To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the future of locally funded theatres. [28757]

Government funding in support of local theatres is channelled through the Arts Council and the regional arts boards. The funding of individual theatres is a matter for those bodies, in conjunction with the local authorities and other funding partners.

Is there any way in which I may entice the Minister to come along to the Theatre Royal Stratford East in my constituency? He knows that the theatre, which puts on seven new productions a year, has a very ethnically mixed audience, which it is building well, and receives local authority support from the poorest borough in the country. Funding is vital to us, especially since theatres in boroughs around us are closing down. Through which of the four channels could the Theatre Royal apply for lottery money funding of the arts? That is a genuine question, which makes it unusual, and I actually want an answer.

Yes, I would be very interested in accepting the hon. Gentleman's kind invitation and to return to the Theatre Royal in Stratford to see what it is putting on. I need to look at exactly what might be being applied for with regard to the four channels. I know that the local authority is supporting a lottery fund, which will help the theatre and the leisure centre nearby. I shall look at the matter and let the hon. Gentleman know.

If we are in the business of offering invitations, may I invite my hon. Friend to Scarborough—

To stay in one of the hotels.

There is nothing wrong with the hotels in Scarborough. I am sure that many hon. Members would rather visit Scarborough than go to Thurrock for their holidays. Would my hon. Friend like to visit the theatre in Scarborough? He will know that it has just opened and that it is a tribute to my constituents. We have just received £1 million-worth of lottery funding, which has helped speed up the process. I assure my hon. Friend that everybody in Scarborough is extremely grateful to the Government for channelling funding in that direction.

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. The theatre is indeed a tribute to the people of Scarborough, but it is also an indication of how successful the lottery has been in channelling money into theatres. I gladly accept his invitation.

Contrary to the Minister's bland, not to say complacent. first answer, underfunding of regional theatres should concern him, the Secretary of State and the Government. Is he aware that regional theatres have accumulated deficits of more than £6 million as a direct consequence, not of bad management or lack of audiences, but of Government underfunding, especially the Arts Council's cuts in real terms in two of the past three years? What will the Government do about the regional theatres' accumulated deficits, which as the Secretary of State knows, threaten the existence of theatres such as Farnham?

I can give the hon. Gentleman two very direct answers. First, in May last year, the Arts Council produced a green paper on ideas of how funding of regional and other theatres might be improved. As a result, a white paper, as it might be called by the Arts Council, is expected to be published in the summer. We shall study that with great interest. Secondly, a stabilisation fund is being worked out with the Arts Council, precisely to address the type of questions, among others, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has for the refurbishment of Marble Arch; and if she will make a statement. [28758]

The repair and conservation of Marble Arch began on 4 March and is planned for completion by the end of June. The enhancement of our built heritage is based on an active partnership involving my Department, its agencies, sponsored bodies, local authorities and the private sector. I shall be publishing a consultation paper on built heritage later this week.

I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. The appearance of London's historic buildings plays a vital role in making our city beautiful and in attracting tourists. Will she use her powers over the trustees of the Victoria and Albert museum to ensure that, if an extension is built to that museum, it is in accordance with the existing fine and historic character of the buildings?

I agree that London's fine buildings are a great attraction to the many tourists who visit the city.

What does this have to do with Marble Arch?

Order. The Minister extended the question. Perhaps the hon. Member for Newham, North-west (Mr. Banks) was not listening.

Investment in many of the major buildings in London has been clearly evident in recent months and years. I suspect that a number of groups will wish to comment on the extension of the V and A, not least the planning authority at Kensington and Chelsea, English Heritage and the Royal Fine Art Commission.

Is not the Minister concerned that so many of our ancient and famous buildings are falling into decay as a result of neglect by the Government and related agencies? How does she justify the inordinately long period during which the Albert monument by the Albert hall was under drapes? Have not the Government allowed our capital city to run down and neglected much of our national heritage?

The hon. Gentleman must be wearing blinkers. Throughout London, an unprecedented number of projects are under way—the Albert memorial restoration, with £8 million to be spent in four years, is but one. There are also plans to carry out further improvements to Parliament square and Trafalgar square, and to introduce pedestrianisation outside Buckingham palace. There are endless examples. The national lottery enables us to do even more to refurbish many of our magnificent buildings, not least the major project to restore the Albert hall.

My right hon. Friend's news on Marble Arch is welcome, as is her grasp of so many of the other heritage memorials of London. But what is she doing to hasten the work on Bankside and the refurbishment of the buildings connected with the Royal Festival hall, which are important to London's culture?

My hon. Friend will know only too well that lottery awards are enabling the south bank of the Thames to become a veritable cultural centre, as it includes the Globe and Bankside. In addition, parts of Lambeth and Southwark that were in need of investment are now able to take the opportunity to invest in the future and share in a truly great millennium.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to protect the needs of remoter areas after the privatisation of the broadcasting transmission network. [28759]

Under the terms of the Broadcasting Act 1990, and the agreement between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the BBC, the Independent Television Commission and the BBC respectively are responsible for establishing and maintaining the standards of coverage, quality and reliability of the four main terrestrial channels. This will not change with the privatisation of the BBC's transmission network.

Nevertheless, is not there concern that the availability of digitised services to remote rural regions is very much in question? Will the Department co-operate with the Department of Trade and Industry to develop an integrated transmissions policy, including matters such as education and multi-media as well as television and radio?

With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he knows that analogue television covers 98.3 per cent. of Wales at the moment, and analogue will not be switched off until a roughly equivalent level of service is provided. The second part of his question was interesting. Although we clearly want an integrated policy, we would also need to involve other Departments, such as the Welsh Office.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the BBC operates more transmitters in Wales than in the rest of the United Kingdom put together because of the topology of the Principality? The only way to get the further 1.7 per cent. coverage that the hon. Gentleman so much wants is through digital transmission by satellite. Would my hon. Friend be surprised to learn that Plaid Cymru and the Labour party have opposed the introduction of satellite television as they opposed the introduction of cable television, ITV and Channel 4?

The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) has not raised those matters in the Committee that is considering the Broadcasting Bill of which he is a distinguished member, but no doubt he will have an opportunity to do so in the coming weeks.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on her initiative in establishing 1996 as the year of the pier. [28760]

Nineteen ninety-six has been designated as year of the pier by the British Piers Society and the British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers and Attractions. I welcome that initiative. Piers at seaside resorts represent an important part of Britain's built and cultural heritage and a unique element of our national tourism product. I was at the launch of the year of the pier at Brighton a few weeks ago.

While I welcome my right hon. Friend's exciting initiative, will she pursue with Lord Rothschild and Jocelyn Stevens of English Heritage the irrational and unfair policy of denying grants to piers that do not have grade 1 or 2 listed status and that are not located in conservation areas? Would it not be fairer and more in accordance with her excellent policies if they considered every case on its merits rather than trying to create a new bureaucracy through English Heritage?

I shall pass on my hon. Friend's comments to Lord Rothschild and Jocelyn Stevens. Several piers have already been supported by English Heritage and by the lottery fund. However, given the success of the heritage lottery fund which has already made 303 awards, it may see scope for extending its remit to incorporate more piers. I very much hope so.

I do not know whether a pier is needed in Greenwich for the planned millennium exhibition, but may I advise the right hon. Lady that no pier is required for the national exhibition centre to mount the exhibition? In view of Greenwich's problems, will she seriously consider having the exhibition at the NEC in Birmingham?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments and I suspect that they would be echoed by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I understand the House's impatience for further definite announcements about the millennium festival. Much work is under way and I hope that it will be possible to make clear announcements before long. I am well aware of the great advantages of the hon. Gentleman's part of the country.

Will my right hon. Friend find time during the year of the pier to visit that pearl of the south coast, Eastbourne pier, which is excellently operated by First Leisure? When she comes, will she also find time to meet local hoteliers and guest house operators to hear their views about the potentially disastrous effects on their businesses of the social chapter and the national minimum wage?

I look forward to visiting Eastbourne again and to seeing the Euginius Birch pier which, I believe, was opened in 1872. Like piers around the country it is very much a seaside attraction. I am only sorry that when I visited Worthing pier, which is the only one to have been burnt down, blown up and blown down, I was not then able to visit Eastbourne.

When I meet my hon. Friend's constituents, I expect that I will hear from them about their mounting anxiety at the threat to tourism of Labour's proposals. A minimum wage and its approach to endless regulation and the social chapter are the biggest threat to the tourist industry that the country has known.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on her Department's policy in respect of the contribution of the performing arts to urban regeneration. [28761]

The performing arts have considerable potential to regenerate urban areas by attracting tourism and inward investment, creating jobs and wealth, and improving the quality of life of local residents.

Given that answer, what positive plans has the Secretary of State to encourage young people to move away from criminal behaviour? The latest statistics show that 60 per cent. of young people are involved in criminal behaviour in some form. Will she make some positive plans for those young people in the west midlands, and especially in Coventry, where there is a problem in my constituency?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's question because, of all my aims for the Department, it is a priority to encourage youngsters to participate in practical activities, the arts, sport and heritage. That is why we have changed the national lottery rules to enable us to invest in talent and in training and coaching schemes. Only recently, we launched a document entitled, "People Taking Part", which describes the many ways in which different arts organisations have encouraged further participation.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will encourage his local organisations to apply to the lottery distribution bodies for the great benefits that are now available, in addition to the 24 awards—amounting to £2.5 million— that have already been awarded to his part of the world.

Does my hon. Friend recognise the importance of the performing arts to rural areas as well as urban regeneration, as many people who live in rural areas find it difficult to reach urban areas? I am thinking in particular of facilities in my constituency such as the cinema, which provides an excellent service and is full of character, and the village halls, where a number of amateur productions take place. They would be extremely grateful for support from the national lottery and other funds. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that even the Labour party now reluctantly admits the great success of the national lottery?

My hon. Friend is right to spell out the needs of rural as well as urban areas and the opportunities that can be provided through the national lottery. He will know that, only recently, the Millennium Commission announced the funding of up to 250 millennium halls to provide a focus for community life that brings people together and provides a great deal of enjoyment.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that the Festival of Britain and not the national lottery brought about the regeneration of the south bank and made it such an exciting magnet to people all over the world who are interested in the arts? It would be a tragedy if the right hon. Lady, presiding over the Millennium Commission, failed to pull off the Greenwich project to regenerate east London. That project—which is to celebrate the millennium—should not depend on private funding.

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman recognises the huge regeneration potential of the millennium festival. It involves a great deal of complex planning. He will be reassured to learn that the timetable for decontamination is well under way, although a number of details still have to be addressed. The national lottery enables Britain to fund a celebration that, so far, appears to exceed that planned by any other country.

The hon. Gentleman will also know that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has announced a ministerial team to support the work of the festival to ensure that, when final decisions are made, Government Departments can respond appropriately and swiftly.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the South Bank centre, including the Royal Festival hall, has made a major contribution to the performing arts in Britain? I know that she is aware that the South Bank centre has proposed an imaginative scheme that not only would improve performing arts at the South Bank centre, but—and perhaps even more crucially—would have a major effect on regeneration of the south bank. As the Royal Festival hall was built at the time of the Festival of Britain in 1951, does she agree that the refurbishment and improvement of the South Bank centre would be a fitting achievement in time for the millennium?

My hon. Friend makes a strong plea for the merits of the application by the South Bank centre. It is being considered by the Arts Council along with a great number of other projects, many of which are situated in London. The distributing bodies are independent, but they all have to keep a balance between the number of awards they make in London and those serving other parts of the country.

Following widespread press reports published before and after the meeting of the Millennium Commission last week, will the Secretary of State tell the House how much private sector funding has been raised for regeneration or investment in connection with the millennium exhibition at Greenwich? Has more time been allocated to the fund-raising process? Have the Government agreed to underwrite the whole project, as some press reports have stated? If so, will the money come from her Department's budget or from the Treasury?

