I am grateful to Madam Speaker for granting me this debate. The Ilisu dam is of considerable interest to many hon. Members, so I shall be as brief as possible to give my colleagues an opportunity to speak in the debate.

I wish first to deal with the Government's often repeated rebuttal of the criticisms of the project, which is that we in the United Kingdom do not have the right to tell Turkey what to do within the confines of its own state. That is true, but the United Kingdom has legitimate concerns at stake. There are serious doubts about the way in which the Turkish authorities have gone about this project, which would be a cause for concern even if the United Kingdom had no direct interest. Secondly, we are discussing United Kingdom taxpayers' money. Those who express concerns about the dam are not trying to tell Turkey what to do. We are asking only that our Government act responsibly. Given all the grave problems involved, the United Kingdom should not support the project.

In recent weeks, the Minister for Trade has advanced two basic arguments about the dam in support of the Government's policy. He claims that there is much misinformation about Ilisu and that critics do not understand that it is a hydropower project rather than an irrigation dam and, as such, will not divert water from downstream states. I assure the Government that I am well aware of that but, as I shall outline in a moment, I still have grave concerns about the potential for manipulation of water flows.

Secondly, the Minister for Trade argued that the dam is the least harmful option and that, otherwise, Turkey would be building fossil fuel plants or nuclear power plants. That is a strange argument, given that Turkey is at present negotiating with Westinghouse about the possibility of a nuclear plant. It raises important questions about the alternatives to Ilisu. That issue has not been addressed by Turkey, by any of the proposed donor countries or by the various reviews that have been carried out. It is fundamental that it is, a point to which I shall return later.

I shall outline what I believe to be the important criticisms of the dam project. First, there are the international implications and the prospect of water wars. The dam is a major installation. It will not affect just one country, but three—Turkey, Iraq and Syria—and it will impact significantly on the water politics of the entire area. We must remember that water is already a focus of conflict in that region—for example, around the Nile and the Jordan. The United Nations has warned us that, in the coming century, water is likely to be a major cause of instability and conflict, and that the next war in the middle east will be fought over water. It is interesting to know that, in the current negotiations over the Golan between Israel and Syria, control over water is an important issue.

I know that the Ilisu dam is an hydro-electric power project, not an irrigation project, and that the dam will not divert any of the water of the Tigris. All the water in the river will continue to flow through the dam and downstream to Iraq and Syria. My concern is the potential for manipulation of the flow of water. The Ilisu dam is an integral part of the 22-dam Guney dogu Anadozu Projesi, the south-east Anatolia development project. There are strong grounds for fearing that Turkey will use the dams to exert pressure on Iraq and Syria, the downstream states, by restricting the flow of water. The spare storage capacity of the Ilisu reservoir alone could block the flow of the Tigris entirely for two or three months, which would put Iraq and Syria under siege.

Despite assurances from the Export Credits Guarantee Department and Balfour Beatty that adequate downstream flows will be maintained, I have been concerned at reports that an official of the Turkish state hydraulics works department, the DSI, has threatened that if, for example, Syria continues to support Kurdish rebels, Turkey will cut off the water. The downstream states are understandably concerned. Syria has protested several times to the United Kingdom about the proposal to use ECGD facilities for the dam, and the League of Arab States protested in writing to the Foreign Office last year.

Turkey has not consulted Iraq over the building of the dam. That is in direct violation of article 5, protocol 1, of a 1946 treaty of friendship and neighbourly relations between the two states, which explicitly requires that Turkey should keep Iraq informed of its plans for construction works on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

One of the four essential preconditions for ECGD support for the project that were stated on 21 December 1999 by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was that Turkey should

"give an assurance that adequate downstream water flows will be maintained at all times".

However, there is no clear data about existing water flows or how they will be affected by the dam, and the UK requirement is for only "an assurance". Therefore, what means will we have to ensure that the assurance is honoured?

The United Kingdom Defence Forum has warned that the GAP is

"one of the region's most dangerous water time bombs. The dispute has not erupted yet because the project has not yet reached its full potential. By the time of its planned completion in"—

I was about to say 20010, but that would be a long time even for British construction workers—

"2010, the vital interests involved give it the potential to become one of the region's most dangerous flash-points".

That will have significant implications for western security, as Turkey is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and is now beginning the process of accession to the European Union. The project's security implications could extend far beyond Turkey's borders, and could affect our security interests as a member of NATO and Turkey's future in the EU. UK support for the dam, a project about which the neighbouring countries have protested, would therefore be not only unethical, but plainly foolhardy.

The dam has implications in Turkey for the treatment of Kurds. Turkish Government publicity for the GAP says that it will

"dramatically change the social and cultural make-up of the region".

I am sure that that will be the case, and we all understand that that sounds sinister to the Kurds, who make up 95 per cent. of the population of the Ilisu dam area. For many decades, Kurds in Turkey have suffered a systematic and concerted campaign by the Turkish state to wipe out their identity that amounts to ethnic cleansing. The Kurdish language is forbidden. The Turkish Government's record on human rights in south-east Turkey is appalling.

From 1984 until recently, there was civil war between the Kurdish PKK—the Kurdistan Workers party—and the Turkish army. Despite the project's location in what is essentially a war zone, no conflict impact assessment has been made of the Ilisu dam or the GAP. The United Kingdom Defence Forum has highlighted what it calls the

"profound security implications"

of the construction of the Ilisu dam. The dam will

"transform the geography of Turkish Kurdistan",

cutting off guerrilla escape routes into the mountains and forcing the rural population out of the countryside, where it may be a support base for the PKK, and into the slums of the cities, where it can be more easily controlled by the Government. The forum concluded:

"an underlying motive of the project is to deny the Kurdish guerrillas the environment in which they operate."

Basically, whether there are guerrillas there or not, that is ethnic cleansing.

The potential clearing of 16,000 people is a recipe for disaster and agitation in not only Turkey, which has an appalling record as regards the treatment of the Kurds, but the surrounding regions and the rest of the Kurdish nation. The Kurds are divided between four states: Syria, Iraq, Turkey and parts of Russia. They have been agitating for self-determination for countless years. Again, that has significance for our security policy. We are entitled to ask what has happened to the ethical dimension of our foreign policy. For the United Kingdom to assist in what amounts to ethnic cleansing is intolerable. The dam is not merely a dam; it has enormous political and cultural implications to which we cannot turn a blind eye.

Hasankeyf is of enormous cultural significance, particularly for the Kurds, and was designated a protected site in 1978. Thousands of years of human settlement and history are there, layer upon layer. Sadly, they are being excavated at a snail's pace. If the city were flooded, it would be lost for ever. The Kurdish community understandably sees the flooding of Hasankeyf as part of a wider strategy to eradicate Kurdish culture. Local people believe that, if it were a historical site in western Turkey, it would not be submerged.

There is still considerable confusion over the number of people who will be affected by the project. The ECGD's stakeholder report says that 16,000 will be displaced and a further 20,000 partly affected. The Kurdish human rights project says that the true figure is higher. Whatever the numbers, many thousands will be affected and at least 16,000 displaced—a polite way of saying that they will be forced to leave their homes and their lands. Yet there has been no consultation between the DSI and local people, and no resettlement plans have been drawn up.

The ECGD's stakeholder report expresses grave concern that the open, consultative and participatory process necessary for resettlement is not part of the Turkish political and institutional culture. The authorities simply do not have the capacity to approach resettlement in that way. They already have a momentous problem trying to rehouse and resettle people after the two recent disastrous earthquakes.

Although Turkey has a legal framework for resettlement that looks good on paper, there have been numerous serious problems in its implementation. Compensation is institutionally inadequate. There is a system for setting payments, but most people take the DSI to court to claim more. Cases can take two or three years to settle in the courts, and inflation is high—running at up to 100 per cent—so that by the time families receive their compensation any increase has been eaten up.

Those who eventually get compensation are the fortunate ones. Many families, in particular the poorest, do not have legal title to their land and, without the documents, they receive no compensation at all. Only 60 per cent. of rural people in the Ilisu area have land registration deeds. Resettlement, even if done appallingly badly, is an expensive business. The cost of Ilisu alone is estimated at $500 million, nearly one third of the total project cost of $1.6 million, and experience shows that it is likely to rise.

Who will benefit from the dam? Balfour Beatty says:

"Ilisu will bring new wealth and employment prospects to the population of this impoverished area".

However, more than two thirds of those who have been resettled after other projects undertaken as part of the GAP now wish to return to their former communities. There are no guarantees that local people will be employed, even in constructing the dam—particularly if they are Kurds—and no stable employment is planned for the area.

Export credit agencies' concerns about resettlement have led them to stipulate that an independent monitoring body must be established, but to what extent could such a body operate independently? The head of Turkey's dam building programme has said that he will not give an independent monitoring team the powers that it would need for effective oversight. All observers of the project so far have been denied access to certain areas and followed everywhere. They have been unable to talk to the local population. How can the project be independently monitored in the prevailing political climate in that part of Turkey?

Balfour Beatty claims that even if the ECGD did not support the project, it would go ahead, and other countries' export credits agencies would pick up the business, and the United Kingdom would lose out. We hear the same argument in relation to arms sales—presumably we must prostitute ourselves, on the basis that, if we do not, somebody else will put his daughter on the streets. Balfour Beatty also claims that the United Kingdom would have no further influence on the project, that not supporting the project would damage UK-Turkey bilateral relations and that the United Kingdom would acquire

"an international reputation for unreliability and unpredictability in the handling of these matters, with consequent long-term damage not just to Balfour Beatty but to all British-based major project contractors".

Balfour Beatty is over-egging the pudding. Evidence given to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry shows that industry is happy with the way in which ECGD works and praises it as innovative. If we innovate by refusing to fund this deeply damaging project, I am sure that it will do us good in the long term, and it will certainly do no harm. In any case, as I have said, there are wider considerations than the needs of just one British firm, important as they are.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) asked a parliamentary question about whether details of, and reasons for, Balfour Beatty's application for export credits guarantees could be put in the Library. He was told that that was not correct practice, because of commercial confidentiality. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should know what lies behind the application?

I do. I have always found the arguments for commercial confidentiality strange, because they ask us to accept one company's word. In the United States—the biggest and richest capitalist country in the world—commercial confidentiality does not apply to defence contracts, business contracts or anything that involves the Government. It must be part of the secretive nature of the Government—by which I mean any Government of our country, because we are talking about a continuing problem. Of course, my hon. Friends are as open as possible, as we can see from the Freedom of Information Bill. We should have the details, and perhaps the Minister will be able to reply to the hon. Lady.

What are the alternatives to the dam? Ilisu is an expensive project. Independent energy consultants from Turkey and elsewhere have stressed the fact that the same amount of power as that which would be generated by the dam could be saved, at a lower cost, simply by modernising the transmission system, which has a reputation for inefficiency. There is also considerable scope for improving end-use efficiency—the efficiency of appliances and so on. If we want to support Turkey in tackling its energy problem, we would do better to support other means of energy generation. Tackling the demand side—improving energy efficiency—is an obvious first step. If we do not do that, new power stations, whether Ilisu or others, will lose a significant proportion of their power merely through transmission.

In the longer term, we should look to supporting clean generation. I am not an energy expert, but I know that the choice is not merely between fossil fuels, nuclear fuel or big dams. Plenty of other options are available, if only they are taken seriously. The environmental impact of Ilisu might be mitigated by measures such as reducing the height of the dam, but no analysis has been carried out, so we do not know. I should be obliged if my hon. Friend the Minister would assure us that, before a decision is made about ECG support for the dam, all the options will be examined and a report outlining the pros and cons will be made public. It is incredible that a project of such scale has reached the stage that it has with, apparently, no examination of costs and benefits, and no consideration of alternatives. No wonder so many question marks hang over its purpose.

I have spoken for longer than I had intended, and I realise that other hon. Members want to speak. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider carefully the anxieties expressed this morning, and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will decide that he is not, after all, minded to support the project.

I reiterate my key anxieties about the preconditions for approval. The language that the Department of Trade and Industry uses is deliberately weak. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not even refer to them as conditions, but merely said that granting export credit would be conditional on the Turkish authorities "agreeing to address" anxieties about resettlement, water treatment, downstream water flows and the preservation of Hasankeyf. En passant, we notice that the Government are anxious that they cannot get anything more precise out of the IRA than an agreement to address the anxieties of disarmament. If we demand specificity from the IRA, as we should, we should also demand it from the people involved in the construction of the dam.

