solutions to those social and economic issues.
I congratulate the Government on their progress so far. They are the first Government for many years to have put such issues centre stage in a programme of policy. All three and four-year-olds are now guaranteed a publicly funded nursery place, and take-up is high. The extension of Sure Start and the development of children's centres will take that provision further.
Women's participation in the labour market is among the highest in Europe, with 65 per cent. of mothers in paid employment, usually part-time. Maternity leave has been extended, and provision for two weeks' paid paternity leave has been introduced. A small but increasing number of fathers choose to work part-time. Parents now have the right to ask to work flexibly. New tax credits and, of course, the minimum wage help lower-paid parents with their family finances.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester that there is a lack of clarity about some details, particularly regarding parental leave arrangements, but a recent ICM/Guardian poll showed that about 70 per cent. of parents had a good overall grasp of the wide range of Government reforms. Interestingly, however, 66 per cent. wanted the Government to go further, which reflects the continuing difficulty that many parents have in squaring the circle, although things have got better. The problem is particularly acute for parents with very young babies, who want, ideally, to opt for home-based care until their children reach nursery age. Recent research has questioned the suitability of group care for very young children and babies, whose needs are arguably best met by parents or by one or two consistent, emotionally responsive carers at home. That goes back to the argument about the quality of arrangements for children.
The present arrangements have gone a considerable way to helping parents, but it is still difficult for many parents to juggle their responsibilities. That has led to a situation in which there are limited options for age-appropriate child care, particularly when children are very young. Mothers also tend to work part-time, exacerbating the gender pay gap, which is already among the most significant in Europe. Furthermore, men are restricted differentially to full-time, long-hours jobs, when many are calling for fathers' distinctive role to be recognised. That makes it more difficult for businesses to retain women employees.
212WH
On the basis of the Government's progress so far, people are ready for and want another step change, in addition to what has already been achieved, to extend choice to working parents. If we are to achieve it, we must embrace several objectives. I realise that they are not all in this Minister's province, but as my hon. Friend said, we need a cross-Government approach if we are to hit all the right buttons. First, we need high-quality and age-appropriate arrangements for child care. Secondly, we need improved satisfaction, pay and career progression for women at work. Thirdly, we need opportunities for child care to be shared between both parents and a distinctive focus on fathers. We need establish the wider business case for flexible employment practices.
If we can address those issues, we will need to do a number of things. On child care, we must try to see whether we can diversify and improve the quality of the arrangements that are made, particularly for young children. I think—hon. Members may well share this view—that it is hard to contemplate leaving a young baby with somebody else. It is a wrench that many people go through. That view may reflect my position, because 25 years ago, when I had my first child, my husband and I both worked part-time for about eight years until our third child went to nursery, and it was much more difficult for him than for me. I would like to think that that is now an easier option for some parents to consider, but we must make it easier for fathers to follow such arrangements with their partners.
The quality and diversity of arrangements for child care must be addressed, including home-based care for young babies, nursery care and education for three to five-year-olds, and much more wrap-around provision for children at school. We must also address the quality assurance of child care, because parents need to know that the place where they are leaving their children is safe and high quality. One of the greatest fears is what is happening when the children are out of sight, and how they are being spoken to and the quality of interaction between them and their carers. Most child care is high quality, but each parent needs to know that the child care that they have is high quality.
Secondly, support for parents at work must be extended, and we have introduced extensions in paternity and maternity leave. The issue of the level of pay during leave is important. There is some evidence, as cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, that if pay increases, so too does the take-up, particularly for people from poorer families. I would like to see the introduction of some extended paid parental leave entitlement, on an equal basis for men and women. The lessons in Norway are instructive, because take-up by fathers increased dramatically when they were given a specific entitlement on a take it or lose it basis.
I welcome the Government's arrangements for people to have the right to request flexible hours. If I remember rightly, the monitoring in the first tranche showed that 80 per cent. of such requests were agreed. That is a great step forward. However, that still presumably means that one in five were turned down, and I wonder what those parents had to do. I would welcome it if the Government continue to monitor that provision to see whether it needs to be strengthened.

213WH
The third area that we must address is making employment practices father friendly as well as mother friendly. That means reinforcing the attitude that a father's involvement is important in its own right, for children and men, and not just as a support for mothers. There is a range of options, including flexible hours, annualised hours and term-time working for men and women. If such arrangements were more the norm, they could transform options for parents and benefit many employers by reducing sickness absence, unauthorised absence and lateness, and by improving recruitment, retention and productivity. Nobody works harder than a part-time worker in my experience, having been one for many years.
As a precursor, as the variants of such a package are considerable, it would be welcome if the Government, employers and trade unions could work together to evaluate the options and talk to parents. That should include the potential impact—real or perceived—on other employees of extending rights to working parents.
Mr. Dhanda: I am in total agreement with my right hon. Friend on the packages that are out there working and delivering. Does she agree that part of the difficulty is ensuring a level of equity between different social groups' ability to buy into the packages? Unfortunately, the way things are and the way in which knowledge tends to be dispersed to those who can afford it means that the greatest beneficiaries tend to be those with better pay and conditions. One of the things that we need to do is find other mechanisms to reach out to ensure that those on lower pay benefit from some of the measures that she outlined.
Beverley Hughes: I agree absolutely. I remind my hon. Friend that I started my speech by saying that, for me, the issue is one of social justice. If we are serious about extending opportunities to all, we must make sure that such provisions reach the people who, arguably, need them most and not simply those who are better informed and able to access them. That must be an important part of the equation.
It is important to demonstrate and establish the business case and the wider social and economic case for the measures. I suspect that the benefits may go well beyond the more limited benefit of enabling parents to work and care at the same time. I think that the potential benefits for children—potentially for boys and girls differentially—of living in families in which both parents are being seen to share the care and work could be profound.
In conclusion, I welcome the progress that we have already made in taking the arrangements into a new dimension. I hope that we can now work on the next steps, along the lines that my hon. Friend has been addressing. If we can, I think that we will not only do the best by children, but address gender inequality in the workplace and help British business to make the most of the talents of all our people in the interests of the British economy.
11.37 am
Brian Cotter: I thank the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) for initiating the debate, which is very important. There are
214WH
many difficulties that still need resolving, and one cannot say merely that they are black and white and let that be the end of it. I thank him for the clarity with which he drew attention to the issues and pressures that people have in their lives nowadays that are different from how things used to be.
Child care places have been referred to, as has the importance of early years—an issue that, in particular, the right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) addressed. There are many such issues and questions. The question of how to juggle our personal lives with our daily working commitments is becoming increasingly pressured in today's modern society, when financial pressures on both parents are to the fore. Moreover, young women are no longer trapped by the old-fashioned stereotype that once confined them to the home in the role of full-time housewife and mother. Society has rightly moved on, so that both men and women can pursue the career of their choice and increasingly tend to share the practical responsibilities of parenthood.
In discussing the changing needs of working parents, we must remember the wider debate about the value of flexible, friendly working patterns for others. With an increasingly elderly population, many people are stepping in to fulfil the state's traditional role and are providing much-needed care for elderly and sick relatives. The Prime Minister has indicated that he wishes to consider that area and how to balance those needs with existing employment commitments. The debate is welcome, as it deals with an important issue that is becoming an increasing concern to many people in society. In responding to those new challenges and needs, it is imperative that we achieve co-operation and consensus among employers, workers and the state. Without such agreement, we will fail to create a competitive and flexible labour market that reflects Britain's 21st century needs.
Until recently, before I entered Parliament, I ran a small company. I was at the sharp end and I have experienced the need for flexibility, understanding and co-operation. It is important to change the old business culture of "them and us" and "You're on the shop floor and we're up here." I have had to address those problems, and I could give examples of other difficult issues that I have had to solve. This is an important matter, which is not black and white. We must work co-operatively.
I shall put the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) in the spotlight, perhaps unfairly, since I have no quotation that refers to her, but I must point out that the Conservatives' usual dismissal of family-friendly policies is particularly unhelpful in view of what this debate is about, as it fails to address the changing nature of the British workplace. At last year's Conservative party conference in Blackpool, the then shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), said that a Conservative Government would consider repealing newly won rights to extra maternity and paternity leave, prompting the chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission, Julie Mellor, to question whether he was
"completely out of touch with public opinion."
Considering the results of last month's ICM poll, it seems that the Conservatives are out of touch with public opinion. The poll showed overwhelming

215WH
sympathy for young families trying to balance work-life responsibilities, with 66 per cent. of respondents arguing that the Government should allow either parent to take up to six months' paid leave.
I wonder whether the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), who is unfortunately not present, but speaks on behalf of the Conservatives on small business, would want to reconsider the categorical statement he made in the latest issue of the journal, Business Adviser, when he pledged that there would be absolutely
"no more work-life balance initiatives or employment legislation"
under a Tory Government.
There have been many announcements over the summer break from the official Opposition, and it is plain from this debate that some clear statements have been made in the past. Whether they will be changed I am not sure. Although there is an argument for questioning how well current legislation is working, I hardly think that refusing ever to take any further action, as if the world will stand still, will help working parents or employers to cope with sociological and cultural changes affecting how we work.
I modestly and quietly suggest that the Conservatives should remember that we no longer live in an era in which men go off to work in cloth caps, leaving women at home to put a meal on the table and look after the children. None the less, it is right to highlight the problems that small businesses have in implementing employment law, particularly given the increasing burden of red tape in recent years. Under Labour the burden has soared.
Mr. Sutcliffe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as I cannot let him continue without asking this obvious question: which of the employment regulations introduced since 1997 would the Liberal party remove?
Brian Cotter: I have made it quite clear that as a party we are not into repealing sensible employment regulation; we are into ensuring that there has been proper consultation beforehand and an assessment of how Bills will impact on businesses and others. Since I entered Parliament, I and other colleagues have identified that issue. I credit the Government with having improved their impact assessments, but a lot of legislation has been introduced without being properly assessed and adjusted accordingly.
Legislation disproportionately presses down on small businesses. An Office World report published in July 2003 found that 36 per cent. of small business owners with up to five employees reported a negative effect on their health as a result of complying with employment regulations.
Returning to the poor Conservatives, we should not forget that, for all their claims about getting rid of regulation, in their time they piled on as many if not more regulations as this Government have done. We will perhaps hear more about that. It was a Conservative Government who first transferred the cost of statutory sick pay from the state to the employer, and John Major's Government were actively considering
216WH
switching the full cost of funding maternity pay from the state to employers in summer 1995. Those are just some examples that we should be concerned about.
It is clear that many small businesses are having problems complying with parental leave regulation. Godfrey Bloom, the UKIP MEP, is quoted as saying:
"No self-respecting small businessman … would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age"
because it is too risky. That may be a grossly outdated and offensive view, but it struck a chord with many small business people none the less.
As politicians, we owe it to both parents and employers to address any problems that small businesses are having in dealing with parental leave requirements. Parents should not be punished if unnecessary bureaucracy is standing in the way of small business owners fulfilling their role as reasonable employers. Young women should not be discriminated against because small employers are deterred from hiring them due to overburdensome maternity leave regulations. I say to the Minister that there are problems that need to be addressed: he nods and agrees, as we all do.
The latest report published by the Equal Opportunities Commission makes particularly alarming reading. "Tip of the Iceberg" found that more than 1,000 women take legal action each year claiming that they have been sacked for being pregnant. Like many statistics, that figure stands on its own but has behind it lots of different issues with their pros and cons. I know that that is the case, and I will not take up too much of the House's time on the matter. I had to deal with such an issue when I was an employer, and it was difficult, so I am not saying that such things are easy.
I am pleased that the EOC is consulting various groups as part of a wider investigation of the issue, including the question whether the state should provide support to small firms, spread the costs of pregnancy and remove some of their fears. I hope that the Government will study the conclusions of the investigation carefully.
Small firms should not face crippling costs or burdens on their business due to the lack of resources that they have in comparison with larger firms in implementing parental leave regulations. One small business owner complained in The Sunday Times at the beginning of August that he was struggling to reclaim from the Inland Revenue the maternity pay that he had given to his employee. For small businesses, which often have a limited cash flow, such a situation is unacceptable, and it is important that such cases are examined. I do not know the detail—I am simply highlighting something that has been said—but it is deplorable if firms cannot claim back promptly and easily the maternity pay that they have paid out.
Administrative burdens in implementing the regulation need to be as light as possible, and small firms need easy access to guidance on the law. If small firms continue to have problems with red tape on parental leave, the Government must address the matter so that parents do not end up losing out as a result. Statutory requirements must be of a pace that can be absorbed at every level, which might even require the Government to provide financial assistance to small businesses. I put that forward just as a "might".