I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman full information about the discussions that are under way—many of which are confidential. However, I can tell him that the festival committee, which is chaired by Simon Jenkins, has asked Sir Peter Levene to do more urgent work to take forward the encouraging early commitments and understandings reached. We are all aware that it is a complex and exciting proposal that will give the nation an opportunity to celebrate the new millennium in one place while providing a lasting legacy in the form of the significant regeneration of an underdeveloped, but very exciting, part of London. I shall give more information to the House as soon as I am in a position to do so.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what support her Department gives to encourage sustainable tourism in national parks. [28762]

I am committed to the principle of sustainable tourism. The English tourist board has contributed almost £1 million of pump-priming funding to a number of local sustainable tourism initiatives across the country during the past five years, many of which are located in national parks. The Government have published guidance on sustainable tourism in the national parks.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that we should encourage tourism in our national parks without damaging their magnificent beauty and their natural environments? Will she join me in welcoming the £217,000 grant made available last week by the national lottery sports fund to repair and refurbish some 10,000 m of paths in the Peak district? Does not that demonstrate how the national lottery is not only bringing benefits to tourists but contributing directly to preserving our environment? Will my right hon. Friend take a break from visiting our seaside piers and find an early opportunity to visit the Peak district national park instead?

I shall certainly take up my hon. Friend's invitation. The Environment Select Committee stressed specifically the positive economic benefits of leisure and tourism in rural areas. It said also that, compared with other activities, tourism and leisure do not cause significant widespread ecological damage to the countryside. My hon. Friend is well aware that efforts must be taken to preserve and protect the natural environment in areas that attract many tourists. Like him, I welcome a further practical contribution from the national lottery.

The Sports Council has made 1,670 awards, and so far it is winning the competition for the number of awards granted. This excellent scheme will protect the countryside and provide facilities for walkers.

Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the most important ways of accessing national parks is via public transport? Would she care to join my family next week when we take the train from Sheffield to Edale in the heart of the Peak district and leave the car at home? Will she ask her colleague the Secretary of State for Transport to stop rail privatisation, which will increase the number of cars entering our national parks?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will join me in commending the Millennium Commission which has announced the construction of 2,500 miles of cycleways up and down the country. That will ensure that we have a truly environmentally friendly means of transport in the next century.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many art galleries have been awarded funds from the national lottery. [28763]

Art galleries throughout the United Kingdom have benefited from national lottery grants. To date, there have been 34 awards for a total of £74 million, ranging from £50 million to the Tate gallery of modern art at Bankside to £59,865 to the Focal Point gallery in Southend-on-Sea.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her very encouraging news. Can she confirm that that proves that not only flagship galleries such as the Tate gallery and National gallery benefit from the national lottery, but that dozens of small galleries throughout the country also benefit, I understand, to the tune of £2 million? Can she confirm that there is very much more to come? The decision to make those disbursements is taken by the Museums and Galleries Commission, which is to be congratulated on its excellent work in keeping such marvellous work alive.

I share my hon. Friend's commendation of the Museums and Galleries Commission, which is involved in ensuring that standards are maintained and new developments pursued. She is right to say that we want, not only the big battalions, but the small platoons to be funded by the national lottery. That focus on local involvement and participation is the message of our document "People Taking Part", and on the museum side it is very much the message of what is likely to be an extremely successful national museums week this week.

Does the Secretary of State accept that museums and art galleries such as Towneley hall in Burnley are extremely important to local people? Will she do everything possible to support them and ensure that they continue to receive support from the national lottery, to help them to provide art locally, where it is accessible to people, near where they live?

Yes.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress she has made in promoting sport in schools. [28764]

My Department, the Department for Education and Employment and the Sports Council are taking forward the initiatives, set out in "Sport: Raising the Game", aimed at promoting sport in schools, and beyond. Full details of progress made will be set out in the follow-up sports policy statement, which will be published in July.

That is extremely welcome news for all those who believe in developing team spirit and character among our young people.

Is my hon. Friend aware, as a particular enthusiast for schoolgirl cricket, of the connection between this question and question No. 12? Does he remember who said:

"At cricket, her kin will lose or win—

She and her maids, on grass and clover,

Eleven maids out—eleven maids in—

And perhaps an occasional 'maiden over!'"?

No. I had either not known or had forgotten the quotation. My hon. Friend is making a tradition of such apposite quotations. I can tell him, however, that I am all in favour of girls playing cricket at school. If the England men's cricket team were as good as the England girls' cricket team, it might do much better.

Is the Minister aware that he has just given a complacent reply to a very complacent question? Is he further aware that Conservative Governments have allowed school sport to decline to an unprecedented level during the past 17 years, overseeing the flogging off of 5,000 playing fields, halving the number of physical education teachers and presiding over a fall of three quarters in the number of extra-curricular sporting fixtures?

On the latter point, the Minister will be aware of the understandable statement made by the National Union of Teachers today threatening a complete boycott by its members of participation in out-of-hours school sport until adequate insurance provision is in place, following a recent court decision against a rugby referee over damages. Will he therefore be more proactive than his counterpart in the Department for Education and Employment, and call together all interested parties as swiftly as possible in an attempt to resolve that worrying situation, described as a grey area by an education spokesman today? Otherwise, the objectives of "Sport: Raising the Game" to increase participation in sport in schools will be merely a pipe-dream.

On the hon. Gentleman's point about insurance, the situation is serious, and I did read with great interest what the National Union of Teachers spokesman said.

I understand that it is the duty of school governors to take out insurance to cover teachers. That may set minds at rest regarding some problems that beset teachers, but it does not cover the overall problem of the risks of sport in schools, which we shall consider closely. We shall have a chance to return to that and other matters when we have a sports debate on Friday 7 June.

Does my hon. Friend accept that cricket poses particular problems for schools because it takes longer to play than other sports and because school transport arrangements often conflict with the needs of those taking part? Will the Government look for innovative ideas and do everything possible to revive cricket in our schools?

The lottery can now allocate money to provide transport for schools, as long as it is available to the community as well as to the schools. In addition, under new criteria, every physical education teacher will be required to be equipped to take competitive team games, including one mainstream winter game and one mainstream summer game—and that definitely includes cricket.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to promote equal opportunities for employees of broadcasters awarded licences under the Broadcasting Bill. [28766]

Under the Broadcasting Bill, licences issued to television multiplex providers and broadcasters and to national radio multiplex providers and broadcasters will include conditions to promote equal opportunities for all employees and fair treatment for disabled persons. The conditions will be enforced by the Independent Television Commission. All licence holders will be subject to general equal opportunities legislation.

Is the Minister aware that no body has an obligation to promote equal opportunities among the independent programme producers? Does he consider it satisfactory that 10 of the 16 channel 3 licensees have no female staff at board level, and that four of those have no women at senior management level either?

No, I am not aware of the statistics just given by the hon. Lady. I can, however, inform the hon. Lady that, in Carlton, GMTV and Channel 4, the majority of employees are women. As the hon. Lady will know from our debates on the Broadcasting Bill, the number of women is increasing in other areas as well—and I hope that that continues.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has for making lottery funding available for the development of expertise in ballet and opera. [28767]

Support to students of dance and drama is administered through discretionary grants by local authorities under the overall responsibility of the Department for Education and Employment. I share the concern of many hon. Members about the availability of such grants. On 1 April, I announced changes to the lottery rules requiring the Arts Council to take account of the need to develop the skills, talents and creative abilities of young people. The council is now considering how to implement the new direction, and it must do so in a way that does not substitute for existing public expenditure.

I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that that is not satisfactory. I am sure that she will confirm that the Arts Council is not able to make grants for dance students, for drama students and for opera students at the national opera studio. The students are not allowed to apply for national lottery funding, so they must approach local authorities. I am sure that the Secretary of State will confirm that fewer and fewer local authorities are able to fund discretionary awards in these areas—in fact, many have stopped doing so—so many students from many areas will not receive funding for training in dance, drama or opera. There is an urgent need to find a way for such grants to proceed. The experts in these disciplines provide a great deal of income for the country through their performances abroad. I believe that we should continue to make expertise available.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern. His part of the country has received lottery awards for significant arts projects, including three for dance. He will know that the number of mandatory grants for dance and drama has increased as the number of degree courses has increased. However, the degree to which local authorities fund discretionary awards is up to them. The hon. Gentleman will welcome, as I do, last week's announcement by the Arts Council that it has asked the chairman of the London arts board, Clive Priestly, to look at this area to see whether further steps can be taken and whether the new Arts Council lottery direction that I announced recently can be used to good effect.

Is it not ironic that, when the success of the national lottery is offering hundreds of millions of pounds of extra support for charities, sport and the arts, the D'Oyly Carte Company—the principal custodian of the unique British tradition of the Gilbert and Sullivan operas—receives only £18,000 a year in public funds? Will my right hon. Friend take urgent action, either by issuing new directions on stabilisation funding or by other means, to avert the closure of that company—its current season ends this week, and its autumn season has been cancelled— so as to ensure the survival of this much-loved tradition for our generation and generations to come?

My hon. Friend speaks for many hon. Members in his strong support for the D'Oyly Carte. A number of plans are under way, and I think that the Arts Council is now well aware of the strength of feeling on this matter. A moment ago, my hon. Friend the Minister of State outlined the development in stabilisation funds— another way in which we are trying to make the lottery more flexible so as to deal with some of the longer-term needs of arts organisations. We have listened to the concern that capital grants alone may not be sufficient to perform the task. We believe that greater flexibility will mean that more arts organisations will have a more flourishing future.

Does the Secretary of State recall the correspondence between her Department and me about Natasha Cornish, a very talented young dancer in my constituency, who was advised to contact the Arts Council with a view to receiving grant aid? As the Secretary of State's Department has directed the Arts Council that it should not undertake any long-term funding, how will the Arts Council fund students during two to three-year periods? Does she agree that we must iron out this anomaly if we are to help some of our brightest and best young dancers?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not regard two or three years as long-term funding. It is perfectly possible for the Arts Council, with the changed direction that we have announced for it, to address that issue. Such funding formally remains the responsibility of local authorities, through discretionary grants, and it is for them to decide what priority to give such awards. Clive Priestly intends to report to the chairman of the Arts Council precisely to deal with that interface. It will be a very timely report, and I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to Mr. Priestly.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to fund touring productions of light opera in provincial towns in Britain. [28768]

Specific arts funding decisions are, of course, taken at arm's length from the Government by the Arts Council of England and the regional arts boards. Ministers will consider shortly the Arts Council's proposals to use lottery funds to support the financial stabilisation of some arts companies. The Arts Council's chairman, Lord Gowrie, has recently written to me suggesting that D'Oyly Carte might be part of an associated pilot project.

The problem is with the Government— [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear."] Wait a moment. The D'Oyly Carte has been in touch with the Arts Council for three years, asking for some money. All that it gets from the Government is 10 per cent. of its running costs, whereas grand opera gets 90 per cent. of its running costs. Are the Government going to allow one of the great and most cherished institutions in the country to collapse when there is £300 million of Arts Council money in the lottery that is not being used? It is the Secretary of State's problem—it has nothing to do with the Arts Council.

The House will be pleased to know that, since our most recent Question Time—after the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier)—I wrote to the chairman of the Arts Council, who wrote back. The Arts Council will now investigate whether the stabilisation fund can be applied to D'Oyly Carte as part of a pilot project. The Government are of course acutely aware of the great value of D'Oyly Carte and of the entire Gilbert and Sullivan canon. The Arts Council provides those moneys. The Government have no money with which they directly fund organisations, whether D'Oyly Carte or any other, but I hope that the Arts Council will do what the great majority of hon. Members and the country want it to do.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she is taking to encourage rugby football in Wales. [28769]

Government responsibility for sport in Wales rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. Central Government funding for sport in Wales is channelled through the Sports Council for Wales.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extremely important to ensure that young people in Wales have the opportunity at school and outside school to play competitive sports such as rugby and soccer? Will he confirm that he will co-operate fully with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to ensure that such opportunities are made available?