Nor has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State fully faced the problems of resettlement, water treatment, downstream water flows and the preservation of Hasankeyf. What does "agreeing to address" those anxieties mean? The UK Government need to make a clear and unambiguous statement of what guarantees they need from the Turkish authorities before we consider granting support. A clear definition of responsibilities and rights of redress must be provided before allowing the ECGD to proceed, and it should be possible to withdraw support if conditions are not met.

The Ilisu dam cannot be compatible with protecting human rights and the environment in south-east Anatolia. UK support for Ilisu would be incompatible with our commitments to sustainable development and an ethical dimension in foreign policy. We should on no account support the project.

Only two weeks ago in this Chamber, we debated export credit guarantees and arms sales. The Ilisu dam provides yet another example of the questionable use of ECGs by a Government who continue to claim to have a foreign policy with an ethical dimension.

On 20 December last year, I was told in answer to a question on ECGs and the Ilisu dam project that the project

"has given rise to a number of social, political, environmental and cultural issues requiring further consideration between ECGD, the other export credit agencies involved, the Turkish authorities and the contractors. A decision on the application will not be taken until the issues have been satisfactorily resolved."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 20 December 1999; Vol. 341, c. 380W.]

The following day, the Secretary of State told the press that he was minded to grant the ECGD cover of £200 million for Balfour Beatty's participation in the project, and was waiting for reports on several matters, including consultation with and compensation for the local population involved in the settlement programme. Fifty-two villages and 15 towns will be flooded, and 20,000 people will be displaced, the majority of whom are, as we have heard, Kurdish. A plan is being discussed for the preservation of as much as possible of the archaeological heritage of Hasankeyf, including the provison of upstream water treatment plants to ensure water quality and an assurance that downstream flows will be maintained at all times. That is all good stuff, but major concerns remain.

I accept that the project provides much-needed electricity for Turkey. A young Turkish student whom I met in Oxford some weeks ago forcefully explained to me that the project is necessary because Turkey so desperately needs hydro-electric power. I accept that, and publicly acknowledge that that is the case. However, the ECGD has not, in considering the environmental and social impact of the project, applied even the World bank's best international practices. The World bank has refused to have anything to do with the dam, stating that it violates the UN convention, which seeks to prevent border disputes between states that share water resources. In its assessment, the ECGD presumably used the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's guidelines—which are not, in any case, legally binding—as a benchmark. There seems to be some confusion about the guidelines and parameters that are being set.

When the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gave evidence to the Select Committee on International Development earlier this month, he said this is not an aid-funded project, as was the Pergau dam—another notorious example—but a commercial operation. Surely, however, export credit is a form of aid, and should therefore abide by the same principles as other aid projects. The Secretary of State has admitted that work on drawing up the international procedures that all OECD members will follow remains unfinished. In that case, why is Britain using as yet ill-defined guidelines instead of the recognised World bank guidelines, to which I understand that we are already committed?

We have seen too many cases of multinational malpractice throughout the developing world. It is encouraging that the Government are taking an active part in reaching agreed international procedures on environmental standards, but there must be a European code of conduct for export credit guarantees and incentives, which are consistent with the World bank and the OECD social, environmental and conflict prevention standards. In the case of the four areas of concern about the Ilisu dam that the Government listed, it is essential that there should be binding obligations that the UK can withdraw the guarantees if agreements break down. Assurances are simply not enough. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) graphically pointed out the weakness of Britain's commitment in making those guarantees.

Turkey needs access to hydro-electric power. The Ilisu dam is not for irrigation. Turkey currently suffers from an energy deficit, and there are fears that it may use nuclear energy to close the energy gap. If it is to join Europe and grow, Turkey certainly needs energy, but environmental and political concerns cannot be ignored. The dam is only 40 miles from the borders of Iraq and Syria, and could be used to cut off their water supply from the Tigris. Although Balfour Beatty argues otherwise, surely while the reservoir behind the dam is filling, flooding a huge area of land, the water flow of the Tigris will be much less. However it is done, there will be a significant effect on the water that flows along the Tigris.

It is said that tributaries of the Tigris, especially in Iraq, supply more water than comes from the Tigris through Turkey. However, what about times of drought? Although I have not seen the Tigris, I am reliably informed that it is a huge river. It must have some effect on the flow of water into Iraq and Syria, and in future. Turkey could manipulate water supplies to Iraq and Syria. Fears of water wars are not completely misplaced. Furthermore, there is little evidence that Iraq and Syria have been consulted about the matter.

On the issue of human rights, Turkey's record vis-a-vis the Kurdish people is not good. Of the 20,000 people affected, 95 per cent. are Kurdish. I must declare a family interest because my husband lived among Kurdish people in Iraq for a while as a small boy. For 30 years, he has regaled me and my family about the goodness and decency of those people, and about how welcome they made him feel. I have, therefore, always had very warm feelings towards them, because of his advocacy.

Turkey's record on human rights is still a matter for huge concern, and the Kurds rightly feel that the flooding of the ancient town of Hasankeyf is another attack on their cultural identity. In that area, the Kurds are mainly farmers working on agricultural land. Will the Turkish Government ensure that all the Kurdish families on the land that is to be flooded are given equivalent agricultural land, so that they can carry on farming, or will those families become raggle-taggle people living in slums on the borders of the cities in Turkey? The latter outcome is the more likely. How will the United Kingdom Government ensure that the Kurds are properly resettled, and able to benefit from the energy provided by the Ilisu dam and other projects in the area, such as the GAP? Are we to accept Turkey's word on the matter, or will there be continuous monitoring?

My concerns are shared by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who, in September last year, called for a cross-departmental control mechanism for the ECGD to ensure sustainable development and an ethical foreign policy. There have been many recent examples of the DTI and the ECGD appearing to overrule the advice of the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development—investment in Sudan, arms exports to Eritrea and Ethiopia and the sale of Hawk jet parts to Zimbabwe. I could continue, but I shall spare the Minister's blushes.

At the Select Committee for International Development hearing to which I referred earlier, the Secretary of State said:

"The DTI are not responsible for human rights assessments for areas of export credit."

Indeed, the Department of Trade and Industry is not responsible. However, if that job belongs to the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development, why does not the DTI listen to, and act on, their advice? I hope that the Minister will have some answers.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on initiating the debate. I shall be brief for two reasons. First, both he and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) have covered the issues thoroughly. Secondly, I was somewhat over-exuberant in my cheering when Aberdeen football club managed to get through to a final for the first time in five years, and, as a result, my voice is not at its best.

Why are we raising concerns about the Ilisu dam? It has been suggested that great benefits will be gained from it, such as providing jobs in the area and in the United Kingdom. It has also been suggested that there could be environmental benefits, such as removing the necessity to build a nuclear power station in an area known to experience earthquakes, and that the project could be seen as sympathetic from the point of view of global warming. Certain figures in the stakeholder report might even suggest some public support for the project. Will the Minister tell us how many jobs would be gained in the United Kingdom as a result of support for this project?

The environmental review expresses concern that not nearly enough study has been carried out into the potential damage to flora, fauna and wildlife habitats and states that there has been insufficient analysis of alternative ways in which to produce and conserve energy—a matter with which my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North dealt thoroughly.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park dealt with cultural questions. Grave concerns have been expressed about the archaeological heritage, and not merely in the city of Hasankeyf. I defer to the hon. Member for Richmond Park on the precise pronunciation of that. Of course, much of the surrounding region is unexcavated, particularly the cave areas, and a rich archaelogical heritage could be permanently lost.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North said, according to Government briefings, a dam built primarily for hydro-electricity, rather than irrigation, should not substantially affect downstream water flows. However, am I right in saying that the building of a previous Turkish dam affected water flows even though Turkey promised its neighbours that it would not? Moreover, is not Turkey still in dispute on that with Syria, which has taken it to the International Court? Is not it also true that the Turkish contractor for the Ilisu project was reported on a BBC Radio 5 Live programme as saying that downstream water flows will be reduced by 45 per cent. for at least the first three years.

The stakeholder report highlights a possible cumulative effect, particularly in the light of a proposed further dam, which would be used for irrigation. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North mentioned the problem of water control and spoke in detail on diplomatic relations in the region. I recently visited most of the front-line states that are involved in the middle east peace process, and grave concerns were expressed about the possible effect of such projects on that process. Access to water is an important issue in discussions between Syria and Israel on the Golan heights. Many people look to Britain to support a process for which there is cautious optimism. Given the current desperate shortage of water, it would be particularly unfortunate if we were to have a deleterious effect on those delicate negotiations.

At least 16,000 and perhaps as many as 25,000 Kurds will be compulsorily moved, and a further 20,000 may be affected, although the stakeholder report makes it clear that it is difficult to be precise. Under Turkish law, compensation would be offered, but the report also makes it clear that the history of compensation in relation to Turkish dam projects is not encouraging. Many people claim to have received no compensation, and often compensation has been too little, too late. In Turkey, where inflation can run at 100 per cent. per annum, too late automatically becomes too little.

The stakeholder report refers to the damage done to social structures. Balfour Beatty has made extravagant promises on consultation but, according to the report, there has been no attempt at consultation. It has been said that the project has been under consideration for some 20 years but, in fact, it has been under consideration for 50 years. Not a single person was found first to have heard of the project from the companies involved.

Proper consultation has not taken place. There is virtual martial law, and the stakeholder report states that security conditions make it difficult to obtain proper access. The reporter had limited time and was unable to visit many areas because of security difficulties. The report states, with fairness, that the figures about support should be treated with considerable caution. The translator in the Kurdish areas was a Turkish Government official. How freely would people speak in that situation? It has been suggested that the area will benefit from additional electricity, but it is alleged that most of the electricity that is produced by the existing dam projects is used not in the Kurdish areas but elsewhere in Turkey.

The Government should be careful not to repeat the situation that arose in relation to the Pergau dam under the previous Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North mentioned that this dam—I need to be careful about how I use that word—project is called the GAP. I shall not try to pronounce the Turkish that the acronym stands for, but I fear that the word "gap" is appropriate in this context. There may be a gap between the airy reassurances that we have received and what appears to be the grim reality on the ground. I fear that, if the Government are strongly minded to approve this project there could too easily be a gap between reassurances that we might receive on human rights, environmental, cultural and diplomatic matters, and what really happens.

I am not given to Joan of Arc experiences—I do not often hear voices—but when I was coming to the Palace on the tube this morning, I heard loud and clear a warning that I hope the Government will heed: "Mind the gap."

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on raising the subject. The speeches of Labour and Liberal Democrat Members make it clear why the project is a matter of concern.

On 21 December last year, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry issued a press release outlining his approach to the matter. That happened to be the day that the House rose for the Christmas recess, and the Department of Trade and Industry slipped out several press releases in the full knowledge that Members of Parliament would be packing up to go home and so would pay them less attention than if they had been released in the middle of the week when the House was sitting. That is a somewhat cynical approach to this important matter.

In the press release, the Secretary of State referred to

"The two reports: one examining the resettlement issues and the other looking at the environmental impact",

and he explained that they were

"commissioned to help Ministers decide whether to grant export credit backing to the scheme."

He continued:

"I have carefully considered both reports and I am minded to grant export credit."

I have read both reports, but it puzzles me that the Secretary of State came to that conclusion. The report on resettlement is a weightier document than that on the environment, but there is little in either report that would lead one to think, "Yes, let's go with those proposals," not least because the project is not new—it has been around for 20 years—although, interestingly, the Ilisu dam already features on Turkish tourist maps. I applaud such commitment, but placing the scheme on a map does not answer the many questions that hon. Members have raised today. I agree with some of the concerns that have been raised.

In giving his judgment on those two documents, the Secretary of State added four caveats—things that needed to be done before he could proceed. If the Government are to go ahead with ECGD money, it would be helpful if the Minister could give us some detail about the action that is being taken and what is being put in place, to ensure that the criteria are not only met but are monitored and enforced. To recap, the four caveats were, first, the need to

"draw up a resettlement programme which reflects internationally accepted practice and includes independent monitoring".

We all accept that that is a laudable aim, but what will be done in practice to ensure that that is done? The second was, to

"make provision for upstream water treatment plants capable of ensuring that water quality is maintained".

There is a great concern in the environmental paper about water quality. the third was to

"give an assurance that adequate downstream water flows will be maintained at all times".

I understand that since the environmental report was produced more work has been done on that issue. Perhaps the Minister will update us on the solutions that have been found to that problem.

The fourth caveat was the need to preserve archaeological sites. I notice that the press release includes the words "as possible", which is a bit of a cop-out. We all want to preserve such sites, but can the project go ahead even if it is not possible to preserve them? Will the Minister clarify what is meant by that statement?