217WH
It is also vital that the 2006 review of employment law does not merely focus on extending the various parental leave measures introduced in 2003, but considers how well they are working in practice and how to iron out any difficulties that small firms are having. If the Government fail to address problems associated with red tape, the inequality between the rights of employees in small firms and those in large firms will be most obvious.
To return to family-friendly policies, only last month the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the leader of the Conservative party, referred to the important role that fathers play in the development of their children. He drew a connection between their involvement and reducing crime. It is therefore a mystery why the Conservatives have tended to be so critical of various parental leave measures, given that benefits such as paid paternity leave encourage men to play a greater role in the child's life. We must all address that issue.
As the hon. Member for Gloucester said, there are concerns about take-up and awareness. I hope that this debate will help to publicise benefits that are there to be taken up. Many people argue that statutory leave after a birth requires examining, and my party agrees.
Finally, the one thing that really makes a dramatic improvement in the lives of working parents is provision of decent and affordable child care. I will not say more about that, except that it is a big concern. Liberal Democrats believe that money from the Chancellor's child trust fund, for example, should be diverted towards child care. That is a political issue about which I shall make just that small point, but there are many concerns about child care, as I learned when I went around my constituency during the summer.
In conclusion, we must recognise that the patterns of work and family life are changing. That is why this debate is so very important.
11.52 am
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I congratulate the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) on securing this debate and on introducing it at such an excellent time—the beginning of the political year, when everyone is agog to know what we are talking about. I am absolutely delighted that this very important subject is being aired here on day one.
I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said, although he might be surprised to hear me say it. He has clearly given a great deal of thought to the question, which is one of balance. The issue affects almost every family in this country. The right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) is absolutely correct in saying that the whole issue of parents in the workplace, mothers, maternity and parental leave and the work-life balance affects everyone at every level of employment. We are seeing high-profile cases in which ladies in the City are taking expensive legal action— enormous amounts of money are at stake—in cases of unfair dismissal, discrimination and so on. At the same time, we all know of women who want to go out to work, but who simply cannot do so after they have children because child care costs take up almost all their earned income after tax. I completely agree with the right hon. Lady that the matter affects people at every level of employment.
218WH
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) for throwing down the gauntlet on my party's policy on these issues. It gives me the opportunity to clear up a few misunderstandings. I shall have a word later with my hon. Friends the Members for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) and for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), but I make it absolutely clear that my party is examining many aspects of work-life balance and the difficulties that people in a modern society have in balancing their duties to their families, including not only their children, but their parents. Carers of elderly, disabled and infirm people have just as much difficulty as parents, and sometimes more, in balancing their work life and their home life. If someone has a small child, they at least know that they have small child to care for, but people's parents can become unwell very suddenly. At some point or other, we have all had to balance these great difficulties.
It is simply wrong to say that the Conservative party is not aware of these issues and is not addressing them. We most certainly are addressing them in our development of future policy. I must make it absolutely clear that we are not against parental leave, and I shall speak about that in more detail later. Without any doubt, we recognise that producing, nurturing and educating future generations is an extremely important role. The role of parent is not just incidental to the rest of life; it is vital. It sounds so obvious that it hardly needs to be said, but I feel that I have to say it because the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare has quoted some articles from journals that have put the wrong emphasis on certain things that may or may not have been said by some of my hon. Friends. I am not blaming him. He has quoted the media, and we all know that they are not necessarily 100 per cent. accurate.
Mr. Dhanda: I appreciate the calm and measured way in which the hon. Lady is making her points. She makes a point about quoting the media, rather than referring to things that have been said directly by spokespersons. When she goes away from this debate and meets people on her Front Bench who are directly involved in formulating the policies in this area, she might remind them that it was the last-but-one leader of her party who said at the Dispatch Box that he would do away with Sure Start. In the same calm and measured way in which she has handled herself in this debate, I urge her to go back to her colleagues to tell them not to propose policies that would repeal some good measures that have been introduced since 1997.
Mrs. Laing: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but time moves on and whatever was said by the last-but-one leader of the Conservative party does not necessarily stand today. Some aspects of the Sure Start scheme now work reasonably well. I was very sceptical about it at the beginning because all I could see were glossy orange and yellow brochures, lots of money being spent and not an awful lot of results for the people who really needed them. However, as the scheme has settled down, I can see that there are some aspects that are not necessarily wrong. I hope that that satisfies him for the time being.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, who would have been considering his remarks before he arrived today and wanting to suggest that the

219WH
Conservative party is out of touch with public opinion on these matters, must have been rather disappointed to see me sitting here. I can assure him and the House that I am most certainly not out of touch with public opinion on balancing work life with motherhood and family life.
I entirely welcome the excellent report by the Equal Opportunities Commission. It is an investigation of discrimination against new and expectant mothers in the workplace. When I was an expectant mother some three and a half years ago, it occurred to me that I might consider telling the electorate of Epping Forest as the general election approached that I would not be mounting a campaign because I was statutorily entitled to maternity leave. Despite my doctor saying that it was time to go home and put my feet up, however, I did exactly the opposite by fighting and, as is obviously evidenced by the fact that I am standing here, winning a general election campaign exactly one week before I gave birth to my son. That was pretty bad timing, but such matters are in the hands of the gods and the Prime Minister and were not my fault. I am happy to report that my son was and continues to be very healthy. At the age of three and a bit he continues to need an awful lot of care from his mother. He sometimes disapproves when mummy leaves him to go to what he calls "tick tock", otherwise known as the House of Commons. So I am far from out of touch on these matters, as indeed is the Conservative party.
I welcome the Equal Opportunities Commission report that was published yesterday, which was extremely good timing. It makes four key recommendations, most of which I will be happy to support. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that a
"written statement of rights and responsibilities"
should be provided
"to every pregnant woman and her employer."
That is a perfectly reasonable suggestion that should be followed through.
Secondly, the report suggests that there should be a
"practical toolkit for employers, underpinned by a statutory Code of Practice to clarify the complicated jigsaw of existing law and help with planning."
I am always reluctant to call for something that requires legislation, and a statutory code of practice would do that. Since it seems that over the next few weeks—I quote the newspapers—we will spend most of our time in Parliament talking about foxhunting, I would not call at this point for anything that requires primary legislation because it will be ages in coming. It would be much better if we could get on with it and have a voluntary code of practice.
We could also consider
"an extension of the three-month time limit for filing a pregnancy-related employment tribunal claim to give more women access to justice, as many women find it difficult to go through this process around the time of childbirth."
That would be absolutely correct. I would have to look into it in greater detail before asking the Minister to carry it out, but it is certainly worth considering.
Finally, the Equal Opportunities Commission report of course mentions better child care. I think that we are reaching a party political consensus on child care. The
220WH
Opposition are examining policy on child care, and especially on supply side measures, and the Government and Liberal Democrats are doing likewise. When I ask working women what we can do to make their life and their family's life easier, 90 per cent. of the time the answer is child care. We pay attention to what people tell us around the country. I look forward to examining the Equal Opportunities Commission's investigation in more detail, as I am sure the Minister does, because it contains a lot of important material.
When considering parental leave and issues of family and work, it is important to achieve a balance. There must be a reasonable balance between the employee and the employer. In speaking up for the employer, as I often do, especially in respect of small businesses that are less able to cope with more Government regulation, one is not necessarily criticising the employee. I stress that it is a question of balance. If the pendulum swings too far in one direction, it is not fair to the parent, the family or the child. If it swings too far in the other, it is not fair to the reasonable employer. I do not want over-regulation.
Mr. Sutcliffe: I do not doubt the hon. Lady's sincerity, and her contribution leads us to a crucial point. In intervening on the hon. Member for Weston-superMare, I asked which regulations his party would withdraw. Warm words are fine, but on that issue of balance, which of the existing employment rights affecting maternity or paternity would the Conservative party remove?
Mrs. Laing: The Minister is right to put me on the spot about that issue. I refer him to announcements that have been made during the past few weeks by the shadow spokesman on industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), who has examined these matters in great detail, because we recognise that parts of British industry are finding it difficult to operate to the best of their ability because of regulation and red tape, which, I am sure the Minister will freely admit, has emerged from his Government by the tonne.
My party will do nothing to undermine the position of parents, and mothers in particular, in the workplace. We recognise that the work-life balance is vital. Of course, we must have regulation to protect women in the workplace. However, if in seeking to protect them, the pendulum swings too far in favour of overbearing regulations and those regulations are too strident, the otherwise reasonable employer will simply not employ women of child-bearing age. That is the last thing that I want and it would be quite wrong. That is why getting the balance right is so important, and that is what we are striving for.
I am worried about some of the high-profile cases that are being brought by City women, because the position of women of the next generation who are striving to break through the glass ceiling, as the right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston has done and as I strive to do, will be more difficult if employers are afraid of employing women of child-bearing age or, indeed, of employing women at all. I do not want that to happen.
However, it is without a doubt in the interests of good employers to protect their own investment in human capital—the employees. Training and