Yes, I will. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales produced a Welsh document that was the equivalent of "Raising the Game", in which he placed similar emphasis on the importance of competitive games at school. Rugby has received about £235,000 in Wales from Sportsmatch, and another £1.3 million from the lottery. Rugby is doing pretty well in the context of sport in Wales. When Wales has a few rugby league players playing for it again, it might do even better.

Would the Minister and the Secretary of State like to congratulate Buckleigh primary school in my constituency, which reached the finals of its district rugby union competition recently, and to which I had the honour of presenting some awards? Will the Minister consider visiting the school and, in so doing, take into account especially the cost of kit? The necessary sportswear is expensive. If there is unemployment and difficulty in an area, the problems are even greater. Will the Minister comment on that?

Certainly. I congratulate Buckleigh primary school. It is one of the prime aims of "Raising the Game" that exactly what the hon. Gentleman has described happens. The provision of kit is a difficult problem for many schools. The Sports Council will agree to help fund schemes where schools are linked to local clubs. The provision of kit could be part of such a deal. If the hon. Gentleman would like to get in touch with me, I shall make him aware of the details of the scheme.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received about the categories of recipients of legal aid; and if he will make a statement. [28787]

I have received many representations recently at local level.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the case of a young Old Etonian who obtained legal aid to challenge the terms of his great uncle's £50 million will, only to lose the action? Is he aware also of other cases where poor people cannot obtain legal aid? Sometimes, people obtain legal aid to bring actions against those who cannot afford to proceed as a result of the other side having unlimited legal aid. Does not the system require examination? What are the Government doing to achieve that?

I cannot comment on individual decisions, but I can comment on general policy. A means test operates in the grant of legal aid, and that should apply in each case. Cases are drawn to the attention of the Government from time to time of people who are apparently wealthy being granted legal aid. Against that background, I replied some months ago to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall). I stated that the Government had decided to bring forward specific measures to deal with the difficulties to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) referred. Regulations will come into force on 1 June.

How can the Government justify handing out large sums to seemingly wealthy people such as the Maxwells and various others who have been involved in fraud on a massive scale, whereas a young lad in my constituency, Neil Edwards, who went to work for a fellow who had a sawmill at Clumber park near Worksop—the employer was not insured and young Neil lost a number of fingers and tried to claim benefit as a result of disablement—was refused legal aid on the basis that his employer had not been properly insured for himself or those who worked for him? Those who represented the legal aid scheme said that there was no guarantee that they could get any money out of the employer, even though he had been a small business man for several years. It is a scandal that a young lad can lose fingers yet receive no legal aid while big nobs can get as much as they like.

It is essential that individual decisions on the granting of legal aid are seen to be free of both Government and political interference. There is, therefore, a set means test, which applies to all cases, that it is administered by the Legal Aid Board. The hon. Gentleman is referring to two other tests administered by the board—the test of the legal merits of individual cases and the reasonableness test. Those tests also must be seen to be free of Government and political interference.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to make the census returns available to searchers at a central London location following the closure of the Chancery lane public record office. [28788]

The Public Record Office is negotiating an alternative central London location at which it will make the census returns available to searchers, following the closure of its Chancery lane building.

Despite the welcome investment by the Government in new buildings and information technology at the PRO at Kew, which I had the privilege of visiting this morning, may I impress on my hon. Friend the fact that many thousands of people use the census return search rooms at Chancery lane each year and that it is of great importance to them that the Government treat the need for an alternative search centre with urgency and provide it as soon as the Chancery lane office closes?

I am pleased that my hon. Friend was impressed by the facilities that he saw at Kew. Most of the people who have had the opportunity to view the facilities share his enthusiasm for them. He is right that the census returns from 1841 to 1891 attract much public interest and, in 1994–95, some 80,000 individual reader visits were paid to the central London location of the Public Record Office. The Government are determined to ensure that an alternative central London location is made available to enable people to continue to have access to records.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his policy in providing legal aid in matrimonial cases when one party is domiciled outside the EC. [28789]

The same statutory tests of means and merits apply to all legal aid applicants, regardless of domicile. Provided that an applicant meets those tests, legal aid is available for most matrimonial proceedings, other than most undefended divorce petitions conducted before the courts of England and Wales.

What can be the justification for offering legal aid to fathers who abandon their wives and children and go abroad, having never given their children or wives a penny piece in maintenance? Those fathers not only demand legal aid, but receive it wherever they live in the world. Our taxpayers are paying for fathers who have abandoned, and refuse to look after, their wives and children. Does my hon. Friend support that?

The general view that has been taken is that, if tests of means, legal merits and reasonableness are satisfied, legal aid should be available for proceedings before our courts. As part of the review of legal aid for the apparently wealthy, the Lord Chancellor considered issues such as the nationality of applicants. On that occasion, the majority of responses received by the Lord Chancellor asked for the system to remain as it is, which is why he announced last year that the structure would remain unchanged.

The Lord Chancellor must know that, in cases such as that which the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has just raised, legal aid is available for anyone who comes here and invokes The Hague convention, especially in cases of child abduction. Legal aid is not available for our citizens when they go abroad for the same purpose. It is time that the Government looked into that important area of equality.

I have said that the issue of nationality has been examined, but the question that the hon. Gentleman raises turns on the availability of legal aid in other jurisdictions. Some legal aid is available through some countries, but I share his concern about the specific cases that he has raised with me in meetings recently. If we are able to assist, the hon. Gentleman knows that my door is open and that I shall endeavour to be of assistance.

My hon. Friend will be aware that, in the recent Sony case, legal aid of £500,000 was given to a German who had paid no taxes in this country. Is not it scandalous that individuals who live abroad, pay no United Kingdom taxes and never intend to pay any United Kingdom taxes should be eligible for legal aid in this country?

I understand my hon. Friend's concerns but, as I have said, the matter was the subject of a review by the Lord Chancellor last year, and the vast majority of respondents felt that legal aid should continue to be available. However, as my hon. Friend well knows, I share his concern about the wider issue—the availability of legal aid to people who appear to be wealthy, and appear to be beyond the means test. The changes that will begin to operate on 1 June will, I think, prove helpful in the effort to deal with some of the cases that have come to public attention.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will review (a) the wearing of wigs and (b) the use of the dock in trials. [28791]

The wearing of wigs in trials was considered through consultation papers in 1992 and 1994. The use of the dock in trials was considered by the royal commission on criminal justice in 1993. I have no plans to order a further review of either issue.

Is the Minister aware that the wearing of wigs in court, particularly by judges, not only makes judges look ridiculous but intimidates the accused? Is it not time that we ceased to take the advice of the judiciary in this regard? Should not common sense prevail? Should we not at least give people the option of not wearing absurd Jacobean garb?

As for the use of the dock, the person in the dock feels intimidated and that the case is prejudicial. In a modern society and judicial system, an accused person who has not been found guilty should not feel intimidated and isolated. Is that not prejudicial to good justice?

I note the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the wearing of wigs in court, but—

Madam Speaker does not wear a wig.

Indeed, but I shall not be drawn into that line of argument.

In August 1992, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice issued a joint consultation paper on the issue. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's view is shared by a limited number of people: the vast majority of respondents felt that court dress should remain the same.

As for the wider issue of the use of the dock, the royal commission on criminal justice considered it in 1993—

All lawyers.

With respect, the commission considered the issue in the context of the security of the courtroom. Its decision not to do away with the dock was based on concerns about security—not only keeping the prisoner in secure conditions, but in terms of the prisoner's protection in the court.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, during the consultation by the Bar Council that he mentioned, defendants were consulted, and said almost to a man that they wanted their briefs to be properly tarted up for their day in court?

I bow to my hon. Friend's greater knowledge of these matters.

Is this follicularly challenged Minister aware that many of us, who have worn wigs in court for many years and seen our fine shocks of hair diminished by their wearing properties, would gladly get rid of them? Will he bear it in mind, however, that, as has just been said, convicted prisoners—those who have been found guilty despite being defended by the bewigged— still feel that they are represented better by someone in a wig than by a bald man without a wig?

During my time in practice in the magistrates courts of south Wales, no such observation was made to me.

Will my hon. Friend use the time that he is wisely not going to waste on this issue to pursue the earlier issue of legal aid? We are not at all satisfied with the answers that we have received this afternoon.

My hon. Friend may be aware that the Lord Chancellor has been engaged in wide-ranging consultations about the future structure of legal aid. I reassure my hon. Friend that the Lord Chancellor intends shortly to announce in the Green Paper "Targeting Need" his proposals for taking forward the arrangements that were the subject of consultation.

If barristers are to continue to be allowed to wear wigs in court, does the Minister think it fair that solicitor advocates should enjoy the same, perhaps rather dubious, privilege?

I do not know whether that question is asked on the basis of the hon. Gentleman's personal experience—he has chosen to leave the solicitors' profession and to join the Bar. The use of wigs by solicitor advocates was considered in 1994, and the general judgment was that there should be no compulsion on solicitors to wear them.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Commonwealth Development Corporation, or the CDC as we all know it, is a success story. The purpose of the Bill is to build on that success and to give it the powers that it needs to continue its work in promoting sustainable development. The CDC's fundamental objective, as established by statute, is to contribute to the economic development of poorer countries. Everything that it does, and will do in future, must contribute to that single purpose. In so doing, it makes a valuable and distinctive contribution to Britain's overseas development effort. In particular, it is our main instrument in promoting private sector development in support of economic reform and in enhancing productive capacity—two of the key aims of the United Kingdom aid programme.

The CDC's achievements are familiar to right hon. and hon. Members and it has won many friends and supporters by its excellent record since it was established in 1948. It has won many more friends overseas in countries where its investments have made a tangible difference to the lives of local people.

The CDC's annual report and accounts for 1995 were recently laid before the House. They confirmed the growing contribution that the corporation is making to poor countries. It has comfortably beaten the strategic targets that were set in the 1993 quinquennial review. It was agreed with Ministers that 70 per cent. of board approvals for new investments should be in the poorest countries. In 1995, the CDC achieved 90 per cent. Of those, 47 per cent.—representing about £153 million— were in sub-Saharan Africa and 47 per cent. of approvals were in the form of equity or quasi-equity against a target of 25 per cent. The CDC was asked to make an 8 per cent. return on capital employed and in 1995 it achieved 9 per cent. Overall, new investments were at a record high of £276 million—an increase of 15 per cent. It may also interest the House to know that around 30 per cent. of the total portfolio is currently invested in the public sector and 40 per cent. of that is invested in power and water.

As I have said, the CDC continues to achieve its return on capital employed targets. The returns provide resources that the CDC recycles into new investments. Just last month, the CDC announced the sale of the BAL plantation in east Malaysia for about £98 million equivalent—an example of selling mature investments to local interests to raise funds for reinvestment in other development projects worldwide. At the end of 1995, the CDC had investments—before provisions—totalling £1.487 billion in a global spread of 50 countries.

I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that those statistics are impressive, although they do not guarantee the developmental effectiveness of the CDC's operations. To gauge that, I shall explain briefly how the CDC achieves development impact and adds value to its investments.

The CDC promotes growth by investing in, and supporting, the operations of commercially viable and developmentally sound business enterprises. First and foremost, the CDC creates economic value in developing countries. That is tested not only by its profitability, but by measuring the economic rate of return of its projects.

In undertaking those activities, the CDC is committed to ensuring that the environmental policies of the businesses that it supports accord with internationally accepted standards. In its own managed projects, which directly employ some 44,000 people, a range of education and health benefits are also provided for the local community.

The CDC is a hands-on investor. It exists to add value to an enterprise, typically by providing longer-term finance than is available on the commercial markets, improving the design and structuring of investment proposals, contributing management expertise and moderating risk in countries that normally attract only a small proportion of private flows. By such means, the CDC has a powerful catalytic effect. In 1995, a total of £1.7 billion was committed alongside the CDC's commitment to produce a ratio of 1:6 of CDC funds to those of other investors.