We have heard from other hon. Members about the impact on neighbouring countries, and I want to emphasise the huge political row and instability that could be caused in the region if the scheme proceeds without due consultation with neighbouring countries, particularly Iraq and Syria, and if the views of the Arab League, which has made official representations on this matter, are not taken into account. It is not clear from the Government's press releases or the documents that they have put into the public domain how they intend to respond to complaints from third parties. Certain lobbying groups—for example, Friends of the Earth—have issued press releases saying that the Government could be taken to court if they proceed with the scheme. Presumably the Government have taken legal advice on their position.

That brings me back to a point that was made earlier concerning the international legal basis on which the Government will now proceed. We have heard about the involvement of the World bank. I understand that it was approached as early as 1984 when it turned the project down. When I look at the parameters and conditions that have applied since 1984, my instinct tells me that the World bank is less likely to say yes in 2000. Presumably the Government have taken advice on their position in relation to other international bodies, which clearly would have a view on the scheme.

We seek more information from the Minister today. Much of what one reads in the newspapers is comments by Ministers and commentary on them, but I have the clear impression that the scheme is being driven personally by the Prime Minister. There appears to be a huge row between the Foreign Office and No. 10. One wonders what pivotal role the Department of Trade and Industry plays in all this, but as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is "minded" to proceed, one assumes that he is on the side of No. 10. Clearly the scheme flies in the face of the Foreign Office's stated ethical foreign policy, not only for all the reasons that hon. Members have so ably demonstrated, but particularly because of the question of the Kurdish population, which must be addressed.

This is a big issue for thousands of people. Any big civil engineering project such as this anywhere in the world, even in our own country, would cause a great deal of concern to those living in the immediate vicinity. As Members of Parliament, we all know what happens. In the past seven years my constituency has faced the prospect of a new town, a gas-fired power station and a quarry. When such matters arise, all those who are immediately affected lobby against them. It is right that they should raise their voices, but the issue that we are considering is of enormous humanitarian concern. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) rightly said, the population in the vicinity of the proposed dam has not been consulted. Nothing in the report assumes any preparation or consultation on how the community would be rehoused and remain as a community. Is the failure to address the resettlement issue the result of a formula to disperse the community to the fringes of many cities, as the hon. Lady said? If that is not the case, work needs to be done rapidly, and assurances given.

Does the hon. Lady agree that in other countries and contexts that might be referred to as ethnic cleansing?

Indeed. There is great concern about the way in which Kurdish communities have been treated in the past. We are therefore cautious about the possibility of dispersing a community.

Other hon. Members have ably outlined the problems, but I want to add a further point. If the Prime Minister is the driving force behind the proposal, he is in a strong position to ensure that, if the dam proceeds and is supported by the UK taxpayer, the criteria outlined by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 21 December are met. He has a strong card to play. Turkey wishes to become a member of the European Union, and the Prime Minister will have many opportunities to influence that decision and the speed with which it happens. As a negotiator, he should ensure that, if Turkey's membership of the EU proceeds, the conditions for ECGD funding outlined by the Secretary of State are met. That does not need to be done in a bullying way; it is purely a matter of straightforward international common-sense negotiation.

I asked the Prime Minister whether the matter had been raised at the Helsinki summit, when the Kurds were invited to attend. He said that it had not; nor had it been raised in side meetings or with European Union officials. I agree with the hon. Lady that the matter should be addressed.

Is the hon. Lady aware that Balfour Beatty is part of a consortium currently being prosecuted for bribery in relation to a dam project in Lesotho? Should the ECGD be funding the company in those circumstances?

I do not know the background to the legal affairs of Balfour Beatty. I would expect that to be explored by the appropriate agencies, to ensure, if that is the case, that it is exposed. I am aware, however, that it is not just a Balfour Beatty UK project; an international consortium is involved. Many other countries, including European countries, are involved in the project.

I hope that the Minister will be able to give us the answers and assurances that we seek. In particular, I hope that she will shed some light on from where, within the Government, the driving force is coming. If it is No. 10, I hope that she will assure us that the Prime Minister will use his high office to ensure that our concerns about resettlement, environment and the effects on neighbouring countries are addressed. Resolution and enforcement will be necessary if the project is to proceed.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on securing a debate on a matter that is of great concern to him and to the other hon. Members who have spoken. I fully understand those concerns because the Government share them.

I begin by reminding the House in some detail of the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made shortly before Christmas when he published the two reports commissioned by the Government—one on the resettlement issue and the other on a review of the larger environmental impact assessement which had been commissioned on behalf of the Swiss contractors. In that statement my right hon. Friend said:

"I have carefully considered both reports and I am minded to grant export credit. This will be conditional on the Turkish authorities agreeing to address the concerns we have about the environmental and social impact of the project."

He went on to say that copies of both reports have been given to representatives of the Turkish Government and the other Government export credit agencies considering support for the project, and that the Government are discussing with them the details of the areas in which changes would be required and action taken before the Government could consider export credit support. They include the need to draw up a resettlement programme that reflects internationally agreed practice and includes independent monitoring; to make provision for upstream water treatment plants capable of ensuring that water quality is maintained; to give an assurance that adequate downstream water flows will be maintained at all times; and to produce a detailed plan to preserve as much of the archaeological heritage of Hasankeyf as possible. The matters of concern that were raised by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members this morning reflect the concerns that my right hon. Friend raised with the publication of the two reports just before Christmas.

Underlying the debate is the question of whether the British Government and, in particular, the Export Credits Guarantee Department, should remain engaged in discussions about the project or should pull out completely. The reality is that Turkey is in any case likely to proceed with the dam, using Turkish companies or contractors from other countries. As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) made clear, for the past 20 years the Turkish authorities have been planning on the assumption that they intend to proceed with the dam, which, as she said, is noted on their maps. By remaining engaged with that process we can try to ensure that international standards are met and that if and when the dam is built it has a high standard of construction, which is particularly important in a country that has suffered two major earthquakes in recent years, to tragic effect.

The hon. Lady also rightly said that Turkey is a candidate for accession to the European Union, that candidate status was confirmed by the Helsinki Council last December. Like every other candidate for EU membership, Turkey has to meet the EU's political membership criteria on democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the treatment of minorities before accession negotiations can begin. All those issues are directly relevant to the concerns that the Government and other hon. Members share about the Ilisu dam project.

However, it is also worth remembering—I am glad that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) stressed the point—that the dam project offers the possibility of major economic benefits for Turkey. Turkey's economy is growing rapidly and, as a potential member of the EU, can be expected to continue to do so. It already has an energy deficit of 5 per cent. and has to import to meet its current energy needs. Moreover, its per capita energy consumption is only 15 per cent. of the OECD, making it clear that, whatever other measures it takes to promote energy efficiency and, thereby, hold down the growth in demand for energy, it will have to increase energy supply.

Hydro-electric power is a clean and renewable source of energy. It would help Turkey to continue to diversify its sources of power. It clearly would help to reduce reliance on imported energy and it would reduce the likelihood of Turkey deciding to build a nuclear power plant to meet some of its energy needs. Again, given the recent earthquakes, there is particular concern about any prospect of nuclear power plant construction in Turkey.

It is also worth saying that, if Balfour Beatty becomes one of the contractors for the Ilisu dam, it will bring to the project high-quality and highly experienced British construction. I remind hon. Members of the recently completed British-constructed Izmit water project. It withstood last year's earthquake, despite the fact that it was extremely close to the epicentre of the quake. There are real advantages in our engaging with Turkey in developing the plans for the project before a decision is made about whether to offer an export guarantee.

Is the Minister truly satisfied with Balfour Beatty's record? We have heard already that Lesotho is prosecuting for corruption the project contractors in that country, of which Balfour Beatty was one. I understand, too, that BICC—Balfour Beatty's parent company—has been barred by Singapore from bidding for Government contacts for five years, following bribery. Is the hon. Lady entirely satisfied that we can rely on the company to do the right thing on the Ilisu dam project? Do the Government have any plans to take on the company under the OECD guidelines and ensure that it does not do the same again?

The consortium of which Balfour Beatty is a member has been accused of corruption in relation to the Lesotho highlands water project. Balfour Beatty vigorously denies any such wrongdoing and I am sure that, like me, the hon. Member for Richmond Park believes that one is innocent until proven guilty. The case is expected to begin in the South African courts in the summer and we shall see what emerges. We do not intend to put current applications on hold until a verdict is reached in that case.

I am concerned that, with the suggestion of the alternative being a nuclear power station in an area of earthquakes, we might be guilty of precisely what the report criticises in its reference to the way in which the Turkish Government have dealt with the matter. It seems to have introduced oil-fired power stations with a view to making them a paper tiger to knock down. The report suggests other possibilities that have never been considered seriously.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Clearly, it is up to the Turkish Government to decide on an energy strategy by which to examine the comparative risks, costs and benefits of the Ilisu project, and so on. The update of an environmental impact assessment report may deal with those issues, but, as we and all developing countries know, with economic growth tends to come an increase in the demand for energy. Given that Turkey's per capita energy consumption is a small portion of the OECD average, it seems sensible to assume that the Turkish Government are right to anticipate a need for a significant increase in energy supply if they are to enjoy the benefits of economic growth and those that will be delivered to their population through that growth.

There are only so many possibilities for any Government to consider about meeting significant increases in demand for energy, one of which is clearly nuclear power plants. To follow a course of action that might increase the likelihood of a nuclear power plant being built in a country that has recently suffered two major earthquakes is not necessarily sensible or in the interests of its people.

The hon. Members for Richmond Park and for Tiverton and Honiton raised the roles of different Departments. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton became rather overexcited about a conspiracy that she appeared to see within the Government.

I certainly was not accusing the Government of conspiracy in this instance, although I might in others. I was more concerned that there seems to be a difference of opinion between Departments.

I am happy to reassure the hon. Lady about that as well. The Department of Trade and Industry works extremely closely on the matter with several other Departments, such as the Department for International Development, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and, especially, the Foreign Office. There is a range of interests, and the DTI leads on the support of exports. Issues of sustainable development, human rights, the treatment of minorities and so on are not the preserve of any single Department. DFID has given us extremely helpful advice, especially by putting us in touch with Dr. Morvaridi, who carried out the analysis on resettlement that we published in a report shortly before Christmas. I must stress that Turkey is not one of DFID's key partner countries, and the project is not one of aid. DFID's involvement has declined since the commission of the report.

The Minister must accept that DFID is interested in and does a tremendous amount of work on conflict prevention. Time and again, it seems to those of us who are not party to Government thinking that its advice is overruled by other Departments and by No. 10 Downing street, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton suggested. We are concerned that commercial interests are always put before the promised ethical foreign policy.

There is no question of DFID being overruled. It has assisted us in properly analysing resettlement, which is a major human rights issue relating to conflict settlement. We have been able to tell the Turkish Government that we think that a great deal more needs to be done if an effective resettlement programme is to be carried out. Turkey is not one of DFID's key partner countries, so it is appropriate that the DTI should use its role as the sponsoring Department for the ECGD to promote human rights issues and environmental and sustainable development issues within the context of what is a commercial project.

The DETR maintains an interest in sustainable development, as do the ECGD and the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office is especially interested in the human rights issues as well as relations with Turkey and other states in the region. My Department and the ECGD have worked extremely constructively with those Departments, and will continue to do so as the process continues until a decision is made. The DTI is in the lead because the request is for commercial support through the ECGD.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) asked whether the project would have an impact on the middle east peace process, but such anxieties are not well founded. The project will have a minimal impact on Syria and no effect on the other front-line states. It is on such issues that we work closely with the Foreign Office.

My hon. Friend passed lightly over the major anxiety about water flows. She did not deal with the dam's possible impact on Syria and Iraq, or with the general comments of the United Kingdom Defence Forum. Will she go into more detail, rather than merely repeating what we have already read?

I shall discuss those issues in a moment, but I want to deal with the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North raised about the middle east peace process. Of course I shall discuss in some detail both upstream and downstream water flows.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred to the World bank—

I visited Syria and spoke to its Foreign Secretary, who has considerable influence in the regime. He expressed grave concern at the dam's possible effect on water supplies to Syria. What consultations have been entered into with Syria, now that we are trying to encourage better relations with it in moving the middle east peace process forward?

My hon. Friend should ask that question of a Foreign Office Minister involved in detailed discussions with the Syrian Government. My understanding is that, precisely because the dam is a hydro-electric project, rather than an irrigation project, it will not have a major impact on the water supply to Syria. I shall return to that issue in a moment.