221WH
experience at all levels of employment enhances human capital. Where a woman comes into an employer's work force in her mid-20s, works, gets promoted, learns the ways of the company, increases her experience and her ability, and then, in her early-30s, has children, surely the best business case for that employer is to welcome her back into the workplace, because she will still have the 10 years of valuable experience that she had before her children were born.
I can assure hon. Members that a woman's brain does not deteriorate because of childbirth, as I am sure the right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston agrees. If any hon. Gentlemen wish to disagree, we can discuss the matter when we do not have to be quite so polite to one another. There is no such effect, however, and let us be reasonable about it. We therefore have to encourage employers to protect their own investment in human capital, and indeed to enhance it by being reasonable about parental leave for both mothers and fathers.
Women producing children should not be criticised. They should not be told that, if they have a child, that should be their only priority and they should not do anything else. Of course one's child is always one's first priority—there is no doubt about it—but women who are producing children and are also in the workplace should be congratulated, because they are doing two vital jobs at once. Once we recognise that, all other policy in this matter will flow from it.
It simply does not make sense to give equal opportunity in education to girls and boys, and then to young men and women, and to invest our society's assets and taxpayers' money in highly educating women, and then to say that, when they have children, their education is not worth as much as that of a man. Of course it is, which is why the delicate balance of protecting the employer and employee must be respected. As a society, we invest in the 52 per cent. of the population who are women, and it would not make sense not to recognise their full potential value in the workplace.
My party and I are in favour of parental leave. We believe in keeping that delicate balance, encouraging the productivity of British industry and helping companies do the best they can, while also helping them to treat their employees as well as they possibly can, because that is in everyone's interests—the interests not only of the economy, but of families and future generations.
12.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in our first trade and industry debate after the summer recess. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) has secured the debate, and I am grateful that he has raised this issue. I have had many good times with my hon. Friend on the football field and elsewhere, and I know that he is passionate in everything he does.
This has been an important debate, which has covered many issues that I would like to address. I thank all Members for their contributions. I do not doubt the sincerity of the hon. Members for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) and for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), and I will return to the substance of their points. However, I cannot let this part of the debate go by without answering the political points that have been raised.
222WH
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said that there is too much regulation from this Government; he went on to say, rightly, that the last Tory Government had produced more regulations. However, the warm words and the experiences that he portrayed have to be measured against what his party says. His party wishes to do away with the Department of Trade and Industry. It made announcements this morning about its plans to fund future pension schemes through the demise of the DTI. That begs the question how and where the work on employment rights would continue. The hon. Gentleman will want to give me an answer, and I am sure that he will do so in a later debate.
I pose the question on regulation to both Members because we keep hearing this attack on over-regulation, burdens on business and red tape. However, each of the political parties then says how wonderful it is because of the work carried out by the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Government and various other bodies. The question will continually be raised which of the regulations passed by the Government either party does not want to pursue. I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Epping Forest on the work-life balance; we look forward to the proposals that I am sure will be made in the not-too-distant future. I particularly welcome the broad support for the EOC; the Government will look at the outcome of the report and respond in due course. The leader of the hon. Lady's party and the shadow Chancellor have already told us that there will be reductions in public spending, so the hon. Lady will have to be careful about how she balances those choices.
I come to an issue that is clearly important to all involved in this debate: how we help working parents to balance work and family life. That is important to us all, because we have all been involved in that in some way. We were grateful to hear the experiences of hon. Members, and particularly those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) and the hon. Member for Epping Forest, who spoke on the issues of women at work and childbearing.
I accept the point that was made on child care—quality of child care is important. As a parent and grandparent, I know that that is the major factor when people are deciding whether to take the risk of leaving children with others.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester in expressing support for, and congratulations to, all the bodies working on the subject, notably the trade unions that he mentioned, USDAW and Connect, the Equal Opportunities Commission and an organisation for which I have presented awards, Parents at Work, which makes the business case for greater flexibility as regards leave and greater involvement in the issue in the workplace.
Today's debate has essentially been about parental leave but, as my hon. Friend said, the issue should not be seen in isolation. It is one of a wide range of policies that we have introduced to help parents to participate and remain in the work force. Those policies give parents more choices in balancing their work and family life, enabling women to stay in their jobs and fathers to take a bigger role in parenting. I agree with hon. Members that the role of the father is important.

223WH
Before 1999, provision for working parents was limited to 14 weeks' maternity leave; there was no provision at all for fathers or adopters. I am glad that we have come a long way since then. In 1999, we began to introduce a series of new rights and entitlements that support working parents as they balance their work and child care responsibilities. As my hon. Friend said, we introduced a "day one" right to time off for dependants, which allows all employees to take time off to deal with an emergency and make any necessary longer term arrangements. Of course, we also established new rights, which give parental leave to fathers as well as mothers and to adopters as well as birth parents.
Parental leave gives parents the right to time off to look after their child, make arrangements for the child's welfare or simply spend more time with their children. They can take time off knowing they have the right to return to their job at the end of their leave. They can concentrate on family life without having to worry about whether there will be a job for them when they return.
Parents are entitled to 13 weeks' leave for each child, which can be taken up to the child's fifth birthday. Initially the right benefited only parents of children born or placed for adoption on or after the date when the right was introduced, but, as my hon. Friend said, in January 2002 we extended parental leave to parents of all the children under five on that day. For parents of disabled children we increased the leave to 18 weeks; that leave can be taken up until the child's 18th birthday.
Parental leave was designed to be flexible. Employers and employees are encouraged to agree on how the scheme will work for them. For example, some companies offer a period of paid parental leave or widen the scheme to include more parents. Unions can also negotiate collective agreements on parental leave with employers. We want that balance to work, and we want schemes that meet the requirements of particular workplaces, but where there is no such agreement, we have to use a fall-back scheme. That provides key elements of how parental leave will work, including how much leave can be taken in a year and what notice should be given. It is intended to support parents without disadvantaging their employers.
Parents must give their employer 21 days' notice of their leave. That provides both employer and employee with a degree of certainty and helps them to plan for the absence. Leave can be taken only in blocks of a week, although parents of disabled children are able to take leave a day at a time. Employers can postpone parental leave for up to six months if the employee's absence would unduly disrupt the business.
The fall-back scheme was designed to balance the needs of parents with those of employers. As hon. Members have said, that is always a difficult balancing act, but I think that, across the range of family friendly measures, we have made the right decisions. We are helping parents to remain in the work force.
I want to consider the mother gap, which is a key issue. The mother gap is a term to describe the difference in incomes between childless women and those with children over their lifetimes. The reasons for the mother gap include fewer years in employment, shorter hours
224WH
due to part-time work, lost experience and the part-time penalty. A mother gap in earnings of £140,000 is experienced by a typical mid-skilled mother of two throughout a lifetime.
The mother gap is narrowing because more women than ever are returning to work within a year of childbirth. We know that returning to the same job is key to reducing the mother gap. To succeed in that effort, we have made parental leave one of the options open to mothers who wish to return to work. However, as I have said, parental leave is only one part of the picture. The Government introduced paid annual leave as a statutory right for all workers, and all workers are now entitled to four weeks' paid holiday. That entitlement begins from their first day of employment and gives parents a further option for taking time off to spend with their children.
In April 2003, following extensive consultation with parents, employers, unions, charities and other interested parties, we introduced the biggest ever package of legal changes to help parents to balance work and family life. The changes are compatible with business and business supports it. They include paid paternity leave; the biggest increase in statutory maternity pay since it was introduced in 1948; an increase in maternity leave to one year; the right to request flexible working for fathers as well as mothers of young and disabled children; and, for the first time, comparable rights for parents who adopt.
Paid parental leave was one of the possible options considered in the working parents Green Paper and the consultation exercise in 2000. Although paid parental leave was supported by some employer representatives and family groups, as my hon. Friend said, employers of all sizes maintained a high level of opposition to its introduction on the grounds of cost and the impact of absence from the workplace. Parents themselves gave a higher priority to other options. We believe that we are likely to be more successful if we continue the route that we have chosen to develop awareness.
Mr. Dhanda: I appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying. When he returns to his Department, will he take on board the points that have been made during the debate about what is happening in Austria, Canada and Denmark, where they have made a fist of it and where such action has not been detrimental to businesses in those countries or to the economy?
Mr. Sutcliffe: I will do that. My hon. Friend will know that, as we discuss the manifesto that will be put to people in the United Kingdom, my colleagues in the DTI and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider the whole range of options that are available to us in respect of family friendly employment and women at work. I clearly undertake to examine the points made in the debate and the evidence that my hon. Friend and others will produce on what happens elsewhere.
My hon. Friend referred to the number of people who do not take up such opportunities and use their rights, and asked what the Government are doing to increase take-up. Throughout 2003, the Department ran a series of newspaper advertisements to raise awareness of the new laws that cover parental leave. We spent £2.7 million on the campaign. At the beginning of this year,

225WH
we directly mailed nearly 250,000 employers of small and medium-sized businesses with information on the new laws. Again, that covered parental leave. Information is also available on the DTI website. I agree with my hon. Friend and ACAS that we must ensure that we get the message through to people about their rights.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston said, initial evidence shows that many parents are already benefiting from the new laws. In the past year, almost a million parents have asked for a change in their working hours, which is a quarter of all parents with children under the age of six. We have made huge strides in supporting parents in the workplace. They now have more opportunity to choose how and when they spend time with their children. It may never seem enough time, but it is a vast improvement on what was available in 1997.
As has been said, however, such action is only part of what we have done for families. Six million families are benefiting from the new tax credits, and 524 Sure Start programmes offer services to about 400,000 under-fours in disadvantaged areas, including a third of all those living in poverty. There are more than 1,200 neighbourhood nurseries providing more than 43,000 day-care places.
We are committed to providing, by 2008, an additional 100,000 child care places, through the Sure Start and children's centres, offering integrated early education, child care, and health and family support services for the 20 per cent. of wards that are most disadvantaged and for many pockets of deprivation outside those areas.
Our approach has always encompassed more than legislation to establish minimum fair standards in the workplace. Since 2000, the Government have led a concerted effort to change the culture and to create a consensus that work-life balance and flexible working opportunities benefit everyone: employers and employees.
226WH
Many employers tell me and my colleagues that it makes good business sense to provide flexible working opportunities for their staff, as well as assisting the demographic situation. It helps them to retain skilled staff, raise staff morale and decrease absenteeism. They are convinced that it is best business practice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said that parents still struggle to balance work and family responsibilities. We must therefore continue to examine where we can go next. In April, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched a debate to look at what more we could do to support families. We have been listening to the views of parents and carers on how they juggle work and family responsibilities, and to employers' views on how they respond to increasing flexibility in the workplace. With input from a citizens jury, analysis of research and other evidence, we will look closely at the options that work for families and for business.
We made a commitment that we would not make any changes to the 2003 employment laws for three years, and we will stick to that commitment. However, we want to begin to examine what we could do, and that will include an examination of parental leave. We have to make tough choices, because we cannot do everything.
This has been an important debate on an issue that relates to the world of work both now and in the future and how people react to it. Mention was made of the ICM poll—it is clear that people want to see a change in working practices. That change will benefit the UK's productivity, and it will benefit businesses and families. The general debate will continue, but I hope that the contribution from today's debate will mean that parents in the UK will be able to juggle the difficult task of bringing up their children while ensuring that the UK stays ahead in productivity.
12.28 pm
Sitting suspended until two o'clock.