That brings me to the proposals in the Bill. The most recent review of the CDC highlighted a number of constraints preventing more active participation by the CDC in sustainable development overseas. The Bill is particularly relevant to ensuring the success of the Commonwealth private investment initiative, in which the CDC has agreed to take a leading role. That initiative by the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth was warmly welcomed at the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference at Auckland last year. The CPU has the potential to benefit many poorer Commonwealth countries by mobilising investment from within member states.

The first phase of the initiative—the Commonwealth Africa investment fund—will focus on sub-Saharan Africa. It is expected that it will formally be launched in July and should be ready to start at the time of the meeting of the Commonwealth Finance Ministers later this year. The initial capital target for the fund will be $75 million, of which the CDC will provide $25 million.

I am delighted to say that the fund has attracted a particularly positive response from Governments and Government agencies in south-east Asia and southern Africa. Prominent representatives from the international business and financial sectors have agreed to serve as independent directors. Following the launch, it will be the CDC's intention to bring in other institutional investors from the major financial centres of the world, thus mobilising long-term, private-sector funds that are not otherwise available to sub-Saharan Africa.

The CDC will be the fund manager—a role that it is uniquely well placed to perform, with its long experience and network of offices in sub-Saharan Africa. If it is to play a full part in the funds investment activities, however, it will need enlarged powers. The focus of the fund will be on finance for the start-up, expansion and restructuring of business in a wide range of sectors and there is expected to be particular emphasis on rehabilitation and restructuring. Without new powers, the CDC would be placed in the invidious position of being unable fully to participate in the activities of the fund. That could seriously undermine the long-term development of that important Commonwealth initiative, as I shall explain in a moment.

Hon. Members may find it helpful if I outline briefly what are inevitably somewhat technical provisions, the substance of which is within clause 1. At present, the CDC is empowered to promote or expand new or existing enterprises. Accordingly, the CDC's funds are applied primarily to creating new or additional assets or capacity. That is, and will remain, central to the CDC's work, but it undoubtedly significantly limits the CDC in assisting host Governments and major businesses which wish to divest themselves of, or rehabilitate, enterprises where change of ownership is a necessary preliminary step to regeneration.

Frequently, the change of ownership and the consequential changes of management are vital to transforming the enterprise for the benefit of the economy. Increasing numbers of Governments recognise the need to reorganise and rationalise existing enterprises that are usually under-performing and that they perceive would have a more successful future in the private sector. The Bill addresses that need in developing countries and would allow the CDC to play its full part in the development process.

The limitations imposed by the CDC's existing powers have been evident for some time. For example, the CDC has been unable to participate in a number of worthwhile projects in southern Africa because they would involve reorganisation rather than immediate expansion.

The development of effective money and capital markets in developing countries is imperative if business is to have access to finance and savers to investment opportunities. They are important for the efficient allocation of funds into productive investment, but the CDC is just as constrained here as in the other activities to which I have referred by the statutory requirement to assist only in creating new or additional capacity. For example, the CDC should be able to provide the initial investment in country or sector funds leading to larger private sector investment in due course, to manage such funds and to encourage the formation of stock or securities exchanges or dealings mechanisms. By those means, the CDC could become more involved in improving financial services that are important to economic growth.

Under existing powers, the CDC is already setting up and frequently managing investment funds to assist small and medium enterprises, particularly in Africa, but the new power will give it greater ability to invest in a wider range of funds.

In case there is any doubt in anyone's mind, I stress that the CDC has no ambitions to become a bank; nor is it looking for quick and easy returns on its investments. The CDC will continue to focus on poorer countries. As I have said, the CDC is a hands-on investor and it wishes to promote successful funds that will attract private capital. The powers that I have described are part of the normal armoury of the International Finance Corporation and other development institutions. It is right that they should also be available to the CDC, as its overriding purpose is to assist the development of the economies of host countries.

The third change proposed in clause 1 relates to so-called "dry" consultancies that are not linked to the provision of CDC finance or management services. The corporation's ability to share its considerable knowledge and expertise through consultancy services is currently limited to those projects where it has an interest, or in which it is expected to participate. However, the expertise that the CDC has gained from its core activities should occasionally be made available without that link. That is a logical extension of the CDC's current activities: the CDC would not compete for contracts with the private sector or develop an extensive consultancy capacity, but merely use its specialist skills for the benefit of others on a full cost-recovery basis.

I repeat that we do not intend to change the character or the fundamental purpose of the CDC. It will remain a public sector body which will continue to operate within the strategic framework of controls agreed with Ministers. Key operational targets were set in the context of the 1993 quinquennial review and the CDC's performance against those targets is regularly monitored and reviewed. As I have said, the CDC enjoyed a most successful year in 1995. It achieved that success by directing its efforts squarely at poorer recipient countries in regions of the world where it has acquired much expertise over the years and where it is a widely respected partner.

Those fundamentals will not change if the Bill passes into law. There will be no radical, overwhelming departure from present practice. We shall see instead a careful and logical extension of the corporation's existing role, which will allow the CDC to take advantage of new and better ways of solving the old problems of poverty and deprivation. The Bill will assist the CDC to continue its fine work, which I know commands support among all parties. I commend the Bill to the House.

This is the third Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill to come before the House in 14 months and, on each occasion, we have enjoyed the unusual experience of agreeing about something—at least initially. As the Minister said, the CDC should be congratulated on its successes: its financial performance, its attainment of agreed targets and, above all, its continuing important contribution to the strengthening of economies in some of the world's poorest countries.

However, we part company over the question of future plans for the CDC. The Labour party believes firmly that the CDC has a distinct and expanding future role to play within a Government-directed overseas aid programme. I am not sure that the Government hold a similar view— sometimes I am not convinced that they have thought about the CDC in the longer term, although the Minister's comments have reassured me a little. I look forward to further illumination in the winding-up speech regarding several issues that I shall raise during the debate.

The CDC makes a vital contribution to the United Kingdom's development programme. It pump primes private investment in some of the world's poorest countries, reaching the countries that other investment organisations will not even consider. Its activities are complementary to the Overseas Development Administration's efforts to provide bilateral and multilateral development assistance through Governments and non-governmental organisations and in partnership with international institutions such as the World bank, the International Monetary Fund and the European Union.

Against the background of a steadily declining aid budget, Ministers may point to increasing flows of private investment to the developing world; but where are those market-driven private funds headed? They flow not to south Asia or to sub-Saharan Africa but mainly to a very narrow band of middle-income countries in east Asia and in Latin America.

In 1994, 90 per cent. of private investment went to just 10 developing countries. Private capital flows to sub-Saharan Africa have amounted to less than 2 per cent. of the developing total since 1993. According to World bank figures, in 1992 to 1994, only 1 per cent. of private capital flows went to the most severely indebted countries. In 1993–94, 19 per cent. of the CDC's investments were in projects based in those severely indebted countries. Not only does the CDC target some of the poorest countries, but its investments are medium to long term and offer much needed economic stability.

The globalisation of the economy poses yet another threat to poor nations, widening still further the gap between the debt-ridden and the middle-income countries. That is why the CDC is, and will continue to be, an important tool in the delivery of development assistance in partnership with the private sector. We believe that properly managed, directed and focused private investment will play a key part in future development programmes under a Labour Government.

The CDC has carefully carved out its own market over the years. A CDC board member, Sir William Ryrie, writing in his organisation's magazine in December 1995, said:

"It is not our role to finance companies which do not need our help and can raise the funding they need themselves—that is a waste of our resources. This would seem to leave only a narrow area for us to operate in, avoiding on the one hand unwise investments, which no-one should undertake, and on the other those which the markets will finance without our help".

However, the channel is not narrow. Sir William went on to recognise that most developing countries have a long way to go in cultivating their own capital markets. The CDC's role is assured well into the future.

Against that background, I welcome the Minister's assurances this evening that the CDC will remain in the public sector and that the widening of the CDC's powers as proposed in the Bill is not a prelude to privatisation. I ask him to reiterate the statement made by the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), on 3 May 1994 that the CDC would stay in the public sector because it was generally felt that privatisation of the CDC would result in a financial structure, aims and objectives that were inconsistent with its development role. I share that view.

In my opening remarks, I referred to previous Bills that had come before the House. Concern about the Government's plans for the CDC undermined Labour Members' confidence that proposed new powers would not signal either a CDC sell-off or a noticeable shift in market focus away from the poorest countries and towards emerging markets in eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union. The way in which the Government chose to present the Bills did nothing either to speed or to smooth their passage.

The first Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill, which was presented last March, was quite straightforward. However, it was swiftly followed by a private Member's Bill originating in another place which we were assured was absolutely essential to the continuing success of the CDC. In that case, why was it not a Government Bill? If the new powers in the Commonwealth Development Corporation (No. 2) Bill— which are largely presented again in the current legislation—were so significant, why were they not in the first Bill? I have never understood that.

The key to CDC activity is the triggering of genuine additional investment. However, the proposed new powers to purchase equity funds did not meet that criteria automatically. We did not see why the CDC should get involved in asset trading relating to buy-out if such activity did not lead directly to new investment.

We were also worried about the reference in last year's corporate plan to a strategy aimed at targeting

"turning-point countries … with their higher growth potential".

No one would quarrel with the idea that it is sensible to concentrate scarce resources where the best effect can be obtained, but we were concerned that the concentration on pump-priming privatisation programmes might shunt the CDC away from the Commonwealth countries and towards emerging democracies in eastern Europe.

That is why I commented last year that the debate that we had was unfinished business. I recognise that there are immense commercial and financial opportunities with which the CDC would like to involve itself—even a cursory reading through its annual report and current corporate plan reveals that it is straining at the leash—but there is one major hitch. I quote the CDC:

"The volumes of new business forecast by Representatives are at a higher level than can be funded".

The Bill does not address that fundamental dilemma.

The CDC is therefore seeking ways to churn its assets to raise funds for new projects, and I note its intention to hasten equity realisations. The Commonwealth private investment initiative, which triggered the request for a change in legislation, is another mechanism to raise funds against a background of financial restraint by Government.

The Commonwealth private investment initiative was welcomed by the heads of Commonwealth Governments last November, and we join them in that support. They recognised, as we do, the dearth of private investment in Africa and the need for rehabilitation and rejuvenation of businesses in the continent that has suffered wars, chronic indebtedness and natural disasters for so long. In the African continent, private investment has concentrated on oil-producing countries, with Nigeria taking 30 per cent. of total flows. Obviously, market forces do not serve the poorest at all well.

The CDC was the obvious candidate to act as an investment catalyst, with its established reputation throughout the Commonwealth. I was delighted to note that the CDC's new business investments in sub-Saharan Africa increased from £41 million in 1994 to £154 million in 1995. We all welcome that. Against that background, we are asked to consider the Bill, which we are told is essential if the CDC is to participate fully in the operations of that new Commonwealth initiative and its first African investment fund.

Given our enthusiasm for that project, we would have liked to put our full weight behind the legislation, had it been more project specific. Why was legislation tailor made to the needs of the CDC in relation to the Commonwealth initiative not forthcoming, and why has the Overseas Development Administration fallen back on resurrecting much of the Commonwealth Development Corporation (No. 2) Bill from last year? Surely it cannot be for lack of drafting time. Such a move would have resulted in the enthusiastic cross-party endorsement that it warrants.

The new powers proposed in the Bill will impact on all the CDC's activities, not only within the limits of the new initiative. Once again, the privatisation fear is raised.

indicated dissent.

I know that the Minister has said—he shakes his head again—that there is no such fear, and I welcome that. Will he assure the House that the new powers will be applied to the CDC's activities only in the operation of the Commonwealth initiative? An alternative interpretation is that the Government have no plan for the future of the CDC—an organisation operating in a commercial environment, under Government constraints, yet remaining in the private sector. There is some confusion in that regard.