One of the reasons for ECGD engagement in the process is to influence for the better the enivronmental impact of water projects. In introducing the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North elaborated well on the broad context of water projects and the genuine danger of serious conflict over an apparently or genuinely scarce resource. ECGD has been able to deliver positive action to influence the environmental impact of several recent power projects, including the Shandong in China, the Sual in the Philippines, the Manjung in Malaysia, and the Vizag in India. In all those cases, rather than putting commercial interests above environmental and other interests, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park implied, we used commercial leverage to achieve environmental goals. I hope that my hon. Friends support that. In this case, we are doing that through the pressure that we and other export credit agencies are bringing to bear in discussions with the Turkish authorities.

Several hon. Members referred to the reduction in water flow that will occur while the dam fills up, as distinct from what will happen once the dam is full and the hydro-electricity project starts. The DSI, which bought, or commissioned, the dam, has discussed the problem with engineers for the United States agency Eximbank, the United States' equivalent of our ECGD. We are waiting for confirmation of the minimum flow agreed to be maintained while the dam fills up, after which we shall be able to judge whether what has been agreed will be adequate to maintain the downstream flow into other countries. We are continuing to discuss the rights of neighbouring states, and it is for the Foreign Office to take the lead. The real responsibility lies with Turkey to communicate its proposals to neighbouring states and to reassure them that the project will not have an adverse impact on the downstream flow. As it is not an irrigation project, that should not be a problem once the dam is fully operational. As I said, we have yet to receive the information that Eximbank will obtain on the level of flow to be maintained while the dam is being filled up. However, half the flow of the Tigris joins the river below the dam and below the Turkish border, so by no means all the flow of the river will be affected by the construction of the dam.

One has only to look at the map, as I did carefully last night, to see that the tributaries of the Tigris, which come from Syria and Iraq, are a long way from the sources of the Tigris. It is conceivable that a drought in either of those areas could lead to minimal flows of those tributaries and the people would be dependent on the flows from the Tigris. That puts Turkey in a prime position to influence and, if necessary, wage a water war against those two countries.

Those concerns are being addressed, but again I stress that, if it were an irrigation project, there would be a risk of inadequate water flows into Syria and Iraq. However, a hydro-electric project such as this depends on a continuous flow of water, not on stopping and diverting the water in the way that an irrigation project would.

The environmental document states:

"Some of the potential downstream impacts, eg reduction in floodplain fertility for agriculture, channel erosion, loss of downstream riverine fisheries, are largely discounted since it is assumed that Cizre Dam will be constructed and a reservoir environment created downstream."

We have not heard much about that second adjunct, on which the dam now appears to be conditional. Is that going ahead?

A major point in the environmental report was that other scenarios had not been properly addressed in the environmental impact assessement. That main environmental impact assessment, which has been commissioned by the Swiss, is now being updated. We hope that it will take account of the criticisms expressed in the report that we commissioned, which we published before Christmas. Clearly, we need to understand, as do the Turkish Government, the implications of building the second dam and what would happen to water flows and other environmental issues in either of those scenarios.

Upstream issues also arise. The water treatment plants that will be constructed in the main towns must be operational before the dam starts to fill, because the environmental impact assessment has made it clear that, otherwise, there is a risk of pollution in the reservoir. It is a serious issue and it is being addressed.

The other serious issue is the resettlement of villagers whose land would be flooded as a result of construction of the dam. Here again we are working closely with the Foreign Office. A full resettlement plan must be drawn up, taking account of the people's wishes. In other words, we need a process that involves their participation, with proper support provided to all those affected. It is clear from Mr. Morvaridi's excellent report that we are taking those issues seriously, and we expect the Turkish authorities to respond equally seriously.

I apologise for not having been here earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had a previous engagement.

I fully accept that the British Government are concerned about the treatment of people displaced by the dam, but Turkey's record on displacing people from the Kurdish region is nothing short of abominable and apalling. Given the way in which those people have been treated by the army and civil authorities, does the Minister have any reason to believe that the situation will be different if the construction of the dam goes ahead?

Real concerns exist about Turkey's human rights record, and those, among other issues, must be addressed if Turkey is to succeed in its desire to become a member of the European Union. However, there are signs of progress. The Turkish authorities have appointed independent local consultants who have carried out assessments for the World bank in respect of other projects, and have agreed to the appointment of an international expert. Furthermore, progress is being made on the consultation exercise and the survey. The Turkish authorities are taking the matter seriously as a result of the international pressure that we have helped to bring to bear.

Will the Minister then explain why the World bank refuses to support the project?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for restating that point, because I should have dealt with it earlier. The World bank has not been asked to support the project. Discussions took place between the Turkish Government and the World bank, but the bank said that those discussions did not constitute a request for support. We have discussed the project with the World bank, and have not received any indication of the kind of opinion to which the hon. Lady referred.

Several hon Members referred to the archaeological and cultural heritage of Hasankeyf. That has been the subject of research by the Middle East technical university, and a presentation that was given in Ankara a couple of weeks ago—of which we are awaiting full details—will give us a better idea of how much can be preserved and what can be catalogued. However, it is worth pointing out that much of that archaeological heritage is not in good condition, and several experts have expressed the view that, if the dam were not to be built, much of it would continue to decline and disappear.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North and other hon. Members asked whether, if export credit guarantees are to be granted in this case—the decision has not yet been made—it would be possible to enforce any conditions in relation to the contract. The ECGD enters into agreements with the exporter and the bank that determine the terms on which support is made available, and is also involved in the negotiation of the loan agreement between the bank and the borrower. It is normal for such loans to include undertakings by the borrower which, if they are not observed, may lead to the suspension of the continued availability of the loan. If we were to give cover, and conditions attached to that cover were not fulfilled, we would be able to pursue diplomatic and legal forms of redress. The time for detailed consideration of any such conditions would follow the Secretary of State's decision as to whether to proceed. That will not happen for some time, because we have not yet received the full updated environmental assessment report.

I assure hon. Members that, if support were to be offered, it would be possible to consider making requirements under the terms of the loan agreement that certain events shall have occurred, or that the Turkish authorities shall have carried out certain acts, before the agreement becomes effective. It would be possible to require undertakings by the authorities that they will carry out certain acts in certain ways, and to provide that if the undertakings were to be breached, the whole amount of the outstanding loan would become immediately payable and there would be no further advances to the contractor under the loan.

Similarly, under the construction contract, the contractor should be able to cease work in the event of a breach of undertakings by the Turkish authorities. The ECGD contract with the contractor could include a provision whereby, in the event of a breach of undertakings by the Turkish authorities, the ECGD would have the right to direct the contractor to cease work.

I hope that I have made it clear that the Government share the concerns that hon. Members have expressed—my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North did so eloquently—and that we are using our influence through the ECGD to reach more satisfactory outcomes in relation to the environment, interstate relationships and questions relating to human rights and resettlement. We expect a decision about support to be taken some time in the summer, by which time we will have considered the updated environmental impact assessment report and had responses to our other concerns. We and the export credit agencies that are involved will take account of the need to establish a resettlement action plan that reflects international practice and ensure that it is put into effect properly.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving us an opportunity to debate this important issue. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decides, after consideration, to grant export credit cover, a statement will be made to the House, which will provide a further opportunity for debate and questioning.

The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shepard) and the Minister are present in the Chamber, so although we are a little ahead of our timetable we may start the next debate.

I am extremely grateful to have an opportunity to raise this matter, which is of enormous interest and great concern to my constituents.

It is my intention not to pre-empt consideration in the House of the Care Standards Bill, which is passing through the other place, but to focus on the impact on privately run care homes in Norfolk of the draft rules for such homes, which are contained in the consultation document "Fit for the Future". That document was commissioned by the Government from the Centre for Policy on Ageing and published in September 1999.

I emphasise from the outset that I fully support the objective of achieving higher and more uniform standards in care homes. The Minister of State will know that all the relevant bodies share that objective, including the National Care Homes Association, Help the Aged, the Registered Nursing Homes Association and the Royal College of Nursing. People in such care homes are, by definition, among the most vulnerable in society and they deserve the protection of verifiable standards.

It would be hard to overstate the anxiety among private care home owners that has been provoked by the rules that are proposed in "Fit for the Future", especially those regarding physical accommodation. The Minister will be aware that their anxiety has been in no way allayed by the fact that, for reasons that are best known to the Department of Health, many care home owners were unable to get copies of "Fit for the Future" until after 3 December last year, which was the closing date for consultation. I am glad that the Department took the welcome step of extending the consultation period.

"Fit for the Future" states that single rooms in care homes must have at least 10 sq m of usable floor space, and that there must be 12 sq m for wheelchair users. New single rooms must have at least 12 sq m of usable floor space, rooms should not be shared by more than two people and people should have made a positive choice to share. Communal space must amount to at least 4.1 sq m per resident. Those requirements sound extremely reasonable. Of course, those of us with experience of care homes, or who have relatives or friends in such homes, want people to be comfortably housed in rooms that are sufficiently large, and which equate with the people's choices. However, the rapid—or, worse still, retrospective—imposition of such standards would impact on the vulnerable members of society whom the Care Standards Bill is designed to protect.

Staffing requirements would include one member of staff to every five residents for morning work, one to every seven for afternoons and evenings, and one to every 10 at night, with a minimum of two remaining awake. Additional staff would have to be on duty at peak times, and at least one third of care staff would have to be registered nurses. In my experience of private care homes in Norfolk, staffing ratios and the requirement for additional staff at peak times would present little difficulty. In fact, most homes already work in that way, and it is clearly sensible to have more people on duty when they are needed. However, the requirement for registered nurses presents some difficulty in respect of costings, and so on.

In Norfolk, there are about 415 private homes. The majority care for the elderly and the remainder look after people with learning disabilities, mental health problems or physical disabilities. In its response to "Fit for the Future", a consultation document that was sent to the Department of Health last month, Norfolk Independent Care Homes calculated that the average-sized home registered in Norfolk has about 20 residents. It is interesting to note that, although there are about 1,000 places in local authority homes in our country, there are 4,800 places in private care homes. That gives added point to private care home owners' anxieties, and must be of concern to Ministers. Although there are some new purpose-built care homes, given the rural disposition of a county such as Norfolk, the vast majority are evenly spread throughout the county in converted manors, halls or old rectories. Therefore, one home might serve three, four or five small village communities within a five-mile radius.

Norfolk care home owners have calculated that they employ one member of staff for each resident, which is another issue of concern. By definition, many of those staff are women, who work flexible hours and frequently walk or cycle to work. Given the even spread of provision, the homes form a source of employment that is easy for people to access. Each home is well known in its locality, and it is important to prospective residents to know that, on entering residential care, they will meet local friends and acquaintances. It is not putting the matter too strongly to say that the choice of a residential home is one of the few freedoms left to those who enter them.

I wish to support my right hon. Friend. In my constituency I have shared a similar experience. Does she agree that it is not merely the owners of small homes but residents and their families who feel vulnerable, and that we must not only enhance standards in care homes but protect their local nature?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I suspect that the Minister, who has taken a good deal of trouble to meet associations and proprietors of care homes, is also well aware of the problem. He, too, represents a rural and far-flung constituency, so he will appreciate the force of my argument. In rural counties such as Norfolk, requiring the removal of two, three or four beds might render the home in question unviable as a business. It would have to close down, and the geographical relevance of the home would be gone. The home would cease to serve the locally based needs of the residents. The magazine Caring Times, in its edition of 2 February 1999, quoted an anonymous source as saying that if the Centre for Policy on Ageing were to succeed in introducing the standards, the only people who would be able to meet them would be those running 100-plus bed purpose-built homes, thereby restricting individuality and choice. I agree with that comment. In Norfolk, there are a number of well-run large purpose-built homes. Although those would be the choice of many, at least as many people would choose smaller, more individualistic accommodation for their relatives, especially if it is close at hand, as frequent visiting would be easier. Many people entering residential care prefer a homely atmosphere to more institutional care.

Norfolk social services responded to the Government's consultation, and in a letter dated 20 November 1999, it stated:

"Norfolk is a geographically large and predominantly rural county. The current stock of residential care homes is diverse in terms of both size and location. In a county where elderly people still predominantly have their family roots within a particular village or small cluster of villages, the location of a residential care home is a critical element of choice … The proposed standards are likely to speed this trend and cause significant disruption to existing residents as small businesses fail as well as limit choice to prospective residents. There has been a need locally to formulate specific strategies to redress the forced migration from villages of young couples—the forced migration of our elderly people through the lack of local residential care homes must be avoided."