Mark Day
12.30 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise a case in my constituency in which I have taken a long-standing interest and which has caused me a fair amount of grief in the last few years.
I say at the outset that I do not believe there to be any sub judice issue at stake in the case, since all the appeal processes have been exhausted and what remains is a question for the Parole Board and related activities. I do not believe either that there is any case of the House trespassing on the courts, whether or not the courts pay attention to the possibility of trespassing on our concerns, but that is a matter for another debate, which I suspect would take even longer than this one.
The background to the case is that on 1 August 1992, my constituent Mark Day, then a 19-year-old of previously good character, was out with a group of friends in Kingston upon Thames. Although he had been drinking, he was not drunk; indeed, later that evening he passed a breathalyser test. After the bars had closed, he and his friends, whom he had known for only a short time—they were not of long standing—joined a queue at a burger bar. There was an altercation between Mark and a Mr. Patrick French, who was goading Mark and remarking on his youthful appearance. Mark punched Mr. French, but as an act of self defence, as he feared that he was going to be hit by Mr. French. It is unclear exactly what happened next, but it appears that others in the group attacked Mr. French, who was tragically killed in the ensuing melée.
Mark has never denied being involved, but has always maintained that his involvement was minimal and almost accidental, and that at the time of the fatal blow he was in a fight with another man, Damien Chapman. On 26 March 1993, Mark and two others were convicted of murder on the basis of common enterprise, although to this day he protests that it was not he who inflicted the fatal blow. Indeed, I am told that his co-accused, Scott Steer, admitted to a prison officer that he was responsible, and the appeal court took the view that the trial jury
"recognised the strong possibility that it was Steer who inflicted the fatal blow".
Mark was sentenced to life imprisonment, with an initial tariff of 12 years, subsequently reduced to 11 years, although his appeal against conviction has been unsuccessful; it was rejected most recently in April last year. Those are the bare facts of the case in which a brawl lasting a few minutes cost the life of one man and deprived three others of their liberty, when they should have been able to enjoy the early years of adulthood.
However, Mark Day's difficulties have been compounded by astonishingly incompetent legal representation, which reflects extremely badly on the profession. On the night of the tragic incident, the duty solicitor who represented Mark was Gerald Bate. He considered that he was not sufficiently experienced to handle a murder case and sold the case to another firm of solicitors on a fee-share and commission basis. However, for the next six months, Bate fronted the case, and Mark's parents had no idea that he was merely a cipher acting as undeclared agent for a firm of solicitors.
228WH
During the relevant period, the relationship between Bate and the firm. Whitehead Devereux, ended in acrimony. It is argued that Mark's interests were severely damaged during the identification parades and the subsequent magistrates court and committal proceedings when Bate was charged with the responsibility for Mark's case, not because he was the right man for the job but because that was the financial deal between the lawyers.
In addition to that disastrous and unprofessional arrangement, the solicitors failed to instruct a QC in good time, despite the Day family's increasingly desperate pleas. In the end, Mr. Roy Amlot, an eminent Queen's Counsel and later chairman of the Bar, was instructed just four days before the trial began in March 1993, and he had only one conference with Mark. Furthermore, he was called away to another case during the trial, leaving a junior to hold the fort. Unbelievably, Mr. Amlot recommended that Mark should not give evidence in his own defence—we all know what view we take of people who are not prepared to speak up in their own defence.
I am setting all this out for the Minister's benefit, so that he can understand why I have been pressing this case for a number of years. What happened on that August night 12 years ago was a tragedy for Patrick French's family, but it was also, albeit to a much lesser degree, something of a tragedy for the Day family, and Mark's problems have been compounded by the way in which the Home Office has subsequently handled his case.
According to the rules as I understand them, on the basis of a tariff of 11 years, Mark should have been eligible for parole in August last year. Most lifers have to spend time in an open prison before their release, so the normal practice is that the process of case review begins some three to three and a half years before the tariff expiry date. In theory, that review considers only the issue of release, but in reality it concentrates on a possible transfer to an open prison. If the prisoner is successful, he will have his second Parole Board review at his tariff expiry point and, if successful there, will be released at that date.
In Mark's case, that implies a first review in August 2000. However, although reports were prepared, the review simply never took place, as the Home Office has admitted. As a consequence, a move to an open prison did not take place either. Altogether, that was a significant error that could well have cost Mark years of liberty to which he was otherwise entitled.
The first Parole Board hearing did not take place until November 2003, when Mark was still being held at Kingston prison, near Portsmouth. It was arguably more than three years later than it should have been and certainly three months after the tariff expiry date. The board held that Mark's behaviour in prison had generally been "good" and that he had
"worked hard and well in the gardens in the last 5 years".
As an aside, let me say that reference to Mark's use of drugs illustrates how the Prison Service has failed to deal with that issue—here was a young man whose introduction to the world of drugs appears to have come from within a Government-run institution.
The panel was critical of Mark's alleged failure to accept his guilt, suggesting that his preoccupation with his appeal in the early years prevented him from doing

229WH
offence-related work, but given the background to the case, we must ask which one of us, in similar circumstances, would not have sought to exhaust every possible avenue to secure our freedom from incarceration.
The panel concluded that until Mark had
"addressed the issues outstanding the risk remains too great for release. The panel considered that the work remaining to be done could be undertaken in what the panel would hope would be a relatively short time in open conditions".
Of course, had the Home Office followed the standard procedure, the release planning process would have begun in 2000–01, but Mark was still in a category B closed prison. Did the Home Office then move to make up for lost time? No. Mr. Simon Alderman, senior executive officer in the relevant department, accepted in principle that Mark should be transferred to open conditions, but such a move would he subject to Mark being reassessed and, if necessary, completing the reasoning and rehabilitation course in closed conditions. However, such a course was no longer available at Kingston prison, because the Home Secretary had scrapped it to save money.
Following the Parole Board review last November, the Home Office agreed to move Mark the following month, but again there was a delay and Mark was not moved to Standford Hill open prison on the Isle of Sheppey until 27 May this year, less than a month before he secured a successful outcome to his application for judicial review.
At last, progress appears to be being made, and I thank the Minister for the part that I believe he has played in securing it. Mark seems to be doing extremely well. He is working outside the prison. He has been on escorted town visits and, recently, on an unescorted visit. He is due to have his first home visit shortly, some four months earlier than originally planned. Most importantly, he has completed the enhanced thinking skills course, the assessment of which is expected soon.
This is all good news at last, but why has it taken endless representations by me, and finally a judicial review, to secure that to which Mark Day is entitled in law? Why was Mark denied his first Parole Board review at the required point? Why did the lifer review and recall section of the Home Office not seek answers from the Kingston prison governor for that failure in the process? Why did the Home Secretary force Mark to seek judicial review knowing that the Home Office had failed to provide for a timely Parole Board review, all of which constituted an additional burden on the taxpayer? Finally, why was Mark's transfer to open prison delayed by six months, despite the recommendation of the Parole Board and Mr. Alderman's acceptance of the need to move him?
The sense of injustice in this case stretches back all the 12 years. Mark got a raw deal from the legal profession at the outset, as I have explained. That injustice has been exacerbated by the fact that Scott Steer, who is generally reckoned to have inflicted the fatal blow, has been at liberty for two years, whereas the young man whose behaviour in prison a Home Office official described in a preliminary review as
"exemplary, blemished only by a few breaches of discipline early in sentence"
has been held in custody and remains there today. The Minister tells me that he cannot comment on the Parole Board's handling of another case, and I understand the
230WH
niceties of that, but the fact remains that Steer and Day were both convicted on the basis of common enterprise; they were both involved and the court appears to have taken the view that, without being specific as to who inflicted the fatal blow, the three—there was a third party—were guilty of bringing about the death of Patrick French. If they were convicted on the basis of common enterprise, why has Steer been at liberty for two years while Day, with his unblemished record and previous lack of any bad behaviour, is still languishing in jail?
Mark comes from a stable home. He had no previous offending history, save for a possible caution. He has remarkably forbearing, loving and patient parents and he has the offer of a job—possibly more than one job— awaiting him on his release. The Day family and I look to the Minister to answer the questions that I have posed but, perhaps more importantly, I also request him to do all in his power to ensure that Mark's preparation for release continues to be expedited in the way that it has been in recent weeks.
Tragically, nothing can bring back Patrick French, but no purpose is served in delaying the rehabilitation into society of a young man who has more than paid the price for his part in that tragedy.
12.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department: I congratulate the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) on securing this debate. He began by explaining that he has assiduously followed the case over the years; from the correspondence and parliamentary questions tabled in his name that I have seen, I can confirm that.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not able to comment on the competence or otherwise of the lawyers who acted in this case. However, I can agree that when an offence takes place there are a number of victims. Tragically, in this case the victim was killed. The family of that victim will also have been affected. I agree, too, that the families of the offenders are affected. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the impact on one such family, and I am sure that they gain some confidence from the fact that, as their MP, the hon. Gentleman comes to the House and raises these issues on their behalf.
It may help if I set my remarks in the context of how Mr. Day came to be serving a life sentence. I should first underline that my starting point has to be that the convictions in this case are safe. The finding of the court was that in the early hours of 1 August 1992 Mr. French, a young man of only 22, and his friend Mr. Chapman stopped to buy hamburgers at a stall. Without any apparent provocation, they were set upon by Mark Day and his friend Scott Steer, who had both been drinking. Mr. Day and Mr. Steer punched and kicked Mr. French repeatedly, even when he was on the ground, and Mr. Steer kicked him in the head. Mr. French died as a result of the attack, and in March 1993 Mr. Day and Mr. Steer were convicted of murder. They both received a life sentence.
Each life sentence includes a period intended to satisfy the needs of punishment and deterrence. That period is commonly known as the tariff, and it is the minimum term that the lifer must spend in prison. Except in the