In Government, the Labour party will look forward to a long and successful relationship with the CDC—similar to that which a previous Government had. I welcome the emphasis in its current annual report on the development impact of its projects and on the need for assessments of their impact on the environment and of health and safety. I hope that the CDC will add workers' rights to that list. I also want stronger development input at board level. Would the CDC really miss one of the many bankers in situ if he were replaced by a development expert?

Earlier, I mentioned the Government's failure in the Bill to address the crucial issue of how the CDC is funded. There should be a review of the orthodox policy towards the CDC funding, and specifically a re-examination of the policies that prevent the CDC having access to private sector funding.

The CDC's current main method of funding new investments is to generate financial surpluses. The French attitude is different. Electricité de France, the state-owned power company, derives all its borrowing from the private sector. Perhaps the Bill, too, is unfinished business. Only time will tell.

In conclusion, the Opposition wish the CDC and the CPU regional development fund initiative well, although we deeply regret the rather shoddy way in which the initiative and the CDC have been treated by the Government, and we look forward to a not-too-distant time when a more transparent, constructive and supportive partnership can be established.

I shall be brief.

We are great admirers of the Commonwealth Development Corporation and I pay tribute to it. For many years—ever since my ministerial days—I have been deeply impressed by its work.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), I shall pose a question arising from the fact that, for the third time in 14 months, we are discussing a piece of legislation relating to the CDC. We seek from the Minister, when he replies, at least an assurance that the CDC now has all the powers that it needs to fulfil the tasks that it wishes to undertake. We had the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1995, and now we have this Bill. Like my hon. Friend, I do not understand why those two Bills could not have been brought together as one package. Having accepted that those additional powers are needed, I ask the Minister: are the two Bills the final instalment of the CDC's legislative requirements to carry out its work, or has it made outstanding requests for legislation? We should at least be told that.

I ask the Minister and my hon. Friends to consider the CDC's role in the context of a much more imaginative view of our relationships with the Commonwealth and of relationships within it. I draw attention to the report on the future role of the Commonwealth which I, as a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, helped to prepare and write. One of the most astonishing aspects of our work in preparing the report was that all the members of the Select Committee were struck by the changing character and potential of the Commonwealth—and no more so than in commercial and economic relations. Contrary to the image that many people may have of the Commonwealth as an organisation living on sentiment and past attachments, we discovered that the Commonwealth had a very important modern role in economic, commercial and aid terms.

We felt, as we said in our report, that the CDC had a vital role in developing what we considered to be the new networking possibilities of the modern Commonwealth, as opposed to old and sentimental attachments and ties. I hope that the Minister will ponder on our observations about the role that the CDC might play in bringing to fruition some of our ideas and our vision.

I draw the attention of the Minister and of the House to paragraphs 56 to 58 of our report where, in the context of the Commonwealth as an economic forum, we drew attention to the fact that contacts between that enormous network of countries are facilitated by the fact that a common heritage has resulted in the development of similar legal systems, accountancy procedures and business practice—and, of course, a widespread understanding of the English language.

The traditional relationships within the Commonwealth have enormous economic and commercial potential. While we have turned our backs on Commonwealth and imperial preferences in the context of our membership of the European Union, new opportunities, new connections and new networking can be achieved in developing economic and commercial relationships between Commonwealth countries. Paragraph 58 points out that

"there is scope for the Commonwealth to act as a broking house for mutual interaction, both on a multilateral and bilateral basis."

The CDC has a crucial and central role in the development of new ties within the Commonwealth, as opposed to the traditional Commonwealth ties. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office presented evidence to the Committee, but we believe that it does not realise the new potential. Some of the richest and fastest growing countries are in the Commonwealth, as are some of the poorest countries. In terms of gross national product per capita, Singapore is at the top of the list and Mozambique—the most recent country to join the Commonwealth—is at the bottom.

There has been a fantastic level of growth in many of the Asian Commonwealth countries. We believe that that experience could be utilised, through the Commonwealth network, to assist the poorer countries, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa. The Committee therefore made a series of recommendations in relation to bridging the gap between the richest and poorest Commonwealth countries. We decided that we should not have a United Kingdom-centred view of the Commonwealth, but that we should look at the network of relationships that exist between other Commonwealth countries.

I ask the Minister and the CDC to look at the role of the CDC. It may be able to play an even greater part in the criss-cross of relationships that exist, or could exist, in the Commonwealth within an economic and commercial forum. I draw the Minister's attention to paragraphs 93 and 94 of the report as they are directly related to the role of the CDC. In paragraph 94 the Committee draws attention to the fact that the CDC told us that it was being under-utilised and expressed concern about future pressure on the bilateral aid budget which might cause it to reduce its activities.

On this occasion, I do not want to raise the relationship between the CDC's programme and our aid programme. Changes have occurred in our aid programme, particularly in our bilateral aid programme, and it appears that in the next year or so our bilateral aid programme will be smaller than the contributions that we make to the European Union aid budget, which will have considerable rippling effects on the operation of the CDC. As I have said, the CDC believes that it is being under-utilised. The recommendation contained in paragraph 94 states:

"We commend the work and potential of the CDC. We recommend that the Government examines the case for it to play a greater role in investment in developing Commonwealth countries, thus giving greater weight to the investment component of the bilateral aid programme."

I ask the Minister whether, in the context of the Bill, the CDC will be able to play a greater role in the Commonwealth, as the Select Committee envisaged. We believe that economic and commercial networking has tremendous potential within the Commonwealth. For example, we could link the incredible experiences of the growth economies of Singapore and Malaysia with the experiences of the poorer, sub-Saharan economies. It is sad that while some developing countries in the Commonwealth have taken off in a variety of ways, others have been left behind. Sub-Saharan Africa stands out as a classic illustration of this—in terms of GNP per capita and every other form of assessment of poverty and need.

Is it not possible somehow to bridge the gap? The experiences and know-how of the growing Asian economies could help sub-Saharan Africa. The CDC could play an important bridging role in passing on that experience. It could borrow and utilise the knowledge and understanding of the successful developing economies in the Commonwealth and link them with the countries that are least successful. That was one of the great themes of the Committee's report—that there are new and novel ways in which the Commonwealth could be networked. A Eurocentric view of society and the world misses these other visions and opportunities. There are also market opportunities for the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.

I hope that the Minister will reassure me as to the type of role that the Commonwealth can play at the end of the century—which would be different from the role that it played in the first part of the century. The CDC could be an important bridge and link in relation to these new experiences. It could cross-fertilise the experiences between the economies within the Commonwealth. The United Kingdom does not necessarily have the experience of some of the growing Asian economies. That experience would be of enormous value for the sub-Saharan economies and could help to lift the economies, welfare and prosperity of some of the poorest countries within the Commonwealth.

It is a pleasure to welcome the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill.

It was sad last year when the Bill fell due to Government lack of time—indeed, the minuscule debate on the CDC gave no indication of the extent of its work. The Government appeared to be ignoring the CDC. I am glad that the Minister of State has put that right today. The Bill is particularly interesting because it focuses on the title of the organisation, and the words "development" and "Commonwealth". Commonwealth Development Corporation investment has been expanded to accommodate the widening boundaries of the Commonwealth of nations and to invest in countries which are not part of that grouping.

The definition of "development" was also constrained. In the past, the CDC was constrained by its stated object of development, which was rightly interpreted as new physical assets. This has been a hindrance to real development in the sense of investing in privatisation and in management rehabilitation projects. Without new assets, that would have been against the letter of the law.

The Bill replaces the words "promotion and expansion" with the words "creation, promotion, expansion, reorganisation or rationalisation", which widens the definition of "development" and allows the CDC to invest in the Africa fund. For all the commendations that the fund has received in the debate, it seems to be somewhat modest.

This is a welcome beginning, which gives us the chance to congratulate the CDC's staff and governors on achieving sound economic development in many countries. This is a model of how to approach the development challenge. It improves management expertise and it improves and creates capital flows to make valuable sustainable businesses in the countries involved. The CDC offers a highly professional valued-added and results-based approach.

The Minister has talked about the magnificent way in which the CDC works in so many different countries. I should like to pay tribute to the staff, who work in some very difficult situations. It is so easy, with this excellent annual report, to expect the CDC's achievements, but let us not forget that its staff work in very difficult and sometimes dangerous situations. I was in Papua New Guinea with a regional director, for example, watching some of the work that is being done across that country. A couple of days after I left, the manager, Carl Edwards, was killed by one of the local people, who had mistaken something that had been done. We perhaps understate, in a typically old-fashioned British manner, the dangers, difficulties and strains that CDC staff face every day in so many places internationally.

It is welcome to be able to comment positively on the targeting of resources in developing countries in the sub-Saharan countries of the Commonwealth, which are particularly poor. The importance of that region has already been recognised and commented on in this debate. The fact is that 47 per cent. of the CDC's worldwide investment approvals made last year relate to that area. It is good to know that business has increased from £41 million, in 1994, to £157 million, in 1995, and that new offices have opened in Mozambique and Uganda.

It is excellent that this Bill will enable the CDC to continue such good work in the more needy countries of sub-Saharan Africa. I particularly welcome—I questioned the Minister about it a week ago—the opening up of the possibility of investment in South Africa, where funds to enable franchise operations for disadvantaged groups will assist nation building.

It has been very interesting to find how well the CDC can perform with such various investments. Figures with which we have been provided show that Zambia Sugar now has a 34 per cent. input from the CDC. Contrast that with the CDC's 2 per cent. investment holding in Sakthi Sugar, which I perceived in operation in southern India. It was a very interesting exercise to have the opportunity to see some of the CDC's work in a number of different countries.

I welcome the Bill from the Liberal Bench. The Bill will allow the CDC to fulfil its role in assisting development even more than it has already done. Perhaps the only downside to the Bill is that it reminds the House that, for the past eight years, the CDC wanted to facilitate better management and investment—not only in the new or expanded projects that it has been able to undertake, but also of existing assets, such as selling off state-owned agricultural assets in sub-Saharan Africa. Such projects offers great potential.

It is good to know that the CDC no longer turns aside from activities that it has wished to do for so long, when it needed to concentrate solely on new development. It can now assist in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of such promising sectors. I welcome the Bill.

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on the importance of the Commonwealth and on the creative role that the Commonwealth Development Corporation has played and can potentially play.

My first comment on the Commonwealth should be to say that my family originate from a Commonwealth country, Jamaica, and that my constituency of Hackney has quite a sizeable community of people who originate from across the Commonwealth.

I notice that in many ways, as we approach the millennium, people in the Commonwealth countries value the Commonwealth link rather more than do the British people. I would not miss an opportunity to speak in the House about the Commonwealth and to stress the fact, for the benefit of hon. Members and of those who read the record of our proceedings, that the Commonwealth link and its potential are very much undervalued by public opinion.

The Commonwealth fell into disrepute in the 1980s because of some of the tussles that Britain had with other Commonwealth countries, on issues such as South Africa, when it became commonplace to read rather disparaging comments and articles about the Commonwealth in the tabloid press.

The Commonwealth is a great underused asset in Britain's relationship with the world. The first reason why it is an underused asset was mentioned earlier in this debate: some of the strongest and fastest developing economies in the world, such as the Asian tiger countries, are in the Commonwealth. It would be foolish for the British public and British politicians to ignore the tremendous economic and development potential of Commonwealth links with some of the strongest economies, such as Singapore, because of tussles and struggles in the 1980s over certain matters.

The Commonwealth's other merit is that it is unique. In an increasingly divided world—with the rise of refugees and migration, where people are increasingly fearful of each other—it is a club in which black, white, Asian and Muslim nations join in a genuine family of nations. International politics are too often ruled by fear and by threat, and an international club in which nations that vary widely in cultural and religious origins can come together is a tremendous force for good.