Since the Government took office, residential care home owners in rural areas have had to deal with a number of difficult issues. They have had to deal with the impact on their businesses of the working time directive, and the Government's reduction of council grant to shire local authorities, which has resulted in social services cuts. Hikes in fuel taxes have affected all rural businesses. Pay increases for nurses, which were richly deserved, mean, of course, that more care homes are being forced to provide only residential care, as they simply cannot afford to pay the staff to provide nursing care. All that is within the context of rising numbers of frail, elderly people in society, and falling numbers of hospital beds. Instead of piling further pressure on care homes, the Government should be seeking to demonstrate that they have understood the impact on frail and elderly people and their families, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) pointed out, not to mention that on the NHS and local authorities. By forcing the pace of improvements in the private care sector, they might push hundreds of private care homes out of business.

We need to be aware of the findings of the Forum of Private Business care sector survey dated July 1999. Seventy-five per cent. of respondents claimed that if the "Fit for the Future" proposals were carried out, their businesses would no longer be viable. What would happen to the 500,000 or so frail people who would have to be rehoused? Extraordinary distress would be caused to the families. Who would re-employ those thrown out of work? The Norfolk Residential Care Homes Association welcomes the introduction, in principle, of mandatory minimum standards. Mr. Colin Gething, the association's chairman, points out in a letter dated 12 January 2000, that

"it does appear to our membership that, whilst the emphasis may not be biased towards physical standards, the degree of variation of the physical and measurable aspects from that which is currently required by many authorities will impose unrealistic demands both practically and financially, and yet not improve the standard of care one iota."

For many small to medium-sized homes of 10 to 18 registered places, the imposition of standards such as minimum sizes for rooms and communal space will be unattainable, and the loss of two or three rooms to a financially marginal business will culminate in the closure of a home and the loss of not two or three, but all. Sadly, such a closure has already taken place, in my constitutency, even before the end of the consultation period. The proprietor of the former Lion House residential home in Downham Market wrote, on 16 October 1999:

"The national standards room size of 10 square metres for existing homes will leave us only 5 registered rooms, from 15. This will bankrupt us. Therefore, I am closing Lion House at the end of November … Two years ago, it was valued as a business at £345,000 … Now, as a house with vacant possession, it is valued at £200,000. So not only have we lost a good business which we have spent 15 years building up, we have also lost £145,000."

The arrangements for finding alternative accommodation for the frail, elderly residents were handled by social services with extreme difficulty, although that is not a matter for this debate.

That example illustrates the difficulties posed by the present approach. Mr. Barry Hartley of the National Care Homes Association said, in the October 1999 issue of Caring UK:

"I'm very disturbed that the Government has missed a golden opportunity to look at the true values of care and whether people are being cared for appropriately. One of our prime reasons for wanting national standards was to ensure a system which measured those things which are important rather than those things which can easily be measured. We are disappointed that standards have not been developed which relate to individual personal quality of care … The 'apparent intention to cull between 12 and 23 per cent. of the sector' is alarming."

Those and other matters will be thoroughly debated when the Care Standards Bill comes from the other place to be debated in the House. However, I want to demonstrate that the Government's handling of the consultation process on this vital issue, in addition to their apparent lack of concern about the fate of 12 to 23 per cent. of the sector, does not bode well. I am talking not only about the businesses but about the frail people for whom they care.

I hope that the Minister will dispel some of our fears in his response to the debate. Will he make it clear that the Government have understood, from the response to their consultation, the disastrous effect on the sector of over-hasty implementation of the accommodation requirements? Will he also make it clear that there is a need for careful consideration of the effect on the overall availability of residential care places of imposing the new standards? Will he also consider the alternatives that the public would expect the Government to provide in the event of large numbers of homes going out of business? Will he give an estimate of the cost to the sector of implementation? Will he set out a timetable, first for publishing the final standards so that home owners will know what is required, and, secondly, for the implementation time proposed, so that they can begin to plan the development of their businesses? Does he plan to compensate private care home owners for the loss in value to their businesses, or for the loss of their business altogether?

I believe that the Minister understands the importance of the role played by the private sector in residential care, and the problems that the Government would have if they ignored the sector's difficulties in maintaining the current number of places under the "Fit for the Future" proposals. I hope that the Minister also understands that behind my concern is the knowledge that to enter residential care is a massive step for anyone and their family. To plunge the sector into anxiety or uncertainty, for an unspecified period, is unacceptable. I hope that he will be able today to dispel some of that uncertainty for the sake of everyone concerned.

I warmly congratulate the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on choosing this subject for our debate today and on the way in which she has addressed her concerns.

I am particularly grateful to her for accepting the argument for national standards, because we should not allow that issue to go by default. We are not trying to do any of the things that she suggested: we do not intend to cause concern, anxiety or fear for the future in this major sector of the social care industry. The services provided by private care homes, both nursing and residential, are hugely important in our country, and the Government do not intend to jeopardise the sector's ability to respond to our population's social care needs. We would be crazy and stupid if we were to develop national minimum standards from that starting point. We do not intend that the "Fit for the Future" proposals should have the unforeseen consequences suggested by the right hon. Lady. Therefore, I shall try to reassure her and her hon. Friends about some of the concerns that she has raised today.

The right hon. Lady is right to say that Norfolk and Cumbria, the county in which my constituency is based, have many similarities. Although my constituency is not predominantly rural, the county of Cumbria is, and she is right to say that in rural counties there is a particular dimension to the argument about the provision of longterm residential care services, to which the Government are sensitive and of which they are mindful.

The right hon. Lady raised a number of detailed points, and I shall return to some of them during my remarks, but today's debate also gives me the opportunity to correct some of the misconceptions and misunderstandings about the "Fit for the Future" proposals and to address the legitimate concerns expressed by many in the industry over the past few months. As the right hon. Lady was gracious enough to point out, I have made every effort to resolve those concerns in my meetings with representatives of this crucial industry.

We start from the point that the development of national standards for care homes and other social care services is long overdue. Enforceable national rules should ensure that poor standards and shoddy treatment are rooted out for good and that, regardless of location, all residents in care homes will be afforded the same protection and access to decent facilities.

National minimum standards for care homes are, therefore, part of the Government's plans for reforming the current regulatory arrangements for social services, nursing homes and the private health care sector. The reforms, first announced in the White Paper "Modernising Social Services", were put in train on 2 December, when the Care Standards Bill was introduced in another place.

The Bill will introduce new systems that will help to deliver our aims for a modernised regulatory framework. The current system has long been the subject of criticism by regulators and care providers for lacking independence, consistency and coherence.

The Care Standards Bill will establish an independent National Care Standards Commission responsible for regulating social care and private health care. The commission will be responsible for laying down standards of care and ensuring that those standards are met through a system of registration, inspection and enforcement. In addition, in line with the recommendation made by the royal commission on long-term care, it will also have responsibility for monitoring and reporting on trends in the provision of long-term care, investigating complaints and taking tough action where necessary, reflecting the views of service users and encouraging better services through reporting on service performance.

We want the National Care Standards Commission to be a powerful new body which will make a major contribution to improving standards of care and informing and empowering consumers. Raising the standard of social care provision and increasing the protection of vulnerable people are paramount considerations for the Government, and the main reasons for having national standards.

National standards will be central to the commission's responsibility for ensuring minimum standards of care. They will form the basis on which the commission's inspectors judge the fitness of the homes and agencies that they regulate and make decisions about registration and cancellation. The standards will be applied consistently to service providers across the country. At the moment there is often a wide variation in the standards required by different local and health authorities, leading to confusion and frustration between providers and regulators. National standards will mean that providers will be clear about the standards that they have to meet and that users and their carers will be clear about the standards that they can expect.

I think that the right hon. Lady referred to the National Care Homes Association. It welcomes the Government's commitment to national standards and notes, in its response to "Fit for the Future", the importance for the public of knowing the minimum level of service that they can expect to be provided. The Independent Healthcare Association also welcomes the principle of national standards and notes that many of those proposed are standard practice already. Counsel and Care, another major organisation, welcomes the establishment of national standards as part of the determination to modernise social services and engender confidence for older people and their relatives in the home that they have chosen.

The consultation document "Fit for the Future" sets out the proposed standards of the Centre for Policy on Ageing for older people in residential and nursing care homes. It was sent to all major interested organisations on 8 September and has been widely circulated. The right hon. Lady correctly referred to some of our earlier problems with distributing the document. We eventually produced 10,000 copies of it, distributed it widely and also exended the consultation period by six weeks. I shall come to the consultation responses later. It turned out to be one of the largest consultation exercises that the Department of Health has organised for a long time. We took great efforts, as the right hon. Lady will be aware from her time as a Minister, to ensure that everyone with an opinion and an interest in this subject could comment on the proposals.

The proposed standards are aimed at promoting better quality care and helping to prevent abuse by grounding practice in the important principles of dignity, choice and respect. Older people and other adults in residential care are especially vulnerable to abuse and poor practice because of their physical and mental conditions. The proposed standards in "Fit for the Future" seek to protect residents more effectively in a number of ways.

First, they will guarantee residents access for the first time to an effective complaints procedure, which will be monitored by inspectors who will have the power to investigate unresolved complaints and take any necessary remedial action. Secondly, the standards will ensure that vulnerable people are cared for by reliable and trustworthy staff who have been carefully recruited and properly trained to do this difficult and sensitive job. Often at present, inspectors find that staff have been casually employed and are engaged in providing personal, intimate care—sometimes, sadly, with no check on their suitability and no induction or training. That is not acceptable.

The standards will ensure that residents have the right to choose the way in which they live their lives, as do you or I, Mr. Deputy Speaker—for example, when they get up or go to bed, what they would like to eat, when their relatives can visit and so on, all the details of life that go to make up one's sense of identity and individualism.

The consultation period for "Fit for the Future", as the right hon. Lady said, ended on 21 January. We have received more than 1,400 responses to the consultation document, which provoked a large response from care provider organisations and individual care providers. While there is widespread support for most of the standards proposed, it is clear that there is real concern about some of them. In particular, the physical standards, such as room size, and standards on staffing have attracted criticism from some sectors of the care industry and certain parts of the country. Again, the righ hon. Lady referred to her concerns in that regard as well. The varying levels of concern illustrate graphically the current variation in standards across the country.

We are determined to set standards that promote better quality care, but they must be realistic and affordable. We do not intend to impose unreasonable or heavy financial burdens on providers and we intend to keep the number of enforceable standards to a minimum.

The responses to the extended period of consultation on "Fit for the Future" will be important to inform the debate on the Care Standards Bill, which is being discussed in the other place. Will the Government publish the findings of that consultation? If so, will they do so by the time the Bill is debated in this House?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. I intend to refer to it. The document "Fit for the Future" identified as many as 260 possible national minimum standards. It is highly unlikely that we shall need as many as 260. Some of the proposed standards are unnecessary and may have only a marginal impact on promoting good-quality care, which must be the main purpose of the entire exercise. I cannot specify today which standards we shall adopt because we are still considering the matter. We have 1,400 responses to go through and the consultation period expired only on 21 January.

I hope that I can give the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk an idea of our initial thinking on two of the issues to which she referred. I refer first to staffing. I confirm that we do not accept that fixed ratios are the best means of specifying the number of qualified nurses who should be employed in nursing homes. That should relate instead to the assessed needs of the residents in each home at any one time and we are considering what models of assessment should be recognised by the commission for that purpose. Similarly, we are considering how nursing needs are defined initially, so that staffing levels can be best set accurately and realistically. Nor am I convinced that ancillary staffing levels, including catering and domestic staff, should be specified by fixed ratios. Instead, they should take account of the degree of efficiency and effectiveness shown by operators in managing such tasks, as observed in the outcome of the quality of the care that is provided.

As the right hon. Lady would expect, we are considering carefully the standards concerned with the physical characteristics of a home. In doing so, we must take account of the high levels of physical frailty of many older people when they enter residential and nursing homes. Room size is an important aspect of the quality of life. Hon. Members have only to think about the significance to them of their own home and work environments to know the importance of a minimum standard of space. It is also an important aspect of safety for staff and residents, when special aids and adaptations for lifting and handling must be used.

While I cannot yet make an announcement, I can assure right hon. and hon. Members that we do not intend to impose on existing providers physical standards that are not already being met by their competitors. They will be standards that they should be able to meet over time. I can also announce today that any requirement to meet new standards on room sizes in the future will apply only after the end of the transitional period and not, for example, on the sale or transfer of an existing home to a new owner.