231WH
most exceptional compassionate circumstances, he or she cannot be released before the tariff period is completed. Once a lifer has served the tariff period, however, there is still no automatic expectation that they will be released. The legislation makes it clear that public safety must come first, and lifers may not be released until it is considered safe for them to rejoin the wider community.
These days, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the Home Secretary no longer makes such decisions. Indeed, to ensure objectivity and independence, and to meet the requirements of article 5 of the European convention on human rights, decisions about the release of lifers are now made by the Parole Board. However, it is not entitled to release a lifer unless it is satisfied that confining him or her is no longer necessary for the protection of the public. In that respect, case law in the European Court of Human Rights makes it clear that what must be taken into account is the risk to life and limb posed by the individual lifer. The emphasis on that risk is important because the Parole Board cannot refuse to release a lifer into the community for a trivial reason.
To determine the risk posed by the lifer, the Parole Board will rightly look at several issues, including the progress that he or she has made in addressing the factors judged relevant to his or her risk. Therefore, two co-defendants, who are given life sentences for the same offence on the same day, may quite easily and understandably serve different periods in custody. First, they may receive different tariffs. Secondly, and just as importantly, they may make progress towards rehabilitation at different rates. In the cases of Mr. Day and Mr. Steer, both those factors have come into play and help to explain why Mr. Steer is on licence while Mr. Day is still in custody.
First, after exhausting all the avenues in the tariff-setting process, Mr. Day was given a tariff of 11 years, which expired in August 2003, while Mr. Steer's tariff was 10 years and expired in August 2002. Secondly, the Parole Board decided that Mr. Steer had made sufficient progress in addressing his risk by the expiry of his tariff and that it was no longer necessary to confine him. He was therefore released in October 2002. So the tariff was different, and the Parole Board's risk assessment was that it was safe to release Mr. Steer when his tariff expired.
Mr. Howarth: The Minister may not have this information to hand, but can he say when the Parole Board review process was initiated in respect of Mr. Steer? Was it in the three years before the expiry of the tariff?
Paul Goggins: I am not able to confirm that now, but I will be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman if I am able to disclose that information, although there may be issues of confidentiality.
On 3 November 2003 the Parole Board considered Mr. Day's case. The hon. Gentleman asked why that review was not held sooner. I understand that there are two reasons. There is no disguising the fact that there was an administrative error on the part of the Prison Service, but the situation can also be partly explained by
232WH
the fact that Mr. Day did not wish to engage in some of the offence-related work or the sentence planning that would be required of him during his prison sentence. He was reluctant to engage in that while his appeal was outstanding. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates, that work is important in helping to inform the Parole Board on the degree to which the individual has been able to reduce their risk.
In any event, despite what may have appeared to have been a delay, when the review was held and the Parole Board had given the matter careful consideration, it decided that it was not entitled to direct Mr. Day's release, because there was more work to be done to address his particular risk factors. In particular, it concluded that he needed to do more to develop his understanding of those factors that may increase his risk of violence, and that he needed to increase his understanding of the effect of his behaviour on his victim's family. The Parole Board did, however, recommend that he be transferred to open conditions to complete that work.
I should add here, and it is important to convey this point to the hon. Gentleman, that the decision to transfer a life sentence prisoner to open conditions is entirely a matter for the Secretary of State; indeed, that responsibility has been confirmed by the courts. The Secretary of State, and the officials who act for him, accord a great deal of weight to the Parole Board's recommendation for transfer to open conditions, but in the end it is his decision.
In this case, officials in the then lifer unit of the Prison Service, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, decided that further assessment was needed to determine how best Mr. Day should address the risk factors that had been identified. Bearing that in mind, the finding of the Parole Board's sifting panel, which operates prior to the main oral hearing, was that Mr. Day should carry out more work on his cognitive skills. It was thought probable that he would be suitable for the reasoning and rehabilitation programme, which is a cognitive skills-based course available only in closed conditions. It was determined that he should be assessed for that course, and if found suitable, he should complete it.
Mr. Howarth: The trouble was that in Kingston prison Mr. Day did not have the opportunity of undertaking that course, because it was no longer available. It had been superseded by the enhanced thinking skills course. Surely, given the Parole Board's recommendation that the case be expedited, the imposition of the requirement that he should attend the course was not fair when it was not available in Kingston prison.
Paul Goggins: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient a little longer, I will explain the withdrawal of the reasoning and rehabilitation programme. It is important to emphasise that in the circumstances of the recommendation, it was open to the Secretary of State to reject the Parole Board's recommendation for transfer to open conditions altogether, and to direct that Mr. Day should remain in closed conditions pending the assessment and the completion of any necessary work. Had that course of action been followed, the Parole Board panel that was conducting the review would not

233WH
then, of course, have had the benefit of seeing how Mr. Day had been able to cope in open conditions. Bearing that in mind, officials acting on behalf of the Secretary of State decided not to reject the recommendation outright, but to await the outcome of the assessment.
If the reasoning and rehabilitation course was needed, Mr. Day would remain in closed conditions until he had completed the work. He would then be transferred to open conditions without the need for a further review. If the course was not needed, he could transfer to open conditions straight away, to work on his offending behaviour needs there. In either event, the plan was to set a date for the next review that would allow Mr. Day plenty of time to complete the work and to be tested in open conditions.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the Prison Service decided to withdraw the reasoning and rehabilitation programme before Mr. Day could be assessed for it. The decision not only related to Mr. Day but was a wider decision relating to the provision of offending behaviour programmes across the Prison Service. As the hon. Gentleman said, those prisoners who would have been required to complete the course were directed instead to the enhanced thinking skills programme, which is also a cognitive skills programme but less intensive. It is proving to be more cost-effective. Since that course was available in open conditions, there was no longer any reason to delay Mr. Day's transfer, and he was transferred to open conditions in May and began the enhanced thinking skills programme in June.
Having made those arrangements, it then fell to the officials acting for the Secretary of State to set a date for Mr. Day's next review. The maximum time between reviews, as set out in statute, is two years. European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence dictates that referral to the Parole Board must be speedy. That means that review periods longer than a year must be demonstrably necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances. In Mr. Day's case, he would first need to complete his offending behaviour programme—the enhanced thinking skills programme. His progress on that course would have to be reviewed, and then it would be necessary to monitor his progress in open conditions to ensure that he was able to apply the lessons from the programme in real-life situations.
A lifer in open conditions is also expected to spend a period on a community placement—for example, in paid work or some volunteering activity—to test their
234WH
coping skills in the community. The offender is also expected to undertake periods of resettlement leave and to devise, under the supervision of the probation service, a realistic release plan. In Mr. Day's case, it was thought that all those activities would take about 21 months. It was therefore decided to conclude the review of his case in August 2005. Admittedly, the period is towards the limit of what is permitted in statute.
Mr. Day challenged the decision at judicial review. He also challenged the Secretary of State's power to set the review date, arguing that the power was properly one for the Parole Board rather than the Secretary of State. The court found against him on the latter point, stating clearly that the present system was ECHR-compatible provided that the Secretary of State referred cases in a speedy manner. However, the Court did find that such a long period was not necessary in Mr. Day's case and that the next review should conclude more speedily after completion of the enhanced thinking skills programme. Mr. Day's review is now due to conclude in December with a Parole Board panel, which may be an oral hearing if the Parole Board, Mr. Day or the Secretary of State think that an advisable course of action. The hearing will consider the case as soon thereafter as practicable.
However, it is important to emphasise that even at that point the outcome is not automatic one way or the other. The Parole Board may consider that Mr. Day meets the test for release—that is, his detention is no longer necessary for public protection—but, on the other hand, it may determine that the risk has not been sufficiently reduced. If that is the case, Mr. Day will be subject to a further review at whatever interval the Secretary of State deems lawful and reasonable in the interests of public safety.
I hope that the explanation that I have offered the hon. Gentleman is helpful in understanding how Mr. Day's case is being dealt with and that decisions about his release are properly made. Mr. Day has served his tariff period but he will be released only if the Parole Board considers it safe.
Mr. Howarth: Can the Minister say when the Parole Board hearing will take place? He said "as soon thereafter as practicable" after December. Can he give me a date?
Paul Goggins: It is not possible for me to give the date today, but as soon as I am in a position to confirm it, whenever that may be, I will let the hon. Gentleman know. With that response, I conclude my remarks.

Water Industry (Price Review)
1 pm
Mr. David Heyes: I am pleased to have secured this short debate on what I know is a matter of great and immediate concern to many of my constituents. The timing of the debate is fortunate, as it comes as the process of the periodic review of water prices in England reaches a critical phase and moves towards its conclusion in December, with the new price regime and inevitable price rises to be introduced from next April. We are expecting a response from the water companies next week to the draft determination of price limits published last month by Ofwat. Other consultation responses will be received until 13 October, and the final determination of price limits will be made known by Ofwat on 2 December. When the Secretary of State published the principal guidance to Ofwat at the start of the process, she acknowledged that she was concerned about the effect of water bills, especially on those least able to pay. It is precisely that concern that has excited the interest of many of my constituents, and it is on that aspect of the price review that I will concentrate most of my remarks today.
At the time of the last periodic review, Ofwat gave some comfort to water consumers by forcing a cut in the apparently remorseless price increases that had taken place since privatisation in 1989. However, to judge from the current aspirations of the water companies we can expect a return to significant price increases over and above inflation for each of the next five years. Even though the regulator has cut back on the 30 per cent. plus claims of the companies, most consumers can expect increases of 13 to 15 per cent. above inflation in the years until 2010. The local supplier for my constituency, United Utilities Water, has been told to plan for increases of about 18 per cent. above inflation. Inevitably, potential price rises on that scale will conjure memories of fat-cat salaries and the huge profit hikes that characterised the industry in the 1990s, which did so much to undermine public confidence in the claims of the industry's leaders.
One way or another, water customers can expect a big increase in their bills over the next few years. I recognise that there is a need for investment to implement directives on water quality and environmental improvements, and I shall not challenge that need. Questions could be raised about the failure to make progress on some of those fronts since privatisation, especially in the light of the constant upward movement in profits. Questions could also be raised about whether the funds for such investments should be raised only from the consumer and not from the owners of the businesses—the shareholders. Indeed, on the issue of environmental improvements, some have raised challenging questions about the extent to which the polluter should pay. However, given the limited time available today I shall leave those questions hanging and turn instead to my main purpose, which is to urge my hon. Friend the Minister to use the opportunity of the review to bring forward proposals to help water consumers who cannot pay their bills and who will struggle even more if prices continue to escalate.
The situation today is so bad that about one in five households are in arrears with their water bills. The latest figure, provided for me today by United Utilities
236WH
Water, is that in the north-west about 600,000 households do not pay a proportion of their water bill. More than 4 million households are thought to spend more than the widely recognised affordability threshold of 3 per cent. of income on water. Many benefits recipients spend more than 10 per cent. of their income on water bills.
According to figures produced by Ofwat, which were derived from the water companies and released two years ago, unpaid bills totalled more than £750 million, with more than £400 million outstanding for 12 months or more. I have been unable to find any evidence of a fall in those figures since then. Self-evidently, the round of price increases we look set to see over the next five years can serve only to make the situation worse. Just last year, the chief executive of United Utilities Water told the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that he expected the number of his customers having difficulties in paying their bills to rise broadly in line with the rise in prices. I pause to pay tribute to the excellent work of the Committee on water pricing, which is continuing. I am sure that the Minister will take proper account of its deliberations and recommendations.
How should the issue of water poverty be addressed? I shall start by referring to the encouraging progress being made through the reform of the tax and benefits system. The long-term aim is to eradicate poverty, and family credit and pension credit are important first steps on that road. They are the route to bringing household income up to a level at which utility bills are affordable, but we are not there yet, and if the experience of my constituents is anything to go by, we have a long way to go.
The more immediate question is about the adequacy of the existing systems to help people in genuine water poverty, whose situation is likely to get worse as a result of the probable outcome of the current periodic price review. I fully support the Minister's principal guidance to Ofwat in March, which stated:
"The policies contained in this guidance are strongly informed by the interests of customers."
My hon. Friend went on to repeat the Secretary of State's concern about the effect of water bills, especially on those least able to pay, and undertook to review the way in which lower income households are helped with their water and sewerage. One way in which he will do so is through the ongoing review of the vulnerable customers scheme. It is welcome that the review is being carried out in parallel with the periodic price review, which seems likely to lead to big price increases and hence to higher indebtedness and greater numbers of people in water poverty.
I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that the present provisions for tackling the problem have been desperately ineffective. The vulnerable group regulations were very tightly drawn; they apply only to consumers who are on a metered water supply, with three children under 16, a specified medical condition and a specified welfare benefit. At best, the scheme can do no more than cap their water bill at the average in their home area. Very few water consumers know about the scheme, and, not surprisingly, take-up has been abysmal, with fewer than 2 per cent. of those who might be eligible taking advantage of it. To cap that, the