I can remember how, in the Commonwealth of the 1980s, the most unlikely alliances sprang up—

Order. I have been able to resist intervening on the hon. Lady's speech so far, but I remind her that this is a debate on Second Reading of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill. Although an introduction is entirely in order, perhaps the hon. Lady will now deal with the Bill.

Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

One of the reasons why the Bill is so important is that it will strengthen the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has been responsible for the emergence of many creative international alliances, such as that in the 1980s between Canada, under Pierre Trudeau, and Jamaica, under Michael Manley. Those alliances would never have emerged without the context of the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth is an underused resource, and the CDC will help this country to maximise and strengthen its links within the Commonwealth. Another important aspect of the Commonwealth, which touches centrally on the Bill, is that we have seen, sadly, in many of the international financial institutions—such as the International Monetary Fund and the World bank—a redirection of monetary flows away from Africa and from some of the poorest countries towards eastern Europe and Russia. I believe that the CDC has the potential to ensure that some of the poorest countries, which happen also to be Commonwealth countries, receive their share of investment and attention.

Once again, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak about the importance of the Commonwealth link. To the extent that the CDC will help to build and develop those links, much of the Bill's contents is very much to be welcomed.

This has been a short, but very well-informed and good-natured, debate. I hope that Conservative Members do not now say, "Up till now." I must say that I found the Minister's speech almost statesmanlike—

No; never.

Well, almost statesmanlike. As he was speaking, I think that he was almost revelling in the fact that he is the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and no longer the chairman of the Conservative party, given today's scandal over the financing of the Conservative party by friends of Radovan Karadzic. I can see that he is on much safer ground with the Second Reading of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill.

The debate has been graced by the presence of hon. Members who know a great deal about the Commonwealth—not least my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who was for a long time a very distinguished Minister of State for Commonwealth and Foreign Affairs. Indeed, when I was a shadow foreign affairs Minister and visited countries in the Caribbean and central America, the first question I was asked was, "How is Ted Rowlands keeping?" I was able to reassure them. Even though my hon. Friend's distinguished service took place some years ago, he is still a relatively young man in the context of the House. Indeed, my hon. Friend has a great deal to give the House in future. He has a special role now in the work of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, and I was glad that he brought the discussions and debates of that Committee to the notice of the House. My hon. Friend talked about the new role of the Commonwealth, which is an essential part of the developing role of the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

I liked the way in which my hon. Friend spoke about networking and a broking house for Commonwealth countries, with multilateral and bilateral contacts. No longer is the United Kingdom the spider at the centre of the web; it is an equal partner.

I am glad to see that the Government Whip is wearing his Commonwealth Parliamentary Association United Kingdom branch tie. As treasurer of the UK branch of the CPA, I, like him, am keen to encourage the Commonwealth's role in Parliament. I am glad that that has been achieved through the CPA. I should like there to be greater co-operation between all the Commonwealth organisations, including the CPA and its sister organisations.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney will agree that the new relationship with our fellow members of the Commonwealth must not be patronising or neo-colonial in any way. There must be an equal partnership. I am glad to see the Minister nod in agreement.

Nothing that is said today should detract from the good work that is carried out by the corporation. The Minister's remarks were positive and the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson) praised the corporation's work, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) said a great deal. The Opposition are supportive of the corporation's contribution. It is a public corporation and it will remain even more so under the next Labour Government.

I agree with what the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon said about the corporation's staff. Events over the past year have shown us that those who are involved in development overseas can find themselves in extremely dangerous situations. People who are not on military operations have faced kidnappings and other problems. They are on missions of mercy, not on holiday; often, they are providing help, aid and assistance, but they sometimes find themselves in extreme difficulties. I pay tribute to the work that is carried out by the corporation's staff and to the work of all those who are overseas and engaged in development work.

The purpose of the corporation is to promote economic development in the countries in which it operates. We have seen its work develop in other countries, and we must be cautious about further development. We do not want to dilute the corporation's effectiveness. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney nod in agreement.

The corporation's primary role is to provide equity and long-term loans on concessional terms to promote productive investment in the private sector. It invests about £200 million a year in developing countries. It is work that we agree with, support and encourage.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles, in her usual, kind way, spoke gently about the way in which we have dealt with legislation for the corporation in this place. Other hon. Members have alluded to that. I am rather more direct about such matters. The approach has been something of a dog's breakfast, culminating in today's reintroduction of a Bill that was introduced by Lord Trefgarne last year. There has been chaos and confusion, which underlines the need for a Cabinet sub-committee to deal with development and to liaise between Departments to discuss issues that have a bearing on the Foreign Office, the Treasury, the Overseas Development Administration and other Departments.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles on successfully steering through our policy forum at Manchester over the weekend. It is now the Labour party's policy to establish a development sub-committee so that, under a Labour Government, after the next general election, we shall not have confusion over the legislation that involves the corporation.

Why were the Government unable to insert all the measures that are before us into the original Bill, which was discussed in the House and in Committee, and which could have been amended? There could have been an overall, rather than a piecemeal examination of its operations.

The Government's record in other areas makes us suspicious. That is why we have been worried about their real intentions. I understand that there has been some in-fighting between the Treasury and the Foreign Office over the original Bill. I know also that that created some problems. Bearing in mind, however, what has crept in, we have a right to be suspicious.

We are still suspicious of the rationale and the implications that lie behind the Bill, but we have no hesitation in welcoming the introduction of the Commonwealth private investment initiative. During the Government's dying months, however, we want to be kept fully informed of developments. When the Labour Government take office after the next election, the House will receive an annual report. It is—[Interruption.] Some Conservative Members laugh. I am glad to give them some amusement.

Conservative Members should have been with me this morning in Dunfermline to witness the pathetic performance of the Secretary of State for Social Security at the Scottish Grand Committee. They would have seen the Government on their last legs. Indeed, some Ministers are on the chicken run because their majorities are smaller than 10,000. They know that they are on the way out. I am not indulging in fantasy, and none of my right hon. and hon. Friends is complacent.

It is hysteria.

My hon. Friend understands the hysteria of Conservative Members. It is—[Interruption.] I thought that I might stir up some Conservative Members.

We are worried about "unshackled", a word that has been used by Ministers. It has been used in the context of the corporation. In other contexts, it is a euphemism for the removal from the state sector of an effective tranche of public sector finance, which finds its way instead into the hands of financial vultures who make a quick killing at other people's expense.

I reiterate the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles. We want the Minister to give us some assurances that the financial vultures will not benefit in this instance. The Minister has told us that the Government do not want the corporation to be yet another bank, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles said, the membership of the corporation's board is similar to the membership of a bank's board. Will the Minister tell us something about the board's membership? We have had some discussion with the present board members and with Baroness Chalker about getting on the board people who are especially interested in development. I would appreciate some assurance from the Minister this evening.

I want also to emphasise something my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles said. We firmly believe that the CDC has a distinct and expanding role to play in a Government-directed overseas aid programme. That is why we have had some discussions with the CDC about the role that it will play under the next Labour Government. As my hon. Friend said, we will continue those discussions to see how we can develop the role of the CDC positively to help the development of the countries concerned.

From our discussions with CDC members, we have gathered that it will continue to build on the good work that it has undertaken over the years. However, the need for the Government to retain a close interest in the way in which public bodies operate must always remain. I hope that the Minister can give an assurance when he replies this evening that the Government and the ODA will work closely with the CDC and continue to take an active part in the future. The passage of the Bill should not be a signal for any kind of disengagement by the ODA from the oversight of and co-operation with the work of the CDC.

The Opposition are worried about the dangers of progress towards privatisation, because we have seen that happen to other organisations. Indeed, the water quangos have not been privatised yet in Scotland but if, heaven forbid, another Tory Government were elected, they would be ripe for privatisation. I notice that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) is nodding. He obviously agrees that if another Tory Government were elected, that is exactly what would happen. We are worried that the Government might be testing the waters for fattening the company and selling it off, so it would be helpful and reassuring for all those involved in development if the Minister were to give an assurance that the Government do not intend to move in that direction. If I am more sceptical than some of my hon. Friends, it is through experience.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles said, the Labour party accepts that the private sector has an important part to play in development. We have never denied that. We want a genuinely indigenous private sector, not a dependent private sector. We must ensure that capital flows remain in the developing world and are not siphoned away from the developing world so that it becomes increasingly dependent on foreign investment. Such a scenario can be envisaged if the financial managers and City fly-boys prevail over the genuine managers and those involved in development who have experience of running businesses in the developing world. We expressed that concern last year in similar debates on the CDC. The CDC has been very thorough in its briefings to us and it has assured us that the hands-on element that has served it well over the years will not be lost to the excesses of privatisation and the financial markets.

The CDC has, carefully, found a niche for itself in promoting investment over the years. Both the Opposition and the Government have acknowledged that this evening. Attempts to move into areas run by bigger fish—other organisations that are doing a good job—would be a dereliction of the CDC's duty to its original purpose and its current role. I hope that that role will be assured into the future. Any change would inevitably result in the CDC having to compete on terms that are not favourable to the enhancement of the developing world.

I cannot understand why, despite repeated requests by the Labour party, a Bill that would allow projects such as the Commonwealth private investment initiative, but would not give the CDC powers as wide as are proposed today, could not have been drafted quickly to avoid wasting parliamentary time. The Labour party is going along with the extension of powers today, but we need assurances from the Minister. We are going along with the Bill because of the enthusiastic support given by Commonwealth countries, through their high commissioners and directly, to'the CPII.

I hope that the Minister can reassure us on the points that have been raised in today's debate. While we have reservations about the extent to which the CDC will be given freedoms by the Bill and the fact that the Government have lessened its role in the future, we wish it every success in the CPII.

Development for countries, especially in Africa, must be appropriate to their needs, and should be without exploitation. It is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said, to recognise the new role of the Commonwealth. We do not accept that the physical colonialism of the past should be replaced by financial colonialism. With those reservations, we are prepared to go along with the Second Reading of the Bill this evening.

We have had a useful and interesting debate on the Bill. I expected there to be support from both sides of the House for the work of the CDC and I was not disappointed. Hon. Members have raised a number of points and I wish to deal with them.

The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) mentioned that few resources go to the poorest countries. I have to admit that private sector flows are low, but they have increased significantly recently. The flows concentrate on a small number of middle-income countries, mostly Latin America and east Asia. Sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia account for 30 per cent. of the world's population, but attracted only 2 per cent. and 4 per cent. respectively of private sector money in 1992–94. During that period, however, the CDC invested 50 per cent. of its investments in those areas, which augments the private flows.

The hon. Members for Eccles and for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) mentioned privatisation of the CDC. Following the last quinquennial review, it was confirmed to the House in May 1994 that the CDC was being retained in the public sector, and that remains the Government's belief. I am happy to confirm that the present position—in which the CDC is a public corporation run by the board in a framework of targets agreed with Ministers—is the right one.

Much has been said about why the new powers were not included in the original Bill. After what became the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1995 had been introduced last year, we concluded that we could not add measures to it within the long title. That is why Lord Trefgarne introduced a private Member's Bill in the other place. Two hon. Members stated that that Bill failed because of lack of Government time, but it failed because of a mistake by Labour Front Benchers. It is amazing how they will not apologise for having killed the Bill off and instead try to make some high-minded excuse about a matter of principle. It was not a matter of principle: it was a mistake.

The Minister may not know that I tried to speak in the CDC debate last year. I was firmly told by the Conservative Whips that the Government did not want anybody to speak from the Conservative side in favour of the CDC.

It was not that the Government wanted no one to speak in favour of the CDC; quite the reverse. The hon. Lady might not remember, or her memory is selective. The deputy chief Whip of the Labour party objected to the Bill, rather as the Opposition objected to the Hong Kong (War Wives and Widows) Bill just 10 days ago. They did so by mistake, and I am pleased that, today, both sides of the House have recognised the wisdom of the Bill and that we have been able to put the matter straight.