None of the standards will be implemented until at least 2002 when the National Care Standards Commission takes on its regulatory role. Some standards, particularly the more challenging and those relating to the physical environment of a care home will not be introduced until some time after the commission has started its work in 2002. In deciding on the time scale for introducing the finalised standards, we will ensure that providers are given sufficient time to meet those requirements. We aim to publish the finalised standards and their implementation timetable later this year. But—to respond to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)—I intend to make an announcement about room sizes during the spring, which may be of use to those who debate the Bill in Committee.

The right hon. Lady alluded to other issues to which I shall not have time to respond fully. Naturally, I stand ready at any time to discuss such matters in greater detail with the right hon. Lady, who has certainly shown that she has a sound grasp of the subject. She referred to Lion House in Downham Market in her constituency. It is unfortunate that people have read the standards in "Fit for the Future" and assumed that they will be the final minimum standards. I have tried to make it clear today that that is not the case. In any event, the standards could not apply until after the National Care Standards Commission is set up in 2002. There will then have to be a transitional period before some of the more demanding standards could realistically be implemented. We are talking about years, not weeks or months. Decisions by inspection units to move to adopting those standards now or by care home owners to change the ownership of or close a home, taken simply on the basis of the consultation document, would be premature. We will respond fully to the concerns expressed.

Before I call the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) to speak on the subject of support for jazz, I hope that I may be permitted to say what a pleasure it is to welcome the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to respond to the debate.

I am most grateful and pleased to have this opportunity to speak on behalf of jazz in our country, with its audience of millions and its wonderful musicians. Jazz is a significant contributor to the world of the arts and, as a lover of jazz and a former musician, I want jazz to prosper and grow and to bring its joys to many present and future generations.

Jazz has a vigour and life of its own but, like virtually all art through the ages, it requires additional support to reach its full potential to sustain and nurture its musicians and audience and to make a full contribution to our world. Jazz requires financial support and benign governmental sustenance. Art requires subsidy, and always has. Historically, religious institutions, monarchs, aristocrats, the wealthy and the corporate world have always realised that if one wants to see and hear the best, that costs. Great architecture, craftsmanship, visual art and music have to some extent always been patronised, sponsored and subsidised; so it has to be with jazz.

In a democratic age, it is right for the state to subsidise the arts. The arts should receive more support in our country than they do at present if they are to be for the many and not the few. Within the arts family, underfunded as it is, jazz is a poor relation. Jazz needs and deserves support, as a legitimate and distinct art form, along with opera, the visual arts, theatre and cinema. Our museums and art galleries are publicly financed; were they not, much art would be the preserve of the rich. Our public libraries have also brought literature to countless millions. Jazz receives some public funding but it is too little and sometimes derisory.

I should perhaps declare an interest, as secretary of the all-party parliamentary jazz appreciation group, which has some illustrious members, including the Deputy Prime Minister, the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am also a member of the all-party opera group, a supporter of the Globe theatre and was, in my youth, a modest performer of Mozart. I therefore speak for jazz within a broader arts perspective. Jazz does not have its fair share of the arts budget, which is itself too small, although I should point out that I appreciate and admire my right hon. Friend for his own love of the arts and acknowledge that he operates within certain constraints.

My case for jazz needs some facts and statistics to support it and I am indebted to Jazz Services Ltd. for providing much background information for this debate. That organisation was formed 16 years ago to promote the growth and development of jazz and is funded by the Arts Council of England. Musicians throughout the country play jazz. Many UK jazz musicians have developed international reputations and have committed their works to recordings that are eagerly sought by a worldwide audience. No major city in the UK is without a jazz scene. Mature musicians of established reputation and young musicians, many with great flair and originality, seek a serious audience who can understand and enjoy their music. They perform in a variety of settings: concert halls, arts centres, village halls, ballrooms, restaurants, coffee houses and public houses. Every summer there is a profusion of jazz festivals all over the country, many attracting some of the finest jazz musicians in the world.

One of the features of the British jazz audience is its size—some 3 million people patronise such events and four to five times as many again have a definable interest in jazz. It is interesting that the jazz audience is very much the same as that for opera.

The prime characteristics of a jazz audience at a typical small-scale venue are that it would have a 3:2 ratio of males to females, 70 per cent. of the audience would be aged between 16 and 35, 30 per cent. would be full-time students, and 50 per cent. would be from the ABC1 social groupings. Of course, that means that 50 per cent. would be from the C2, D and E groupings, which means that jazz has a wide appeal.

From 1993, Jazz Services Ltd. has advocated increased public support for jazz in the United Kingdom. The jazz on a shoestring campaign was launched in 1995, and an early-day motion about it attracted the support of more than 100 Members. A 10,000-signature petition in support of the campaign was presented to the then chairman of the Arts Council of England, Lord Gowrie, by Humphrey Lyttleton, John Dankworth and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase), who organised the petition.

Jazz Services Ltd. made representations to the then National Heritage Committee, the first report of which on the funding of the performing and visual arts in February 1996 stated:

"We do not believe that the different level of overheads in the performance of jazz and opera explains the massive discrepancy between the subsidy per member of the audience in the two forms of music; the Arts Council should look again at the funding of live jazz played by British musicians, in particular the National Youth Jazz Orchestra"—

NYJO—.

"and local youth jazz orchestras".

NYJO is a jewel in our national musical crown and a marvellous training ground for hundreds of young musicians over the years. This year, NYJO has lost vital sponsorship funding, and has been offered an additional £500 by the Arts Council. That is an example of the derisory funding that I mentioned earlier, and is indicative of the regard in which jazz is held by some in the arts establishment.

In 1999–2000, Arts Council subsidy per attendee for jazz is 25p. For classical music, it is £2.26, and for opera, £12.75, which is 51 times the subsidy for jazz. I fully support the opera subsidy. I do not want to rob Pavarotti to pay Courtney Pine, but jazz deserves more. I am sad to say that the jazz subsidy has fallen by 4p per head since 1996–97, while opera funding has increased by 52p per head.

If we add Arts Council funding to support for jazz from the regional arts boards, the spending in 1997–98 of £1.9 million fell to a budget for this year of £1 million, which is in round terms a cut of more than 40 per cent. That is shabby by any standards. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will try to secure better funding for jazz.

Another restriction on the performance and accessibility of jazz is the so-called two-in-a-bar rule, which means that only two musicians can play in licensed premises without a public entertainment licence. That denies employment opportunities to jazz musicians. Many styles of music suffer from the rule, but jazz is hit especially hard. Licensing is not the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I hope that he can use his influence with fellow Ministers to seek the necessary legislative change. I understand from the Musicians Union that the Government have accepted the argument for change, and I look forward to proposals in the forthcoming White Paper.

The jazz community congratulates the Government on their new deal for musicians, which is aimed at getting young musicians off the dole. The success of the project depends on young musicians being able to form and join bands and find venues in which to play. Pubs, clubs and restaurants are key, and 100,000 such venues are restricted by law to two musicians in a bar. Even if 10 per cent. became additional venues, that would mean 10,000 more places in which jazz groups could play.

I must conclude, but I would like to say more about jazz in other spheres, such as education and the media, and the need to make jazz more available to all from a young age. Appreciation of all arts depends to some extent on early familiarity. Britain is an intensely musical nation, bursting with talent, and in jazz we are second only to the USA. We have produced many world-class musicians as well as millions of discerning listeners. We have a proud jazz tradition and stunningly good young musicians, but jazz needs and deserves more support from Government.

Jazz was given to the world by black Americans, but is now an international multicultural music that knows no class boundaries and is a force for friendship. Like my political party, it has recently completed its first century, and promises more joy and exhilaration in the new millennium. I hope that the Government can show how much pride we have in Britain's great jazz tradition with more support for jazz at every level for the future.

I have often spoken about jazz in the past, but this is the first occasion on which I have been unable to accompany my talk with recorded musical contributions. That is a shame because jazz can, and does, speak for itself, and I have seen many in my audiences over the years whose eyes have shown that they have fallen under the spell of great music. My children grew up to the sounds of jazz and are as at home with Count Basie as they are with the Beatles or J.S. Bach. I would like everyone to have such choices and to experience the full richness that all music, including jazz, has to offer.

Before I call the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) I inform hon. Members that he has, as is proper, received the permission of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) and the Secretary of State to participate in the debate.

It would be remiss of me not to speak in the debate, as I am the chairman of the all-party jazz appreciation group and something of a fanatic in my pursuit of the jazz medium. I must compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) for obtaining the debate and for the business like way in which he has approached his role in the jazz appreciation group. He has not only encouraged people to listen to the medium and to appreciate the wide diversity and tremendous colour of the jazz scene, but worked generally on behalf of jazz.

Sadly, this is not a good time for the funding of the jazz world. I am also a member of the all-party opera group, and was the founding secretary of the Scottish opera group, which contributed to the solution that saved Scottish opera a few years ago. We have had the aid of some important people, including Lady Smith, the widow of the former Labour leader, who is very active in that group.

I must correct my hon. Friend on one point. Believe it or not, the Belgians not the Americans, gave us the saxophone. A gentleman called Dr. Sax invented the saxophone as a marching instrument for military bands; obviously it lends itself to being carried and played. Thank goodness—

I know that very well. The Americans gave the world jazz and taught it how to play the saxophone properly.

Indeed, I was going to pay a compliment to one Ornette Coleman, who was probably the first practitioner of jazz and bebop as we know it. He was sacked from some big swing bands that liked a nice rhythm and did not like him to go off and freelance as he did, although that has of course become the stock of most good jazz concerts.

I was thinking about this debate on Saturday when I went to hear the Scottish National Jazz Orchestra, which is led by Tommy Smith, a young boy from an impoverished background in Edinburgh. He was encouraged at the age of 12 to take up the saxophone at the Wester Hails community centre; he went on to Berklee and now writes some of the best pieces. Joe Lovano, who is of European extraction but plays in New York, played with him on Saturday night. They performed a beautiful, inspirational piece called "Torah", which was written by Tommy Smith and which is based on the first three books of the Bible. To those who turn up their noses at jazz, as something that happens in bars, I can say that the performance matched anything in the classical field.

However, I want to speak about the crisis that affects NYJO. We must compliment people such as Bill Ashton, who has kept NYJO alive by begging and seeking sponsorship for 25 to 30 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North mentioned the massive loss of sponsorship.

UNISON has kept NYJO on the road for the past three years by giving it £30,000, which is remarkable for a trade union. The union also gives substantial sponsorship to a brass band in my constituency, the former Kinneil colliery band. Clearly, it has supported a wide range of music on behalf of its members and has been fundamental to keeping NYJO alive.

NYJO now has a serious problem that £500 from the Arts Council will not solve. We must look seriously at an orchestra that has been the breeding ground for some of the best young jazz musicians—now probably mature jazz musicians—around the world. I hope that the Minister will give particular consideration to the plight of NYJO.

I have always found it strange that Humphrey Lyttleton, one of the great founders of British jazz, is not knighted—in fact, he is not even a lord. It is about time we had people to join John Dankworth in the pantheon of jazz. I hope that the Minister is listening. Bill Ashton may also deserve a small honour for his sterling work on behalf of jazz.

Those matters are important. By giving not only cash but support, the Government show that they appreciate the cultural diversity encouraged by people who lead orchestras such as the Strathclyde youth orchestra, or the school orchestras with many brass players who play jazz. Clearly, we can do a lot through education. If we could recognise some of the work of individuals, we could put jazz on a respectable footing. I hope that the two-in-a-bar rule will change. That would be important as it would provide 10,000 new venues. I also hope that the Minister will seriously consider encouraging the Arts Council to recognise jazz. Perhaps he might think of using some form of direct funding. Jazz has certainly enhanced my life.

I have met young people in London who used to come to my home, such as Stephen Hamilton, a young jazz pianist who has played on many CDs that have been released in Britain and who used to play the old battered piano in my front room. Sadly, I have to say that my son, a software engineer in London, earns three times as much in a year as he does. Stephen could clearly have done that job, but he chose to pursue his love for jazz instead. He is a great talent, but his annual takings do not add up to a good salary, and he receives only slightly more than the average wage, because of what he calls his art. We can support him only by giving money to that art to show that we recognise his giving, and the giving of many talented jazz players in Britain.

I am sure that I speak on behalf of all hon. Members when I say how grateful we are to the Secretary of State for coming to give encouragement to debates in Westminster Hall, and for finding time to reply to this debate on jazz. His action is a great fillip.