237WH
scheme costs more to run than is being paid out to consumers. For example, United Utilities in the north-west has 2.7 million water customers, of whom 472,000 are in metered properties; of those, only just over 1,000 customers meet the stringent requirements of the vulnerable customer tariff.
The review of the scheme is welcome and there has been widespread consultation on the proposals of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. An announcement about a new scheme can be expected soon, although some people are scratching their heads wondering when that might be. However, I am sorry to say that even if all the suggested improvements to the scheme were adopted, it would still apply only to a tiny minority of consumers and would make no noticeable contribution to tackling the huge and growing problem of water poverty.
The inadequacy of the present system to help vulnerable customers had led to the emergence of a hotch-potch of voluntary and charitable schemes being set up or supported by the water companies. In the north-west, for example, United Utilities' hardship scheme will assist customers who can satisfy criteria requiring that they should be recipients of income support, have a disability, be longer-term unemployed, be a pensioner or have multiple debt. For every pound that the customer pays towards their water debt, the company will write off a further pound. A recent big push by United Utilities has increased the number of beneficiaries under the scheme to more than 6,000, which is commendable, but they are little more than 1 per cent. of its customers who have difficulty paying their water bill each year.
A recent announcement by United Utilities brought news of a plan to join the growing band of water companies that have set up and sponsored a charitable trust to help those having difficulties paying their water bills. It is hard not to interpret that as a response by United Utilities to the inevitable backlash that will result from the Ofwat proposals, which would entail an increase in real terms of almost 18 per cent. in water bills, by an average of £47 to £315, over the next five years. Although full details of the United Utilities-backed charity are awaited, it seems unlikely that the £15 million that the company has pledged to the charity over the five years will assist more than 3 per cent. of its customers who experience serious water bill difficulties. Frankly, the growing trend towards water companies sponsoring charities as a solution to the problem of water poverty has an unpleasant whiff of Victorian paternalism and the concepts of the deserving and undeserving poor.
The rules around such charities tend to be tightly drawn. For example, the Anglian Water Trust Fund says:
"Grants are given solely at the discretion of the Trustees depending on the person's circumstances. They are not available to 'claim' or given as an 'entitlement' for people in difficult circumstances."
It also notes:
"Each week, the Trust gets asked for about three times as much money as it has available. This means that we cannot help everyone and Trust staff have to make very difficult decisions about who they can help."
238WH
Bizarrely, it adds:
"Sometimes the application shows that applicants have more money going out than they have coming in".
I would have thought that that was the definition of water poverty, but the trust continues:
"In such cases, the Trust is unlikely to make a payment".
Other schemes have equally illogical constraints, such as:
"If you receive an award from the Trust, you cannot reapply to the Trust for two years."
All those things suggest that charitable trusts are an inadequate substitute for a welfare assistance scheme that is properly funded and administered by the state. To return to United Utilities, the combined benefits of its vulnerable customers scheme, its hardship scheme and the proposed charity will, even on an optimistic projection, reach little more than 5 per cent. of customers in potential bill-paying difficulties.
What are constituents who might be struggling to pay their water bills to do? First, and most important, they need not fear having their water disconnected. Nowadays, thanks to firm action by the Government, water companies are not allowed to disconnect, and that policy must continue, if only in the interests of public health. Equally, any attempt to reintroduce pre-payment meters must be opposed. They are simply an invitation to self-disconnect and give rise to the same worries about wider public health consequences.
There is little evidence that the Government's policy decisions have encouraged the non-payment of water bills; on the contrary, the non-disconnection policy is little known, and those who are genuinely struggling to meet their utility and household bills tend to give highest priority to paying the water bill because of the widely held and continuing fear of disconnection. Given the lack of a benefits-based solution, however, the problem is that the costs of the non-payment of water bills accrue year by year. Eventually, the additional cost must be borne by those water consumers who can pay their bills.
Significant numbers of households are struggling, and in many cases failing, to pay their water bills. That situation is likely to worsen in the short term, given the latest round of price rises. The lack of an effective mechanism to provide assistance to deal with water poverty results in an accumulating debt burden, initially for the companies but ultimately for paying customers. In time, the Government's core aim of reducing and eventually eradicating poverty through work and the tax and benefits system should resolve the problem of water bill affordability. However, that will not happen in the current five-year water price review period, even on the most optimistic projections. In the meantime, the Government, the regulator and the companies must decide how to tackle the issue of affordability in the foreseeable future.
In the current round of price reviews, the Secretary of State's initial guidance to Ofwat suggested that its deliberations should give due weight to the economic and social effects of policies, and especially the impact of water bills on vulnerable consumers. Affordability must be more central to Ofwat's considerations than has hitherto been the case in price reviews. If necessary, the Secretary of State's guidance to Ofwat must be clearer and stronger in that respect.

239WH
It is clear that the draft determination that Ofwat published last month gave too little weight to such concerns. I hope that my hon. Friend will take the opportunity, in his final guidance to Ofwat, which is imminent, to give it a robust reminder of such factors and to urge it to take a further critical look at the affordability of bills against the setting of water companies' continued and accelerating profitability. It is also clear that the Government need a more thorough and far-reaching review of the support scheme for vulnerable consumers than is promised by the proposals under consideration. It would be nice if the water companies were obliged to introduce more effective proposals for customer assistance than those in their inherently timid and constrained charitable trust schemes. What about a levy on their still considerable profits, following the precedent set by the windfall tax? I am sure that that would pay for a comprehensive scheme.
I am convinced that co-ordinated action of this sort by the Government, the regulator and the industry can bring about an early solution to the problem. It is time for the pass-the-parcel approach to dealing with water poverty to stop.
1.15 pm
The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Heyes) on securing the debate. He raised several serious points about the affordability of water. Water is a basic need that the Government take very seriously, and there was a great deal of concern during privatisation because of its importance. We campaigned very strongly for the obligation, unique among utilities, not to disconnect people because of the essential role of water in relation to health. The Government have played an important part in recognising the needs and rights of consumers, and in ensuring effective regulation of prices.
My hon. Friend has made a powerful case concerning those who have difficulties with affordability. I was impressed by his detailed figures relating to United Utilities in his constituency and the impact felt by local people. He raised some important factors that the Government are trying to address. I shall come to those points in a moment.
The key issue in tackling the problem of affordability is recognising that it is important to everyone. We start on the basis that we do not want any more price increases than are necessary to provide improvements in infrastructure and to invest in environmental and quality improvements, which people recognise are important. They are an important part of the early investment process in the water sector. There is a system of periodic reviews of water price limits that takes into account all those factors. I pay tribute to Philip Fletcher, who has done a very professional job in going through the companies' draft plans and producing his current determinations, which await ministerial guidance and response from the companies. He will then produce his final guidance towards the end of the year.
The role of Ministers is limited to giving guidance on the quality programme. Ofwat published its draft price determinations for consultation on 5 August,
240WH
containing numbers substantially below those in the companies' draft plans. I know that my hon. Friend will welcome that. The national headline figures that came out of the regulator's proposals showed that average household bills would rise by £33—a 13 per cent. increase—from £249 to £282 before inflation, over five years. That compares with the companies' proposals for an average increase of £70. Price limits stood at 3.1 per cent. per year for five years, which is roughly half the increase sought by companies. An increase of 7.6 per cent. in price limits is proposed for 2005, to reflect the build-up of customers' costs, tailing off to 1.2 per cent. in 2009. The companies sought an increase of 13.4 per cent. in 2005, so there has been a substantial change if one compares the regulator's proposals with what the companies asked for. The regulator has rightly challenged the companies' figures and looked very carefully at the costs. The process has been thorough, and it involved all agencies. As my hon. Friend rightly states, we are near the end of that process, with the final price determinations due to be published on 2 December. Those price limits should be sufficient for the companies to undertake the minimum programme consistent with delivering the policies and outputs required, but they should be no higher than they have to be. That is an important consideration.
My hon. Friend concentrated on affordability, and I understand his case. He has made a persuasive argument, and there are sections of the community for whom water is an issue of affordability. That is a key concern, and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee have encouraged the Government to review the ways in which lower-income households are helped with their water and sewerage charges. We have responded to that request and a review, led by a cross-Government steering group, is under way. We have sought the views of interested parties outside the Government, and a well-attended seminar was held on 18 June involving a range of stakeholders. Since then there has been a series of bilateral meetings with those stakeholders to develop and consolidate their comments and ideas. We will respond to that consultation shortly, and put out our response to the discussion.
Of course, my hon. Friend is right to say that what we can do for vulnerable groups in the regulations covers a comparatively small proportion of customers. I do not want unduly to raise expectations, because that is not likely to change. He understands that the more concessions we make on prices, the more we will have to put up prices for customers across the board. We are concerned to ensure that prices are kept as low as possible for everyone, while recognising that there are vulnerable groups who require special consideration. Those are people who could suffer real hardship because of prices, and in some cases because they need to use a lot of water. That is why the regulations are drafted in a fairly restrictive way. They recognise that there are special circumstances, which are not common but do affect some people. We must acknowledge that.
The regulations apply to people who are on a meter, and the number of people on meters is increasing. About 15 per cent. of United Utilities customers in my hon. Friend's area are on a meter, and there is considerable scope for that figure to increase. Many people who have not yet asked to go on to a water meter would find that it