There has been a feeling of agreement for much of the evening, but we did not make a mistake; it was quite deliberate. The Bill was not killed off, but opposed, because we were not receiving the assurances that we sought about the future of the Bill and the CDC. We are receiving those assurances tonight.

I have heard that one before. Here, at least, we have a Bill that has now worked, and we have shown that progress can be made when two or more people who are friendly towards a Bill's objective act together sensibly in the interests of those whom we are all trying to serve. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the fact that we are now discussing this Bill, and I believe that, God willing, it will be given its Third Reading as well. Let us leave the other issues to history, which is where they ought to be buried.

The hon. Lady mentioned the "poor country" target. We need to allow the CDC to play a role in countries where it usefully can, but we should also remember that the target for poor countries relates to countries eligible for International Development Association funding. The definition of a poor country involves a per capita income below $1,300 in 1992. We must allow the CDC to play a role wherever it can, but some countries may fall outside that limit.

South Africa, in particular, is not defined as a poor country for our present purposes. Other countries, such as Namibia, Botswana, Jamaica, Fiji, Belize and some small Caribbean Commonwealth islands do not fit the definition of a poor country, either, but are helped by the CDC. In all cases, the CDC targets areas and sectors that may have difficulty gaining access to other sources of finance, or helps to diversify economies. That allows some diversification of risk in the portfolio.

I should have interrupted the Minister earlier. Will he confirm that the Bill represents the CDC's full legislative requirement?

Yes—and I will repeat that later, when I deal with the points made by the hon. Gentleman.

The current coverage of the CDC's activities is pretty comprehensive. We are now doing significant business in India and Pakistan; more recent additions include South Africa and Vietnam. The main driver of the CDC's country coverage is the 70 per cent. target for poor countries—as it should be, given the corporation's developmental role. That target has not changed. The CDC is not planning to divert activity to middle-income countries; on the contrary, it is no longer making new investments in countries such as Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong, but is extending its activities into pre-emerging countries.

The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) popped into the Chamber for a few minutes. I am sorry that she missed the opening speeches from the Front Benches, and that she is now missing the answers to her questions, but I hope that her hon. Friends will point her towards the answers. She mentioned the Commmonwealth countries. The Government no longer set a formal target for investment in traditional Commonwealth countries.

Up to 1993, the target was to make two thirds of new investments in Commonwealth countries. That target was comfortably exceeded. In practice, the CDC still makes a large proportion of its new investments in Commonwealth countries—in 1995, the proportion was 71 per cent.—and it has an internal target of making not less than 30 per cent. of its new investments in sub-Saharan Africa, where there is a concentration of Commonwealth countries. In fact, it achieved 47 per cent. in 1995.

Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have been mentioned. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said that too much was going to eastern Europe. The CDC does not currently invest in eastern Europe or in the former Soviet Union, and there are no plans to ask Ministers' permission to do so. A number of other bodies, such as the European bank for reconstruction and development, already exist and have a remit to promote investment in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The CDC and the Government would need to consider carefully whether the CDC had any comparative advantage. Resourcing implications would also need to be considered.

The CDC is not currently working in Nigeria, or planning any new investment. Old projects are there on a care and maintenance basis only.

The hon. Member for Eccles suggested that there should be more development experts on the CDC board. There are currently four vacancies on the board, but I believe that the chairman and members have considerable experience of service in finance and development in various capacities. Indeed, that can be seen from the annual report. We are very grateful for the public service that they have given. The chairman recently established a sub-committee of the board specifically to review development issues, comprising the chairman himself, Professor Carruthers, Professor Faber and, I believe, Sir William Ryrie.

The board contains people with a wide range of experience, as does the proposed board of directors of the Commonwealth Africa Investment Fund, the first fund that I said would be invested in. The chairman, Mr. Pillay, is a former managing director of the Government of Singapore Investment Agency; Sam Jonah is the chief executive of Ashanti Gold Fields in Ghana; David Gill is a former senior director of IFC in Washington; David Phiri is a leading Zambian business man; Pen Kent is the executive director of the Bank of England and a banker, but a non-executive director of the CDC; and Nicholas Selbie is the managing director of CDC Investments. I am grateful to those people, and, despite what was said by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, no one could describe Sir William Ryrie, Ian Carruthers, Carolyn Hayman, Michael McWilliam, Michael Faber, Pen Kent and Russell Seal as investment fat cats.

The hon. Member for Eccles asked whether the new powers would apply only to the CPII. The powers will assist the CDC in taking part in the CPII, but there is no reason not to allow the CDC to invest directly in projects involving reconstruction that are covered by the Bill.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs for its report, and we welcome the Committee's support for the CDC. We expect the corporation to continue to play a major part in the UK development effort, both in the Commonwealth and in poorer countries. It is very successful in generating its own resources for new investments on the basis of accumulated funding from Government, and it is able to lever in substantial private sector finance. We have already discussed that. By widening the CDC's power, the Bill will allow the corporation to enhance and extend its investment activities in future.

The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney also asked whether the CDC had all the powers that it needed. I said that I would return to his question. The corporation has naturally been fully involved in discussions on the Bill. I was very pleased to meet Lord Cairns and the rest of the staff when I visited the corporation, and I believe that they are fully content with the range of powers that they will have, as are we. Indeed, they urged us to be speedy; what frightened them most was the possibility that the Bill might not be passed during this Session. Both they and the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth have spoken of the importance of the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the scope of Commonwealth co-operation. The CPII is an instrument that will involve countries such as Singapore in the development of sub-Saharan Africa, and it is therefore greatly to be welcomed.

The CDC is a well-respected organisation that deserves our support. Its services are much sought after in the developing world, where there is widespread appreciation of the quality of its investment and the real contribution that it makes to economic growth. The Bill provides for a logical extension of the CDC's existing powers, which it has used prudently and responsibly over the years. It will continue along its established path, but it is right to enable it to join its partners so that it can respond flexibly to the changing needs of poor countries. I commend the Bill to the House.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I thank hon. Members who have taken part in the debates and who have contributed their wisdom and experience to our consideration of this short but important Bill. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) for his knockabout pantomime act on Second Reading. We expected such from the hon. Gentleman: other contributions were more thoughtful.

We examined some key issues relating the role and achievements of the Commonwealth Development Corporation in promoting sustainable development in poor countries and, in particular, in supporting the development of the private sector. The Government presented the Bill to update and clarify the CDC's powers so that it may join its co-investors in the future and encourage the development of effective money and capital markets.

The Overseas Development Administration and the Commonwealth Development Corporation will continue to work closely together to ensure that the CDC's new powers are used to complement its existing activities within the strategic framework that has been agreed with the Government.

I agree with everything that the Minister has said about how the House and others have dealt with the Bill. We wish it well. I commend the Whip for his beautiful diction and I hope that he will get a better speaking part at some time in the future.

I am pleased to have been granted this debate and that the House has reached the Adjournment at such an early hour. That will give the Minister and me due time to consider an important matter.

The debate provides an opportunity for me to bring to the House once again the vexed question of compensation for our service personnel who were injured while serving in a peacekeeping role in Bosnia—or rather, the lack of such compensation. This issue has been raised on previous occasions, and I regret that some of my speech will repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) said in his debate about his constituent, Corporal Stott, on 5 December 1994. The record of that debate is in columns 117 to 124 of the Official Report.

I am also aware of the attempts in 1992 by the former Member for Winchester, John Browne, and Lord Swinfen in, respectively, an Adjournment debate on 31 January 1992, which is in columns 1267 to 1274 of the Official Report, and in a private Member's Bill on 9 June 1992, the report of which is in the Official Report, House of Lords, columns 1193 to 1204, to introduce the concept of no-fault compensation payments by the Ministry of Defence to injured service men.

Furthermore, I am aware that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces answered a question by hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 13 February on the issue of compensation to service men who had been injured in Bosnia. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury has told me that, as a member of the Select Committee on Defence, he is worried about that issue, as are other members of the Committee.

The common thread that runs through the three debates and the parliamentary question that I have just mentioned is the unswerving consistency of the relevant Defence Ministers. They have been consistently compassionate and laudatory, but they have consistently refused to alter the anomalous position of service men injured in Bosnia compared with those injured by similar criminal acts in Northern Ireland, Germany or Hong Kong.

At about 20.30 hours on 3 May 1995, Maglaj school in Bosnia was hit by a single tank round, which was fired, it was thought, by a Serbian T34 tank. That school was a United Nations peacekeeping force accommodation unit housing a detachment of our forces. Six men were wounded, sustaining a variety of injuries.

The most seriously wounded was Sergeant Trevor Walker, at that time a corporal, of 21 Engineer Regiment. Sergeant Walker, who is now my constituent, sustained serious injuries to both legs, but particularly to his right leg. For reasons of time and possibly a certain amount of squeamishness, I will spare the House a reading of the medical report by the consultant at Queen Elizabeth military hospital at Woolwich on Sergeant Walker's injuries. I can confirm that it makes horrifying reading.

As a result of his injuries, Sergeant Walker has undergone 13 operations, the last of which was in January, when, after doctors had tried for nine months to save his leg—nine months of great suffering for Sergeant Walker and his wife—his right leg was amputated above the knee. Sergeant Walker's duties in Maglaj were to help to build a road for the civilian population, a job that is done well by the Royal Engineers, whose spiritual headquarters and Royal School of Military Engineering I am proud to have in my constituency. Such projects are the epitome of peacekeeping.

There is a question whether the incident in which Sergeant Walker was injured would have happened if there had been a more robust response to a similar attack on the school building a few days before. However, an air attack response was denied by the United Nations command, and the Bosnian Serbs felt safe in making their murderous attack on the peacekeepers. I say "murderous" deliberately, for that is exactly what it was, and the initial investigation by the special investigation branch of the military police was made on the basis of attempted murder.

If Sergeant Walker had sustained his injuries as a result of terrorist activity in Northern Ireland, it is beyond doubt that he would have been entitled to compensation under the criminal injuries compensation scheme. Under the new tariff, compensation for the loss of a leg above the knee would have been substantial.

Under the Ministry of Defence's parallel scheme for criminal injuries overseas, a similar but ex gratia sum would have been payable if Sergeant Walker had sustained his injuries in Germany or Hong Kong as the result of criminal activity. If he had been injured as a result of negligent behaviour by a fellow service man, he could, since the repeal in 1987 of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, have sued the Ministry of Defence for negligence in the way that Private Harness was successful in doing after he was accidentally shot by a fellow soldier.

It is possible that, if Sergeant Walker's injuries had followed an accident between two Army Land Rovers in Bosnia, he would also have had a possible case for negligence. That is significant, as many of the 18 service men killed and 41 seriously injured on UN operations in former Yugoslavia to mid-December 1995 sustained their injuries as a result of road accidents.

I understand that, since that time, the injuries sustained under North Atlantic Treaty Organisation command have also tended to be from road accidents. Had Sergeant Walker been serving directly for the UN rather than for his national force—perhaps as a military observer—he would also have been eligible to receive compensation for his injuries.

I have listed the circumstances under which Sergeant Walker might be eligible for compensation for his serious injuries. My hon. Friend the Minister is likely to tell me, however, that, because Sergeant Walker's injuries were sustained as a result of war or warlike operations, or military activity by warring factions, he is not entitled to compensation. That is wrong, because it is anomalous.

When they sign on, service men understand of course that, if they are required to serve their country in circumstances where the UK is actively engaged as a combatant—as in the Falkland islands or the gulf war— they may be asked to lay down their lives or to sustain serious injury, and they will not be compensated beyond the terms of the armed forces pension scheme and of the Department of Social Security war pension scheme.

In Bosnia, however, the UK has not been and is not a combatant, and nor was the UN, whose beret Sergeant Walker was wearing during his service in Maglaj. He was building a road for the civilian population as a peacekeeper when he and his colleagues were subjected to a murderous attack, which may constitute a war crime.