I am delighted to be here today, because it is fascinating to see for the first time the proceedings in Westminister Hall, which are eminently more civilised than those in the Chamber. Furthermore, jazz is of great importance, and by replying in person I want to show the significance that I attach to it.

I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) on his choice of tie, which is extremely appropriate, because it is the parliamentary jazz group's tie. It is a pleasure to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), who had a distinguised year as parliamentary private secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) when he served as a Minister of State in my Department. It was a pleasure to work closely with my hon. Friend during that period.

I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friends have said. The starting point has to be that it is important to recognise that the funding system reflects the diversity of musical genres, whether they be jazz, folk, African-Caribbean, early music or any of the more traditional styles that have been supported from public funds. It is also important that those funds help to support and generate a great diversity of audiences, because the same audience does not appreciate all types of music.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North is aware, the arts are subsidised using the arm's-length principle. Decisions on funding for individual art forms or organisations are taken by those with the relevant expertise in the Arts Council of England or in the regional arts boards. It is important that Ministers do not intervene directly in those decisions. The Government should set the framework within which arts funding operates. Support for the full diversity of music in England is an important principle. However, decisions about grants to particular organisations, and even the balance between different genres of artistic activity, must be for the Arts Council and, increasingly, the RABs, to which much decision making is rightly being devolved. The Arts Council and the RABs include experts who can make decisions about particular arts organisations. Politicians and civil servants simply do not have that expertise. It is important to set the principle, which must be that jazz deserves good support from the public funding system.

Before I discuss funding, I shall touch briefly on the public entertainment licensing regulations to which my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, North and for Falkirk, East referred, and in particular the two-in-a-bar rule. I am pleased to say that, together with colleagues in other Departments, especially the Home Office, we are actively reviewing the constraints that the licensing system places on musical performance in such venues, and I hope that in due course we shall be able to introduce deregulatory measures to assist the broad picture.

I cannot deny that opera and classical music account for the bulk of Arts Council funding. The statistics that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North cited speak for themselves. That is perhaps not surprising given the nature of both art forms. Opera and classical music cost more than other forms of music. They employ large numbers of people, such as musicians, choruses, designers, riggers and technicians, for example, to achieve their effects. In addition, the cost of hiring soloists is often dictated by the international market.

Classical music has a history of private patronage, which translated in the post-war era into public subsidy, which continues to this day. Jazz, on the other hand, has a different heritage. It is rooted in the musical traditions of Afro-Caribbean Americans. West African and black folk music forms developed in the Americas.

The word "jazz" has a variety of meanings, encompassing a broad and changing stream of styles. Within those styles, each jazz performance represents an original and largely spontaneous creation, as an essential element of jazz is improvisation. Jazz music is a unique art form. It stands alone in its use of improvisatory practices as the focal point of the music. It provides great scope for individuality and creativity. Its vitality stems from the spontaneity of the improvising musician.

In its turn, jazz has influenced the development of new styles of popular music and the work of symphonic composers. The interaction of different styles and genres of music is one of the most welcome developments in modern musical tradition. We are witnessing the fusing of different traditions and types of creativity, which is extremely welcome.

Subsidy acts as investment, provides continuity, allows artistic risks, sustains the best of tradition, develops new talent and feeds, but does not replace, the commercial entertainment economy. That is not to say that jazz should not be supported from the public purse; it must be. It would struggle without that support. However, a mixture of funding sources is appropriate for jazz, which is an important part of the UK contemporary music scene.

No one would doubt the existence of a jazz economy, as evidenced by the number of private sector jazz clubs, concerts, festivals, dedicated record labels and, indeed, in Jazz FM, a commercial radio station specifically devoted to jazz. The Arts Council's funding for jazz is currently about £1 million in grant in aid, which includes support from the new audiences fund. Jazz has also benefited from lottery funding, and is a key part of the work of the National Foundation for Youth Music, an organisation that we established, with £30 million over three years of lottery support from the Arts Council of England, and which is designed to support all types of musical development and activity, including jazz, among young people. As my hon. Friend mentioned, the new deal for young musicians, enabling people who are otherwise unemployed to develop their musical skills and experience, is particularly appropriate for young jazz musicians.

In addition, awards have been made to organisations that are developing the jazz musicians and audiences of tomorrow. JazzDev, for example, formed over 15 years ago to promote the growth and development of jazz in the UK and primarily funded by the Arts Council of England, works closely with other UK organisations to give voice to jazz. JazzDev has recently been awarded money from the new audiences fund to work with four arts marketing agencies in Leeds, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool on measurable exercises to increase arts audiences across all sectors, including jazz. JazzDev's grant in aid increased by 8.5 per cent. this year and will increase by 5 per cent. in the next financial year.

My hon. Friend the ⅞ember for Luton, North mentioned the work of the National Youth Jazz Orchestra. I am pleased to tell him that, after an admittedly tiny increase in funding in the current financial year, that orchestra will receive a 24.4 per cent. increase in 2001–02. The grants of the Arts Council of England to the English regional arts boards will in 2000–01 be nearly 20 per cent. higher than in the current financial year. The regional arts boards are free to develop music policies appropriate to their different regional contexts and audience needs. Many jazz organisations will look to those boards over the coming months to use some of their substantially increased funding, which is designed to increase support for jazz. Money is available, much of it through the RABS, for new and not so new programmes which are designed to benefit applicants from outside the classical mainstream.

The Arts Council of England published its policy for the support of jazz in November 1996 and both it and the RABs remain fully committed to its recommendations. Much has been done since that report, but much remains to be done. My hon. Friends have today done us a great service in reminding us of that. We have encouraged the Arts Council to reform itself and the funding system it operates. Gerry Robinson as chairman and Peter Hewitt as chief executive of that body have achieved much in the past two years. There is still much to do, however.

The Arts Council is keen to ensure that all forms of art and music receive support and funding, but it must make the final decisions; I cannot do so. I recommend that both my hon. Friends and all in the jazz constituency maintain their dialogue with the Arts Council, particularly with the RABs. They should point firmly to the principle that we have established throughout the past two and a half years that diverse musical types and activities deserve support and should give as much encouragement as possible to those parts of the funding system that rightfully ensure that jazz is supported and continues to play a major part in the musical and artistic life of this country.

I am pleased to secure the debate as a way of highlighting an issue that has been brought to my attention by several constituents. I am not, nor have I ever been, a lawyer, so I seek the Committee's indulgence if I use wrong legal aid terms. Several cases have been brought to my attention by people who believe that those taking action against them are doing so on the basis of legal aid funding that has been secured fraudulently, and I shall refer to one such case. I accept that the Minister cannot address the specific details of the case as it is still on-going. I am looking for a general response to this and similar cases.

I hope that the Government will say that they are serious about investigating claims of fraud in the system and will offer some encouragement to my constituent that his experience will not be repeated. I am sure that many other hon. Members have had similar experiences in their surgeries of listening to the frustration felt by people who are paying for their own costs while defending themselves against someone whom they believe is receiving legal aid through misrepresentation or trying to change the circumstances of the case to take advantage of loopholes.

The frustration to which I refer comes from several features of the operation of the system. First, it often appears to people that the Legal Aid Board does not act swiftly or effectively to take legal aid away from claimants when evidence is produced that suggests that their claim is ineligible. Secondly, the sort of evidence that must be produced to prove that someone's claim is invalid seems to go well beyond that which is required in other areas of means-tested public funds. Thirdly, I draw attention to the lack of feedback to the complainant about what action has followed the allegations. The fact that the law often requires that there is no feedback certainly compounds the frustration felt by people in such situations. The legal protection against revealing information is understandable and I shall not challenge that in this debate. I shall focus instead on the delay and the ineffectiveness of the system for responding to the allegations that someone is ineligible for legal aid.

A case was brought to my attention by Mr. Barry Whitworth, the chairman of T. W. Ward Machinery Ltd. in Sheffield. It concerns a former director and shareholder, Mr. William Gerrard. The case has a long history; it was raised with my predecessor before the 1997 general election and it deals with matters that go back about 14 years to 1986. In 1995, my constituent wrote a letter to the then Lord Chancellor which opened with the comment that be believed that the Lord Chancellor had expressed concern at how legal aid was being administered and that reforms were in prospect. The Government may be able to claim that some reforms have been made since then, although there may be a dispute about their nature. However, things have certainly moved on.

Mr. Whitworth said that his small company and its employees were being seriously threatened by what he believed to be a shocking and blatant abuse of the legal aid system. A former director and shareholder was dismissed from employment with the company in November 1986. He had failed on three occasions through court proceedings with claims against the company. He then obtained a legal aid certificate with which to go to the appeal court to pursue the claims further. My constituent believed that his objective was, and always had been, to cause as much aggravation and cost to the company because of the circumstances of the dismissal. He cited as evidence in support of that view the fact that the individual had turned down several attempts to settle the claim out of court.

My constituent accepted that there was a valid dispute and had attempted to settle it. He believed, however, that the individual continued to pursue the case because he wished to continue to cause aggravation to the company against which he felt some grievance. My constituent cites as primary evidence for his belief that the individual should not have had a legal aid certificate the fact that the individual was operating as a machine tool dealer, which was a similar line of business to his own. He believed that the individual obtained the legal aid certificate by putting his company into receivership and then continuing with what was effectively the same business from the same premises with the same stock, but had moved it into his wife's name with only a minor change of trading identity. My constituent believed that that was a technique to obtain significant legal costs.

My constituent believed that the individual was enjoying a reasonable life style, earning in excess of £50,000 a year, that he had stock in his warehouse with a retail value of more than £500,000 and that he was advertising machinery with a stock value in excess of £1 million. He had evidence that the person involved was holidaying in places such as Australia and New Zealand, and felt that that would be sufficient to disqualify him under the constraints of the legal aid system, which requires that people should be in need before having access to public funds. My constituent felt as though he had a gun to his head in relation to the court proceedings, while the other person involved had a blank cheque to underwrite his ability to continue the court case well beyond what my constituent thought reasonable.

The Legal Aid Board's reponse took three months to arrive. My constituent made his claims in December 1995, and in February 1996 he received a letter from the policy and secretariat of the Legal Aid Board that detailed the relevant considerations. The letter informed my constituent that section 38 of the Legal Aid Act 1988 prevents the disclosure of information and said that the information supplied to the Cardiff area office, where the application had been made, met the statutory tests and that the Benefits Agency had determined that the assisted person was financially eligible for legal aid.

My constituent thought that strange, given his information. He supplied the information that I cited from the original letter about why the person involved should be considered ineligible, and was told that it would be sent to the Benefits Agency's legal aid assessment office in Preston. He was assured that an investigation would take place and that a report would be made on the investigation. No response arrived, but in August 1996 my constituent was informed that the legal aid certificate had been revoked for other reasons to which he would not be privy. However, by 4 September 1996, the legal aid had been reinstated and the case was due to resume. My constituent could not be told why.

My constituent's solicitors expressed their anger at that turn of events, which they felt was highly inappropriate and placed my constituent in a difficult position. They wrote to the Legal Aid Board's legal department, saying that the net effect of the decision to revoke the certificate and subsequently reinstate it was that substantial work done over the years by the first firm of solicitors would be for nought, and that further public funds would be used to employ a second firm of solicitors to spend many working days reading through the boxes of papers at a cost of thousands of pounds. They pointed out:

"All this is done to benefit a … litigant who has turned down a payment into Court made on commercial terms and who openly leads a quite extravagant lifestyle"

and clearly had access to funds. My constituent's solicitors felt that that was not an appropriate use of legal aid funds, and made significant representations on that basis.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his constituent in Sheffield is not alone in suffering from a lack of proper scrutiny and accountability in the allocation of public funds? I pay tribute to the Reading Chronicle, which has assisted in exposing the lack of scrutiny in the Reading legal aid office.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for alluding to the breadth of the problem. Many hon. Members will have had similar experiences. I know that she has a constituency interest in tackling the problem. I hope that anyone who works in the legal aid system will be able to take action and deal effectively with such matters in future.