241WH
was very much to their advantage to do so. For example, meters are likely to benefit pensioners. Many people find that their bill goes down right away when they move to a water meter, which is installed free of charge under the regulations that we have put in place.
Mr. Heyes: On that point, the people who are transferring to a metered water supply in increasing numbers tend to be those who live in larger properties—households containing just a single person or a couple. There are significant savings to be made as a result of making such a transfer, which is obviously sensible for them. However, because the costs are borne entirely within the industry, is it not the case that the overall effect is to increase the financial burden for the people who remain on the existing system?
Mr. Morley: Ultimately, that could be the case and there will have to be adjustments in the pricing regime at some point, when the proportion of people on water meters passes a certain threshold. The regulator is sensitive to that, but at the moment there is considerable scope for people who have not yet transferred to a meter to consider doing so. That has the effect of reducing water use; there are also other ways of doing that, promoted by the Environment Agency and the water companies themselves. Those are matters to take forward.
We do not want to see families on low incomes cutting down on essential water use to make ends meet, and we want to offer protection in such circumstances. We have put forward for consultation proposals for the regulations on vulnerable groups, and the Government's response to those will be published shortly. It is intended that vulnerable customers will be protected from being disadvantaged by having to pay for an unduly high volume of water. We want to offer the alternative of an average of the metered charge so that the water company removes the disadvantage.
In the consultation paper launched in 2003, the Government also proposed a further extension to the vulnerable groups scheme. Any changes made to the regulations as a result of the consultation will come into force in April 2005—the same time as the introduction of the new price limits. In deciding what extensions we might need to make, we must bear it in mind that the scheme is there to protect customers with high essential water use.
The Water Industry Act 1999 also introduced assistance to protect customers from disconnection and from having to cut down on essential water use. In providing essential services water companies occupy a prominent position in the community, and I take my hon. Friend's point that they should demonstrate their
242WH
regard for the interest of all stakeholders in their businesses. When devising tariffs and payment methods, water companies should bear in mind their poorer customers. They have a range of options apart from the regulations on vulnerable groups: they can offer a frequent payment option as well as appropriate tariffs, and they can take a proactive stance in informing customers of the choices available to them. That is an important part of the service.
My hon. Friend mentioned charitable trusts to help customers in genuine need. Some companies have had those for a long time. If my memory serves me right. Severn Trent Water had such a trust pre-privatisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) holds a long connection with that trust, and it works very well. There is a role for trusts—although they are not the answer and I would not want to pretend otherwise—in a range of measures to help vulnerable groups, and I welcome the fact that United Utilities is taking that into account.
I understand the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne makes about financial support and the benefit system, but it is a matter for the Department for Work and Pensions. The Government's preference has been to raise living standards generally, and we have had considerable success. Since 1997, families with children are on average £1,350 a year better off as a result of the changes introduced by the Chancellor. Families with children in the poorest fifth of the population will be on average £3,000 a year better off, which reflects the Chancellor's targeting of those on lowest incomes. Pensioner households will be on average £1,300 a year better off—about £26 a week. The poorest third of pensioner households will have gained £1,750 a year. The tax credit system and the targeting of benefits have been successful in lifting out of poverty the poorest sections of our community.
I would not want to suggest to my hon. Friend that we should not worry about the impact of water prices on vulnerable groups; we recognise that there is a real issue to take into account. However, we must consider overall incomes for average families, and rent and child care costs, which can constitute a much larger proportion of costs, although they are part of an accumulative approach.
My hon. Friend has made a persuasive and powerful case for taking vulnerable groups into account in water charging. I am pleased to see that charges have been tempered by robust and effective regulation, and I am sure that he will welcome some of the changes to the regulations on vulnerable groups. I accept that they will be targeted at a small percentage of the population, but it is more important to keep down prices for everybody, while ensuring that there is adequate investment in our water services.

Post Office Closures (Edinburgh)
1.30 pm
John Barrett: On 22 July, the last day of Parliament before the summer recess, my constituency office in Edinburgh received a much anticipated package. After two years of waiting, Post Office management finally gave me their post office closure plans for the city of Edinburgh. That is a process that I, and others, have expected for some time. It is 23 months since the House voted for the urban reinvention programme, and since then my constituents and I have waited anxiously for Post Office plans for our city.
I was grateful to get one week's advance notice of closure plans before they were made public. It gave me an opportunity to speak not only to representatives of the Post Office but to the affected sub-postmasters. I was able to meet Postwatch Scotland, to which I pay tribute. I am particularly grateful to people such as Tricia Dow, Tom Begg and Peter Wilson, whose assistance and advice during the last few weeks have been invaluable.
When I considered the closure plans, I had no doubt that, when published, they would spark outrage among people in Edinburgh. After all, what Post Office management are proposing is the closure of 21 post office branches—one fifth of the city's remaining post office network. I say "remaining" because the closure proposals come after some branches have already closed in the last couple of years, such as the one on North Junction street, Tynecastle, Polwarth gardens, Newcraighall and Hope Street post office in the city centre.
The reaction of people in Edinburgh has indeed been considerable. More than 1,000 of my constituents have contacted my office to express their anger, concern and genuine worry. I have received many letters and telephone calls from people outside my constituency and Edinburgh's Evening News has run regular stories and printed letters about the plans on a near-daily basis. The strength of opinion in my constituency alone prompted me to organise two public meetings, although I was unable to attend them for last-minute family reasons. Both meetings were packed and included many people who said that they had never been to a public meeting before. It is clear that concern about the proposals not only runs through Edinburgh but runs very deep indeed.
So why are so many people so angry? What we were promised by the Government and by Post Office management was a strategic look at the post office network in Edinburgh. What we have been given falls far short of that. Rather than getting a strategic review, we have seen Post Office management effectively ask sub-postmasters, "Who wants out?" Closures have been picked from those who subsequently raised their hands.
I do not blame sub-postmasters; one can only sympathise with people who run post offices and who have to deal with a Government who are dramatically reducing their customer base. Who can blame them for wanting to take the two and a half year salary to leave the network and run?
244WH
However, we cannot have a strategic look at the overall post office network if we pick out the branches only from those where the sub-postmasters have shown a desire to get out. Nobody likes compulsory post offices closures, but Post Office management cannot have their cake and eat it. They cannot say that they have conducted a strategic review if they have not conducted a review of the whole post office network. That is something that Postwatch Scotland is also concerned about.
That most basic mistake makes me believe that the process is fundamentally flawed. What makes me and people in Edinburgh so angry is that if Post Office management had taken a strategic view, I have no doubt that they would never have come to the conclusion that post office branches such as the ones in Clermiston, Joppa and Stenhouse Cross should close.
What I hope may yet happen—I hope that the Minister will impress it on Post Office management to do this today—is that we go back to the drawing board and do what we were all promised. Post Office management must consider areas that need post offices, those that have too many branches and then—and only then—come forward with a credible list of closures and alternative branches. That is what I had always taken the urban network reinvention process to be, but so far my constituents and I have been greatly disappointed.
So what have Post Office management done? They have put forward 21 branches for closure, after staff were sent to investigate the terrain, public transport and viability of the receiving branches—those that would take the customers from the closed post offices. If those investigations took place—although I have some concern about that—it makes the conclusions reached by the Post Office management all the more incredible.
I shall give two examples. East Craigs post office, a branch that was not only successfully saved from closure four years ago, but which serves three sets of sheltered housing for the elderly and one for disabled people, is one of the branches proposed for closure. The supporting documents argue that Barnton post office is a realistic receiving branch—a realistic alternative. That is partly based on the argument that people can use the No. 24 bus to get there. However, anyone who knows East Craigs will know that there is a problem in getting to the No. 24 bus stop. Someone wanting to get that bus must walk, in some cases along roads with no pavements, to a main road completely outside the East Craigs estate—a walk of about half a mile. To reach the bus stop they must then cross the busy Maybury road, a dual carriageway with traffic moving at about 60 mph, which has no pedestrian crossing. They can then take the half-hourly bus service to Barnton. If they have managed to stay alive in their journey to the post office, they have an equally threatening journey back. And yet the Post Office management seriously presented that to the elderly and disabled people in East Craigs as a realistic alternative.
Similarly, in the supporting documents for the closure of the East Craigs and Clermiston branches, Duart Crescent post office is put forward as the alternative. The paths between East Craigs and Duart Crescent are narrow and poorly lit; they are paths that even the most able-bodied people would do well to negotiate in the winter. Moreover, probably the

245WH
steepest hill in my constituency lies between the Duart Crescent and Clermiston post office branches. Even if we ignore those two factors and assume that my constituents in East Craigs and Clermiston get to the Duart Crescent branch, we find that they will then be met with an extremely small and already very busy post office. On pension mornings, there is a queue out of the door of the Duart Crescent branch—pensioners wait in the rain.
I could not understand how that small branch would cope with the custom from two other post offices, so I looked at the supporting documents to see what plans the management had to help the Duart Crescent branch deal with the increased demand and customer base. The document states that as proposed improvements
"a handrail is to be installed"
and
"an external bell push is to be installed."
That post office needs a handrail for elderly and disabled customers, and later this year it will have to have a handrail and proper access for the disabled. I am sure that those improvements will make all the difference. For those of my constituents who are still not convinced, the document finishes reassuringly by saying:
"We will also install an approved fascia and lozenge."
I say to the Minister that this would all be comical if it were not so serious. The idea that those improvements—if that is the right word to use—will solve the unquestionable capacity problems at Duart Crescent is ridiculous.
I could go on. Corstorphine post office has also been put forward as an alternative to the Clermiston and East Craigs branches, although that would involve customers travelling past the St. John's Road post office, which, for some reason, has not been put down as a receiving branch. It is unbelievable that customers would pass a post office on the way to the alternative branch. There are serious flaws in that document.
The branch at Stenhouse Cross, a lifeline for people in Stenhouse, has been lined up for closure less than one year after an original plan for closure was reversed following a public outcry and an objection from Postwatch. The branch at Saughtonhall was closed and cleared out—there are no post office facilities—even before the consultation period began. The alternative for Murrayfield post office, a branch that serves five sets of accommodation for the elderly, is proposed as Blackhall post office, despite the fact there is no bus service connecting the two. On the road from Corstorphine to the city centre, the post office at Saughtonhall has gone, the one at Murrayfield is under threat and the Haymarket Terrace branch closed many years ago. A huge journey into the city centre is therefore needed.
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for agreeing to take an intervention. As he is now approaching my constituency in his tour of Edinburgh,
246WH
I invite him to agree with me that we need more new and modernised post offices, such as the ones in Stockbridge and Leith Constitution street, which have recently been reopened. Does he agree that we need to make a good case against a closure when it is proposed? In connection with that, would he back the efforts that I am making on behalf of my constituents, who are very unhappy at the proposed closure of post offices in Newhaven village and Albert place? Many of my constituents have concerns, as I am sure many of his do, about the proposed closure of Comely Bank post office, which, although in another constituency, serves many of our constituents.
John Barrett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree with much of what he says, in that if a proposal is made to close a post office, the alternative must be, as the Post Office said, bigger, brighter and better. However, that is clearly not the case, and minor improvements are not good enough for his constituents or mine. Equally, constituents using a post office such as Comely Bank, or others that are just across constituency boundaries, have no concern as to which constituency the post office is in if it is their neighbourhood post office. I would certainly back campaigns by the hon. Gentleman to ensure that our constituents have decent and reasonable access to a local post office.
How the Post Office management were able to stand up at two public meetings in my constituency and keep a straight face is beyond me. When local residents pointed out many flaws at the most basic level in the management's conclusions, they were met with puzzled faces on the platform. I therefore hope that, before this consultation process ends and certainly before any final decisions are taken, the management will revisit the branches that they plan to close, walk between them and try to use the public transport. I believe that, if they do so, they will see for themselves why so many people are so angry at what is proposed.
That said, it would be wrong to single out the Post Office management as the only people to blame. My views and those of my party on the Government's push towards direct payment are well known and I do not want to rehearse them here. However, the Minister should be made aware of the anger among older people in my constituency. Many were happy with their pension book and trusted and understood that system. They are not only being forced into a new, more complicated system, but are being blocked from obtaining their first preference: the Post Office card account. I have already written to the Minister for Pensions to raise those concerns. No wonder post office business is on the slide when it is so difficult to open a Post Office card account. People should be able to expect their Government to do everything they can to keep post offices open. In reality, many feel that the Government are doing the exact opposite and are doing everything they can to close as many post offices as possible.
The supermarket company Morrisons also deserves a mention in the debate. As the Minister will know, it has taken a blanket decision not to continue running post offices in the Safeway stores that it has taken over. Because of that, the busiest post office in my constituency, which is in the South Gyle shopping