Sergeant Walker is still serving, and he has been constrained from speaking out, but I have seen him as a constituent on two occasions with his wife, and they have told me their story. He still receives his Army pay, and I have no doubt that he has received and will continue to receive every proper and compassionate consideration from the Army, but his injuries may prevent his fulfilling his engagement and, if he is discharged early on medical grounds, he will qualify for all the benefits under the armed forces pension scheme and under the DSS's war pension scheme.

Sergeant Walker will receive an index-linked pension for life, together with a tax-free lump sum equal to three times the annual rate of that pension. If his disability is assessed at 20 per cent. or more—which, in view of his injuries, seems highly likely—he would qualify for an enhanced tax-free pension, as well as an additional gratuity under AFPS. My hon. Friend will tell me all that, as he did when he wrote to me on 20 February. He will also tell me about the PAX-plus insurance scheme, which is available to service men going into a hazardous theatre of operations. Sergeant Walker had contributed to PAX, and will have received payment.

What my hon. Friend will not tell me is why it is necessary for our service personnel to purchase private insurance for death or personal accident cover when they are serving in our forces as peacekeepers under UN or NATO command. He will probably not tell me why it is that, when our troops are deployed as peacekeepers, they are not told in advance that they will not be eligible for compensation if they are killed or injured during their duties.

Sergeant Walker is a fine non-commissioned officer— one of the finest in his regiment, according to his former commanding officer, who foresaw promotion, certainly to warrant officer and possibly to a commission. Sergeant Walker's career cannot have been enhanced by injuries and may have been detrimentally affected, even curtailed, although he is working hard to get fit to return to duty. In that, he has been helped enormously by his determined and courageous wife.

For the sake of Sergeant Walker and for those like him who have been injured while serving as peacekeepers, my hon. Friend must reconsider either a no-fault compensation scheme, as Lord Swinfen proposed, or making service personnel serving as peacekeepers eligible for ex-gratia payments under the MOD's criminal injuries compensation overseas scheme.

Otherwise, our forces serving throughout the world on behalf of the UN as peacekeepers—increasingly, we have detachments serving in very unpleasant places throughout the globe—will be inequitably treated if they are killed or injured. Perhaps Sir Michael Bett's review of service conditions will offer an opportunity for such reconsideration, and my hon. Friend may wish to await his report to say what he might do in these circumstances.

Our forces are without equal. They serve selflessly and heroically, not just for the UK, but in the interests of oppressed people in many lands. If, during their duties, they are tragically killed or injured, as has befallen my constituent Sergeant Walker, they have a right to expect that they will be treated as generously as if they had received their injuries as the result of terrorist action in Northern Ireland. In short, there should be absolute equality of treatment for all our serving personnel. As I said, I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this subject again, but I regret the necessity to do so. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) on securing this debate on a subject of profound concern not only to the House, but to the public at large. This is not the first time that my hon. Friend, who represents a constituency with a rich military heritage—I do not suppose that any other constituency in the land has a richer one—has raised the matter with me. He, other hon. Members and members of the general public have written to me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I know that my hon. Friend has a genuine, warm and real concern for the welfare of all service personnel.

Let me start by reaffirming that the safety of British forces, wherever they are deployed, is of paramount importance to the Government. In Bosnia, that is clearly something that we must, and do, take extremely seriously. I know that hon. Members will wish to join me in commending all the people who have served, or are serving, in former Yugoslavia for their courage and fortitude in just getting on with their everyday life, under what are regularly the most difficult circumstances, undertaking vital tasks in dangerous conditions with distinction and skill.

No one who has been to Bosnia in any weather, at any time, would come away with anything but the most extraordinary feeling of pride in what those young men and women have achieved. I consider myself deeply fortunate to have seen at first hand their outstanding work, both as part of the United Nations protection force and now as part of the NATO-led implementation force.

It is, of course, an inescapable fact of life that, in a theatre of operations and on the place of honour, there will be casualties. So far, some 24 UK service men have lost their lives since operations began in the region. To them, their families, friends and colleagues, we all offer our deepest sympathy. I hope that they will feel justly proud of the sacrifice made by those men in helping to save thousands of innocent lives and in the cause of peace.

It is also an inescapable and sad fact that 342 British soldiers have been injured while serving in Bosnia—some of them, like Sergeant Trevor Walker, seriously. I have immense sympathy for them and their families, and offer them my best wishes towards a speedy recovery.

My hon. Friend has referred to what he rightly considers to be an anomaly between payments made to service men injured in Bosnia and other warlike operations, and those injured in Northern Ireland. It may help him if I set out my Department's policy here, which I realise he already knows but which, for the sake of good order, I am obliged to do.

Members of the armed forces in Northern Ireland provide support to the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the fight against terrorism. They are not deemed to be involved in war operations while serving there, and are subject to the normal constraints of civil law. As terrorist acts are a criminal offence, any soldier or civilian injured in such attacks is entitled to apply to the Northern Ireland Compensation Agency for the award of criminal injury compensation.

In the past four years, 1,123 service personnel have applied for compensation under this scheme. The average settlement figure in 1995–96 for the scheme as a whole was about £6,000. My Department also pays criminal injury compensation to members of the armed forces and their dependants who are victims of crimes of violence while serving overseas on a similar basis.

However, where war operations or warlike operations are in progress as a result of military activity by warring factions, as in Bosnia, the normal process of the civil law will have broken down. Operations may be undertaken resulting in death or injury, which, if committed by someone subject to civil law, would constitute a criminal offence. It would therefore be impractical to try to extend the provisions of the criminal injury compensation scheme to cover the conduct of warlike operations in Bosnia.

As I have explained, members of the armed forces who are invalided from service receive for life the tax-free index-linked benefits of the armed forces pension scheme and the Department of Social Security war pension scheme.

Turning now to the case raised so compassionately by my hon. Friend, I should like again to say how deeply sorry I was to hear about Sergeant Walker's terrible injury, which he sustained last May when his observation post in the Maglaj school was hit by a tank round. My hon. Friend will understand that I feel truly for Sergeant Walker since I have on three occasions sat in the observation post in question for long periods at a stretch, and I have probably seen the tank that did the awful damage to Sergeant Walker.

My hon. Friend will understand that I am constrained by reasons of medical confidentiality, and I cannot comment in detail on Sergeant Walker's current medical condition. I can assure him, nevertheless, that the defence medical services are doing everything within their power to help him. It is too soon, however, to say whether Sergeant Walker will be able to continue with his Army career. In the meantime, he continues to serve on full pay. I am sure that hon. Members wish him well. I join my hon. Friend in praising the courage of Mrs. Walker, who has been a tower of strength to her husband.

Should Sergeant Walker be invalided out of the service, he will, of course, be entitled to a service-attributable lump sum and pension benefits from both the armed forces pension scheme and the DSS war pensions scheme. As I have just said, service-attributable invaliding pensions are tax-free, index-linked and payable for life. I cannot say at this time what the rate of pension will be, because that will depend upon date of final discharge and assessment of long-term disability. However, some illustrative examples may help the House to understand that Sergeant Walker will be properly provided for.

A sergeant aged 30 who is medically discharged after 12 years' service, and who is assessed by the Department of Social Security as 70 per cent. disabled, would be entitled to pensions under the armed forces pension scheme and the DSS war pension scheme totalling £9,204 a year. He would also receive tax-free lump sums amounting to £19,904. The estimated total capital value of these awards, assessed over the expected life of the recipient, would be likely to be about £220,000.

A corporal aged 25 medically discharged after eight years' service, who is assessed by the Department of Social Security as 50 per cent. disabled, would be entitled to pensions from the two schemes totalling £6,548 a year. He would also receive tax-free lump sums amounting to £13,561.

I fully understand—and share—the concern eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend that the arrangements that I have outlined should be as fair and comprehensive as possible. Sir Michael Bett's independent review of the armed forces' manpower, career and remuneration structures has recommended that the level of benefits payable to those who retire or die as a result of an injury attributable to service, and the procedure for determining whether an injury is attributable, should be reviewed. My Department is currently engaged in a thorough review of death and injury benefits for service personnel as part of our work on the detailed study and development of the independent review recommendations.

As part of this work, we have considered the feasibility of introducing a special scheme whereby additional lump sum compensation is paid where death or injury arises from warlike activity. I have already explained why it would be impractical to try to extend the provisions of the criminal injury compensation scheme to cover the conduct of war operations. In practice, it would also be very difficult to arrive at a fair and defensible definition of what constitutes a warlike operation. Would a soldier employed on a humanitarian relief mission who was killed or injured because his truck skidded and fell down a ravine be deemed to be engaged in warlike activity?

Extending cover to hazardous military training would be equally difficult. Accidents can and do happen to service personnel when they are not training; and accidents can happen in training which could be shown by statistics to be no more hazardous than civilian work. In practice, it would be very difficult to distinguish between hazardous military training and other everyday service duties.

We therefore believe that the right approach is to concentrate on a review of the current rates of attributable death in service and invaliding gratuities. This review may need to include the study of a number of representative case histories. Our objective would be to ensure that these benefits properly reflect the special needs of the bereaved and the most severely disabled, in all cases where death or injury is attributable to military service. This work is now in progress. I will keep my hon. Friend and the House informed of that progress.

We acknowledge that some ex-service personnel have special requirements as a result of their service with the armed forces. Of course, we recognise the particular needs of disabled ex-service people, for example, and the Government have not only preserved the preferential provisions of the war pensions scheme, but have done much to enhance it. War disablement pensioners are given priority when referred to the national health service for treatment of their pensioned disablement, both as out-patients and as in-patients, subject only to the needs of emergency or other cases.

My Department has developed a comprehensive resettlement package, which includes an extensive range of briefings and training courses, incorporating arrangements for on-the-job training and the introduction of national vocational qualifications.

Service personnel due to be invalided out of the armed forces on medical grounds are eligible for the full range of resettlement provisions after only one year of reckonable service. That is a concessionary entitlement for disabled personnel, as the resettlement package is usually available only to those who have completed at least five years' reckonable service.

Personnel who are medically discharged are given priority over all other service leavers for places on resettlement briefings and training courses; in addition, a medically discharged service man or woman may seek further resettlement and employment advice for up to two years after discharge.

As my hon. Friend knows, the armed forces have always prided themselves on, and have long been envied for, their service family system—it is at the very core of the ethos of the service man's life. Care for serving personnel and their families is essential to the well-being of the forces. The after-care of those who have served and of their families is equally important, as is the special care that must be provided for those medically discharged, particularly the seriously disabled, and for the widows and widowers, children and parents, and the friends, of those who die in service.

The duty to provide after-care for those who no longer serve but who remain part of the wider military family, continues, as the many regimental and corps associations bear testament. We are truly fortunate to have the many service and welfare organisations, and, as my hon. Friend knows, the many veterans' organisations, including the regimental associations, the Royal British Legion—I visited West Mailing in Kent only last weekend—and others who continue to provide advice, help and support to the ex-service community with great skill and enthusiasm.

Her Majesty's Government are truly conscious of the tireless work undertaken by the dedicated teams of voluntary workers throughout the country, and of the highly professional way in which they assist their colleagues. We very much value their advice and hold in high esteem the work they undertake.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham on advancing his case on behalf of Sergeant Walker in such a measured, sympathetic and compassionate manner. My hon. Friend knew very well what I was bound to say. The situation is not as satisfactory as we would like it to be. I hope that he will be reassured by the work that we are undertaking in the course of the Bett review.

We shall continue to ensure that Sergeant Walker and his family receive the very best care that is available. As my hon. Friend so rightly said, we have first-rate service men and women, and it is not only important but critical that we do all we can to assist them when they most need our help.

Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the measured way in which he has presented the case to me. I shall be happy to continue to follow Sergeant Walker's case with my hon. Friend, and I very much hope that the matter will come to a satisfactory conclusion.