The saga of my constituent continued throughout 1997. In September 1997, my constituent's solicitors finally received a response to their original allegations of December 1995 about the claimant's merits. The letter acknowledges the fact that the response was delayed. It notes that the board failed to inform my constituent's solicitors of the conclusion of its investigations. It contains an apology, made on behalf of the board, for that error and for any inconvenience caused. However, the response makes it clear that, having investigated the claims that had been made, the information did not materially affect the grant of legal aid. Legal aid was therefore continued to support the appeal even after the information had been supplied. The letter confirmed that my constituent could not be informed of the reasons for the decision, and that litigation was due to continue following that award. I hope that the Minister will deal with the provision of timely information by the Legal Aid Board, as that is an especially disturbing aspect of the case. My constituent has been trying to run a business and plan his legal costs, and it has been difficult to obtain information about what was happening.

In February 1999, my constituent contacted me again to express his ongoing frustration that the situation had still not been resolved. He informed me that he was

"appalled to hear from the news this morning that the auditors for the Legal Aid Board have qualified their accounts for the seventh year and state that no less than 13 per cent. of recipients of legal aid are not qualified to receive their support."

I would be interested to hear the Minister's response to that. All hon. Members can imagine my constituent's frustration on reading that in his daily paper when he felt that the person against whom he was conducting his legal business should have fallen into such a category. He said that the continuing scandal was unacceptable bearing in mind that the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Government had promised to deal with any corruption and ability to defraud the system. A new selection of papers that he sent to me made it clear that his business was suffering because of his problems. He had lost count of the number of legal firms that had represented his opponent during the 13 years, and said that his opponent was able to continue only because of the legal aid system's support. He again said that he believed that the individual had means and continued to run a machine tool business. Anyone in the trade has access to information about other people in it, and he is sure that the individual is carrying on a substantial business.

I wrote to the Lord Chancellor's Department in response to my constituent's letter and received an explanation of the situation and some qualifications of it. I sent it to my constituent, who was disturbed to read that

"To qualify financially, an applicant's disposable means must be within certain limits. These are currently £7,777 per annum for income and £6,750 for capital."

My constituent felt that the capital limit might be exceeded, in view of the representations that he had made about the business holding £500,000 of goods. He sent me several advertisements and the accounts for Severn Machine Tools Ltd., with which he believed that the claimant was involved. Advertisements from magazines such as Machinery Market in September 1988 and January 2000 set out a catalogue of valuable equipment that my constituent believes is in the control of the individual against whom he is claiming. He again sent me company accounts for the firm to show me that it had substantial assets that he believed should qualify.

Action was taken by the Legal Aid Board in 1999 to remove the legal aid certificate from Mr. Gerrard, presumably based on information that my constituent supplied about the means. My constituent became even angrier when he found that mistakes were made in that process, and his frustration was understandable. A letter from the Legal Aid Board in November 1999 explained the situation. It said that

"Mr. Gerrard ceased to receive legal aid on 20 April when his legal aid certificate was revoked",

but it could not give

"any further information … due to the provisions of Section 38 of the Legal Aid Act".

It states that an individual can appeal, and that therefore a hearing took place

"on 5 August 1999 when the Area Committee resolved to dismiss the appeal and to confirm the revocation of the certificate. However … regrettably an administrative error was found in the appeals process necessitating the reinstatement of Mr. Gerrard's certificate. However, this office is still actively investigating the matters".

There was a further period of uncertainty. To its credit, the Legal Aid Board took the opportunity to apologise to my constituent

"for the unfortunate administrative error"

and to assure him that

"matters … are being actively considered … and a final decision should be available shortly".

However, the administrative error allowed further adjournments of the case, and while the uncertainty remained my constituent continued to incur legal costs because his solicitor had to deal with the situation.

I close with a final letter from my constituent written in January this year. He sent me further documentation, told me about the catalogue of errors and mismanagement and then explained again his situation by saying that he is

"in limbo whilst the system appears to provide little or nothing in the way of support or sympathy of any kind for our case whilst clearly bending over backwards to help this individual".

He again sent me the latest company advertisement which, as usual, involves several million pounds of machine tools and equipment in a business with which he believes the individual is involved. My constituent feels that he is in limbo and that the case needs to be resolved.

I have had other cases that give me cause for concern, where what I believe to be credible allegations of fraud do not seem to be properly followed up. In particular, spouses or partners are used in such fraud; in some cases, spouses are said to hold assets and in others it is denied that someone is a partner where doing so provides a good loophole. I have had a case of someone who told the Legal Aid Board that the house he lived in, the car he drove and everything else belonged to his landlady with whom he had no personal relationship; he was just a lodger who paid rent. Yet I was given other information to suggest that there was a relationship. I question whether the Benefits Agency would decide in such circumstances to pursue the individual to see whether he was being supported and had access to assets because of a relationship.

I hope that the Minister will state that the Government are committed to a fair legal aid system. I do not wish the scope of legal aid to be too restricted because legal aid is essential for some people to obtain access to the legal system and claim their rights under the law. However, I wish to see it available to the genuinely deserving, if one can use that phrase—those who are otherwise too poor to go to court. I wish the Legal Aid Board to act vigorously to ensure that that is the case when making grants of legal aid. I look forward to a positive response from the Minister to the concerns that I have raised about the general issues of my constituent's case.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) on securing the debate and thank him for raising the matter today. I was grateful to hear about the problems that he perceives in the legal aid scheme. As he knows, the Government take welfare fraud extremely seriously and are determined to tackle it in any form, including legal aid.

As the hon. Gentleman said, at the moment people are entitled to receive legal aid only if they qualify financially and if their case has enough merit to warrant it. It is vital that public funds are not wasted by being committed to weak or trivial cases, when the money could be better used elsewhere. The Legal Aid Board is acutely aware that granting legal aid has important consequences for both sides. It gives one party the access to justice that he needs and otherwise might not get, but at the same time it can greatly affect the balance of power in a case. The board therefore takes very seriously both the process of granting legal aid and the requirement to keep people's legal aid under review.

I shall briefly address the points raised about the individual case. As the hon. Gentleman said, legal aid was granted only in October 1996, to support an application to the Court of Appeal. Mr. Gerrard was a director, shareholder and employee of T. W. Ward Machinery Ltd. and his case against the company began in October 1986. Legal aid was granted only in December 1994 when the case went to appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed that appeal and as a result Mr. Gerrard was granted a full civil legal aid certificate, following his success at the Court of Appeal. In August 1996, following representations from T. W. Ward's solicitors about the merits of Mr. Gerrard's case, the area office decided to discharge his certificate. Mr. Gerrard appealed to the independent area committee, which reinstated his certificate.

Such cases will not get legal aid in future. Publicly funded help needs to be focused on cases where substantial but limited resources can do the most good. So some types of case will come out of the scheme altogether—including business cases. The Government do not believe that those warrant a share of the limited funding that will be available. However, a suitable alternative exists, in the form of conditional fee agreements, that still gives access to justice. The Government have recently said that the rules will change in April to allow insurance premiums and the success fee to be recoverable, thus making a conditional fee agreement a real possibility in the type of cases that we are discussing. Someone facing a conditional fee agreement, particularly backed by an insurance policy, will be able to litigate, confident that if he successfully defeats the claim, a fund exists against which the costs of meeting the litigation can be claimed.

The Legal Aid Board took over responsibility from the Benefits Agency for means assessment during 1997. The first time that it considered the representations in the case was in October 1998. The case was referred to the newly set up special investigations unit in December. The unit investigated the matter promptly and Mr. Gerrard's certificate was embargoed in March 1999 and then revoked in April. I accept, as the hon. Gentleman said, that there were some procedural errors during the revocation progress, but I stress that the embargo remains in force so that Mr. Gerrard's solicitors have not been able to take his case further on legal aid.

Mr. Gerrard has appealed, so I cannot say any more about the status of his certificate. That is a matter for the independent board. At the time of his original application, responsibility for means assessment in civil legal aid cases lay with the Benefits Agency. During 1997, the task was transferred to the Legal Aid Board and a special investigations unit was set up to deal with applications from people with particularly complex means. The SIU carries out a thorough investigation when the applicant has complex finances and perhaps an aura of wealth. Its aim is to detect any non-disclosure of assets and to provide an accurate means assessment in accordance with the legal aid regulations.

I shall refer to two matters in passing. Transferring assets to one's spouse will not assist a legal aid application because, rightly, the regulations require applicants to disclose the assets both of themselves and their spouses. I can say to the hon. Gentleman that, if anyone is considering transferring the yacht, the business, the shares and the pension fund to his spouse, it will not do any good. Secondly, he rightly referred to the qualification on the Legal Aid Board's accounts. That came about because the category of people that the auditors could not accept as eligible arose in criminal cases when legal aid is granted by the court, not in civil cases when legal aid is granted on evidence provided by the applicant's solicitor.

However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that, through the recovery of defence cost orders provisions that will come in force later this year, the issue of who is or who is not eligible for legal aid in criminal cases and how proper contribution is obtained from those who have assets for their criminal defence will be dealt with properly. We are confident that the new system will meet many of the objections raised about the previous system.

The hon. Gentleman referred to representations. Last year, the board received 5,500 representations relating to means. That compares with more than 6,000 in the previous year. I expect the figures for the present year to show a further reduction as, for the first half of the year, only 2,292 were received. Merits representation also show a slight decrease. The majority of representations are considered by the board's area offices. Last year, 68 per cent. of them led to no change in the certificate. Of those that did result in a change, the most likely outcome was either discharge or revocation, which was 28 per cent. of the total.

In October 1998, new guidance was issued that aimed to ensure that all claims are dealt with within three months of receipt of representations. When there are complex financial circumstances to investigate, it may take longer, but the aim is to respond within three months.

Merits challenges raise particular difficulties. I have already mentioned the effect that the granting of legal aid has on the power structure betwen the parties in a case. People with legal aid have protection against paying costs that private clients do not enjoy. Even though legal aid costs are carefully controlled, they can still have a daunting effect on the other party to the litigation. The board takes representations seriously and considers them carefully.

Often at the core of representations are disputes over the facts that are a matter for the court to try. It is not for the board to try those issues, nor can it refuse or discharge legal aid purely because the other side would be put in a difficult financial position if legal aid were continued. Its role is to decide whether the applicant has a good case to put before the court, one that a reasonable person of moderate means woud back with his or her own money.

The board is also conscious that advice about the merits of a case comes from the applicant's solicitor or barrister. Lawyers owe duties both to the client and to the legal aid fund, and those duties can conflict. We accept that there may be a temptation for solicitors to overstate the merits of an applicant's case. That can be done in an effort to improve the cleint's bargaining positon or because the solicitor wishes to see the case progress and knows that, if the board is advised that the case is weak, it is likely that legal aid will be discharged. We are conscious of the fact that the same solicitor will be paid from the Legal Aid Board, should legal aid continue.

In the past, the merits test did not give enough recognition to that conflict. The stricter funding code and the Government's intention to target funds where they can do the most good will enable the new Legal Services Commission, which will come into effect in April, to monitor and ensure that the conflict is properly recognised in the granting of legal aid. If there is doubt about the merits of a case, the Legal Aid Board can refer the application to an independent barrister for an opinion. A pilot of those arrangements is under way at the Cambridge office and I expect it to be used more in the future.

The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the SIU has been successful to date. It has conducted about 500 investigations on civil legal aid and, of those, 82 per cent. led to a change in the certificate. A little under 50 per cent. of the total were revoked, so, for all purposes, the applicant would be treated as if he were never granted legal aid in the first place and would not receive cost protection from the beginning of the case. Of the remaining 32 per cent. the majority were discharged or refused. A small percentage resulted in a change to the contributions payable. Since 1998, the SIU has also prepared reports to help courts to determine applications for criminal legal aid and, during its one-year pilot operation, it received 100 referrals. Its success in those cases was even more impressive; in 98 per cent. of them, it recommended to the court that it should refuse legal aid or change the contributions payable.

The hon. Gentleman referred to confidentiality. The problem under the present rules is that, when information is received about an applicant's status, it is rightly protected by confidentiality. The Government are committed to combating welfare fraud and, under the existing Legal Aid Act 1988, the Legal Aid Board can pass information to other agencies only when there is suspected fraud under that Act. I am pleased to say that, as a result of section 20 of the Access to Justice Act 1999, which will come into force in April this year, the commission will be able to disclose information for the detection of any offence to any appropriate body, not just those under the Legal Aid Act 1988. The message must go out to anyone who is considering applying for legal aid by providing false information that the legal aid authorities have the right to refer that to the Benefits Agency or the police or to take any other steps to highlight welfare benefit fraud. Anyone who provides false information when applying for legal aid is likely to be found out and I am sure that that will affect the balance between the parties in litigation.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the many issues concerning legal aid. I hope that the framework of the Access to Justice Act will result in a much better, tighter and appropriate use of public funding in cases where it is merited.