247WH
centre, is also set to close. After I inquired as to the reason behind the decision, Roger Owen of Morrisons wrote to me on 9 August:
"It has never been the policy of this company to run post offices within its stores…we quickly discovered that due to the pure bureaucracy of Post Office Limited, we were effectively prevented from running this service at a level which would be profitable to the company."
After my own experience with the Post Office over the past few years, I am quite sympathetic to the view expressed by Morrisons, but I must also say that there is for the company such a thing as corporate and social responsibility. For a company that is predicted to make £320 million in profit this year basically to say that it can make more of a profit by closing a vital post office that occupies a small site in its Gyle store is pretty irresponsible. That says to its customers that selling tins of beans is more important than providing an important public service, which is pretty bad public relations for a company that is trying to break into a new market in Scotland.
That is not to let the Post Office management off the hook. I believe that they have an opportunity and, indeed, a responsibility to find an alternative site for the post office somewhere in the Gyle shopping centre. After all, it is a profitable post office that is used by many people from throughout Edinburgh and across Lothian. Certainly the people who run the Gyle centre have been sympathetic to the need for a post office on site and, with a new wing opening, there are a range of available units in which a post office could be sited. However, yet again I have received excuse after excuse from the Post Office management as to why that cannot happen. It is all too typical of the "can't do" attitude of the Post Office—an attitude that I and many others find increasingly frustrating.
It is vital that the consultation that we are in the midst of is genuine, open and thorough. I have spent much of my summer contacting those affected and encouraging them to object to the Post Office's proposals and copy their objections to Postwatch. However, those who have already objected often receive responses that repeat the reason for closing the branch in question rather than address the concerns. I do not expect the Post Office management to respond in detail to each comment, but I—and, I am sure, the Minister—do expect it to not only listen to what people throughout Edinburgh are saying, but to respond to those views. If a guarantee cannot be given on that point, it will make a complete mockery of the whole process.
The package of closure proposals presented to post office customers and the people of Edinburgh is inconsistent and based on a number of odd assumptions. The Post Office management has picked some of the last post offices that people ever thought would be threatened with closure. Even at this stage, I hope that the Post Office, with the Minister's influence, will look at the entire issue once again. I want, and the people of Edinburgh deserve, exactly what we have been promised for two years: a serious, genuine consideration of the post office network in Edinburgh. The residents of Edinburgh, particularly the elderly and less mobile, must have access to a
248WH
decent post office network throughout the city. That is all they are asking for. That is only fair, and they should get nothing less.
1.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) on securing this debate. I also want to add my heartfelt concern and sympathy for him, his family and new granddaughter. The thoughts and best wishes of the whole House are with him.
For decades the Post Office was neglected, and it has been left to this Government to make fresh investment to secure a Post Office service fit for the 21st century, as many other countries—also with shrinking numbers of post offices—have been doing. I want to thank all Edinburgh's sub-postmasters who wish to retire as part of that process for their service to our communities in south and west Edinburgh, and indeed the whole city and Musselburgh. I also want to thank those running the remaining 80 and more Edinburgh sub-post offices for their dedication to their customers.
It is to secure a service and make it as accessible as possible that we are investing massive sums in the Post Office. Some £480 million of Government money has computerised every post office, and £450 million is supporting the rural network. Some £210 million is devoted to urban post offices, with grants of up to £10,000 being made to modernise and adapt post offices, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), and there are compensation packages for retiring postmasters. We have written off £726 million of Post Office debt to free income for such vital investment. Altogether, in the past seven years this Government have given the Post Office £1.9 billion for those improvements and to cover multi-million pound losses. There were losses of £119 million last year, £194 million the year before and £163 million the year before that.
Our twin strategy of investment and subsidy is something new after decades of under-investment. With £500 million of support, the Post Office has computerised every single post office, in one of the UK's largest ever IT projects. Now 20 million customers of banks and building societies have full access to their accounts at post offices, and 1.7 million people have opened new Post Office card accounts, which the Government introduced. Those accounts have helped those who have never had a bank or savings account.
A universal banking service has been created to enable people to use any post office to collect their allowance or pension. That has been applauded by Help the Aged and Mind. The Post Office will continue to cater for the small number of people who still rely on the pension book system. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West attacks us for moving from payment books to bank accounts, but he refuses to attack Liberal Democrat-run councils such as Aberdeen, which have withdrawn council tax and rent collection from local post offices to save money. The Government have to spend some £500 million every year on printing and issuing payment books. That is £1.47 on every transaction, as against 1p for a direct payment of the sort that Aberdeen council has adopted.

249WH
In Holland, which the Liberal Democrats single out as the model for how they would like to run post offices, 99 per cent. of pensioners have their pensions paid directly into their accounts. That is part of an inexorable trend. In 1984, half of, or fewer, senior citizens had bank accounts; by 1994, two thirds had bank accounts. The figure is now more than three quarters, and two thirds of senior citizens are opting to have pensions paid directly into their accounts.
Indeed, Citizens Advice congratulated the Government and Post Office in its publication on financial inclusion:
"The ambition to enable all people to own the most basic of financial services—a bank account—is one we share."
Paying pensions directly into accounts helps to eliminate fraud, which costs more than £70 million a year. Every week more than 100 senior citizens have their pension books stolen, and many are mugged. Perhaps that is another reason why 99 per cent. of OAPs in Holland have their pensions paid directly.
The Liberal Democrats ignore the fact that the number of post offices is falling in every country as millions more people use cash machines, buy stamps in ordinary shops, order online and rely on e-mail and phone text messaging. Germany, a much bigger country than Britain, used to have 30,000 post offices; it now has only 13,000–3,000 less than the UK. A recent survey revealed that only Sweden has more post offices per head of population than the UK.
The British post office network has been contracting since the 1960s. Even before the recent expansion of electronic technology, the Conservative Government saw 3,500 post offices close. What they did not do was provide a policy for the future or a vision of a modern service in the 21st century. The Labour Government have faced up to that challenge. In 2000, the performance and innovation unit's report, "Modernising the Post Office Network", made 24 recommendations for the future, all of which the Government accepted, initiating the most comprehensive investment programme for a generation.
The subject of this debate is the proposal to close selected post offices in Edinburgh, and people want to know how the Post Office singles out a specific post office for closure. It works with the Federation of Sub-Postmasters to identify the post offices in difficulty and considers whether more direct investment would make a difference and where the nearest alternative post office is. Sometimes the present postmaster wants to retire or close the office, and even popular post offices can struggle to find a replacement.
If there are too many sub-post offices, none can make a decent living. As one of my local sub-postmasters told me recently:
"This area does not get enough business to sustain three post offices. I am happy to go since this boosts business for the other two post offices which are half a mile and three quarters of a mile from me."
The consumer watchdog Postwatch is notified of any proposed closure and carries out its own evaluation. The proposals for Edinburgh went out for consultation on 29 July, and Postwatch, the public and hon. Members have eight weeks to comment.
Today we have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West raise some issues in respect of post
250WH
offices in their constituencies. I can tell them that Post Office Ltd. is duty-bound to consider all the points, including the one about Morrisons and the application to close. The comments count. Already 110 proposals have been reversed as a result of representations, and a further 185 have been frozen so that more work can be done.
It is not only the Government, with our £1.7 billion of support, who can help local post offices. I pay tribute to the councils who also play their part. For instance, my Labour colleagues in Edinburgh have been working closely with the Post Office to maximise the income and viability of local post offices. In Edinburgh, we can pay our council tax, rent, business rates, home help charges, business waste disposal bills and other service bills in the post office. City of Edinburgh council pays for that service. Sadly, other councils, such as Aberdeen, which the Liberal Democrats run, have turned their back on post offices. We can pay our council tax in Edinburgh post offices, but Liberal Democrat councillors withdrew that service in Aberdeen. We can pay our rent in Edinburgh post offices, but Liberal Democrat councillors withdrew that service in Aberdeen. We can pay business rates in Edinburgh post offices, but the Liberal Democrat councillors withdrew that service in Aberdeen. For some post offices, that Liberal Democrat decision was their death knell. It robbed local post offices of vital custom and income.
The Liberal Democrats in Westminster, where they are not in power, want the Government to spend £500 million so that people can collect their pensions in post offices. However, where they do have power, as in Aberdeen, they do not want to pay post offices so that people can use them to pay their council tax, rent or business rates. That is why the Post Office tells me that 20 per cent. more post offices are closing in Aberdeen than in Edinburgh. That is the Liberal Democrats' track record: neglect it, boycott it, close it—promises are made before an election and broken after it.
Nationally, the Liberal Democrats are even worse. The Liberal Democrat policy document on this issue is called "Policy Paper 59: Setting Business Free"; it even has an ISBN number. The authors are the Liberal Democrat trade and industry spokesperson, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), his deputy, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter), and Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat MEP. The policy is set out clearly on page 16, which says that
"we are increasingly coming to a view that a privatised Post Office.. on Dutch lines could have a better chance of succeeding than the present structure."
Perhaps the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West should have read that before he issued the press statement attacking his predecessor Lord James Douglas Hamilton for supporting Lord Heseltine's drive to privatise the Post Office a decade ago. The House will judge the hon. Gentleman, perhaps harshly, on his use of the word "hypocrisy" about a distinguished former Member.
What have been the consequences of the Dutch-style privatisation promoted by the Liberal Democrats? The Netherlands has experienced a faster rate of closures than the UK—faster than France, Germany, the USA or Australia, according to the Triangle report. In short, the Liberal Democrats' Dutch-style privatisation could

251WH
force up to 30 post offices in Edinburgh to close—one third of the network, not the 21 that are the subject of this debate.
However, this Government have rejected the Liberal Democrats' Dutch-style privatisation for another reason: we do not see post offices in purely commercial terms. Post offices perform a necessary public service to 29 million customers every week. Our 16,000 sub-post offices outnumber all the banks and building society outlets put together. The Post Office is striving to ensure that at least 95 per cent. of Edinburgh residents have less than a mile to travel to their nearest post office; in urban areas, 50 per cent. have less than half a mile to travel.
This is an Adjournment debate, but the hon. Gentleman told the Evening News earlier this year that he was the only Edinburgh MP to vote against national plans for post office closure. That is simply untrue. He refers to a motion tabled on 13 January. I have a copy of his communication to a constituent confirming that. This was a Conservative motion, which deplored the programme to close post offices but specifically failed to demand either an end to the closures or more Government subsidy than the £1.7 billion that we already give. Unlike the Liberal Democrats, the
252WH
Conservatives are smart enough to realise that we will expose any extra spending promise as an unfunded commitment.
The same thing happened with the Conservatives' second Opposition day debate on the Post Office in July, when, I understand, a fifth of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends could not stomach joining him and the Tories in the Lobby. However, at least the Tories cared enough about the Post Office to call for a full-scale debate on it. I have looked at all 10 Liberal Democrat Opposition day debates in the past two and half years; not one was on the future of the Post Office.
Out of power, the Liberal Democrats want to lecture us on how to spend more money. In power, in Aberdeen for instance, they are the cost-cutters who are closing the post offices. A prudent Government have to face issues and find the best solution for all. We reject the privatisation option that the Liberal Democrats support because such a move would not be in the best interests of customers. We want to preserve the best features of our sub-post offices, not waste resources that could be more profitably used to benefit our citizens. It is time for the hon. Gentleman to tell his electors and the public the truth about Liberal Democrat policies.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.