It gives me great pleasure to open the debate on the fourth report of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland of the previous Session. The report, which is entitled "The Operation of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989: Ten Years On", is based on evidence taken by the Select Committee between December 1998 and May 1999. The Committee was ably advised in its inquiry by Dr. Christopher McCrudden, then reader in law at Oxford university and a fellow of Lincoln college, Oxford. Dr. McCrudden has since been elevated by the university to the chair of human rights law and I congratulate him on that well-deserved promotion. The Committee was congratulated on the thoroughness of its report by the Committee on Administration of Justice, but we were reminded that follow-ups would be desirable. This debate affords an opportunity for such a follow-up.

The centrality to the difficulties in Northern Ireland of discrimination in general and in employment in particular has been recognised for many years. The first fair employment legislation for Northern Ireland was enacted in 1976. It was significantly amended and strengthened in the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. I was in the Commons during the concluding stages of the Act's passage, which occurred during the curious week in July 1989 when I had been appointed Secretary of State for Northern Ireland but had not yet taken office. The Act created the Fair Employment Commission. During its passage, the Government committed themselves to review its operation and such policy in general within five years of its enactment. The independent Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, to which the task of the review was ultimately entrusted, recommended substantial changes in a report published in June 1997.

The Government set out their response in the "Partnership for Equality" White Paper, which was published in March 1998, and accepted some of the recommendations. However, they went further and proposed the merger of the four existing equality bodies, which included the Fair Employment Commission, into a single equality commission. The White Paper triggered the Committee's inquiry, although, upon its renewal in July 1997, the Committee had already discussed the possibility of such an inquiry and deferred it until we could pass the verdict of a decade on the working of the 1989 Act.

The Belfast agreement gave added impetus to the further reform of fair employment legislation as it included a Government commitment to make rapid progress with measures for employment equality. The Northern Ireland Act 1998, which implemented the Belfast agreement, accomplished several aims in the broader equality field, including the merger of the four equality bodies and the imposition of a duty on public sector bodies to ensure that each paid due regard to the need to ensure equality of opportunity between a wide range of groups in the operation of its functions. Those measures were followed in December of that year by the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, which implemented many of the White Paper's proposals and repealed and re-enacted the remaining provisions of the 1976 and 1989 Acts. As a result, all the fair employment law is now contained in a single piece of legislation.

Our inquiry was therefore undertaken at a time of considerable change in Northern Ireland's equality framework. In particular, there was major institutional change. The Equality Commission assumed the functions of the Fair Employment Commission, and the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order extended both the scope of the legislation and the number of employers covered by it. Obviously, the Committee had little or no chance to see before we reported how the new measures were working in practice. The Equality Commission had not then even been appointed.

The Committee's report contained more than 30 principal conclusions and recommendations on a wide range of matters, including the unemployment differential—a touchstone, to many people, of the extent of discrimination in Northern Ireland against the Catholic community, the cost burden on employers of fair employment legislation and the implications both of merging four specialist equality commissions into one multi-functional Equality Commission and of the new equality duty on public authorities set out in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act. Other conclusions and recommendations related to the institutional arrangements for handling equality within government, the potential contribution of contract compliance and whether existing affirmative action exceptions should be broadened.

The Government gave a broadly welcoming response to the report in October 1999, underscoring the Select Committee's comments on the importance of equality of opportunity issues to the peace process and to Northern Ireland's future. As five months have elapsed since that response, I hope that the Under-Secretary will give hon. Members an idea of the progress that has since been made in this vital matter and offer an initial assessment of how the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order is working.

The Government's response prompts me to raise several points. First, what progress can the Under-Secretary report on reducing the backlog of live industrial tribunal and fair employment tribunal cases? The response described a welcome increase in manpower and physical resources, and I hope that there has been a significant reduction in cases from the July 1999 figures.

Secondly, is the Equality Commission satisfied that it is adequately resourced? The Minister will recall that the equality working group concluded that an additional £525,000 of public money would be necessary. How much extra money have the Government made available to the commission this financial year, and what further resources will be provided next year?

Thirdly, the Committee sought an early announcement about the public authorities to be designated under section 75(3) of the Northern Ireland Act and the response promised an order last autumn. As far as I am aware, no such order has been made. What caused the delay, and when is the order expected?

Will my right hon. Friend enlarge slightly on the curious lack of decisions by the Secretary of State defining the bodies that must comply with section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act? Does he, like me, recognise that the Equality Commission is particularly exercised about that?

That is the nub and substance of my question to the Under-Secretary.

When does the Secretary of State expect to approve the draft guidelines on the form and content of public authorities' equality schemes, proposed by the Equality Commission some time ago? The Minister will recall that public bodies are under a statutory duty to submit their equality schemes to the commission by 30 June.

Fourthly, the Government's response to our recommendation in paragraph 105 on public procurement was ambiguous. Will the Under-Secretary enlarge on that somewhat elliptical response, which included the words "in due course", and explain what arrangements will be made to ensure proper assessment of procurement policies under the equality duty?

Fifthly, the response stated that the Government would review progress on the promotion of fair participation in the senior civil service and identification of further measures to help the Northern Ireland civil service at senior levels to become more representative of the Northern Ireland community as a whole. It stated that

the remit and conduct of the review is under consideration and will be announced shortly.

What progress has been made, and when can the announcement be expected? I ask that in the context of a response that was given last October.

Sixthly, interwoven questions arise from our recommendations in paragraphs 122 and 123. Before the Executive was suspended, it was envisaged that changes would be made to the equality unit in the office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Will those changes be implemented? What will be the staffing arrangements at higher and lower levels? Will the unit be headed by a deputy secretary?

In a linked question, the Government said that appropriate structures would be established to ensure that the responsibilities of the Secretary of State would continue to be performed under devolution, but no equality unit has been created in the Northern Ireland Office. During suspension, will the Secretary of State employ the equality unit of the Northern Ireland Executive or his own Northern Ireland Office civil servants? What is the Minister's reaction to the observation that the lack of an equality unit in the Northern Ireland Office has caused the delay in obtaining the Secretary of State's approval of the designation order and the draft guidelines—a matter on which my hon. Friend intervened?

Finally, in this series of questions, what progress has been made in developing a memorandum of understanding between the Equality Commission and the NI Human Rights Commission to minimise the impact of the possible overlap of their respective jurisdictions?

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the evidence of witnesses clearly gave the impression that unlawful employment discrimination on political and religious grounds had declined significantly? Has there, or has there not, been a decline? We should not, 10 years on, be left perceiving that there has been a decline.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is true that we received a great deal of evidence on the beneficial effects of the 1989 Act. I hope that those benefits continue. During our review of the working of the Act, we examined the issues in the current context. That is the basis of my questions to the Under-Secretary. It would be helpful if he mentioned the achievements of the 1989 Act.

The Northern Ireland Act set out the allocation of responsibility between Westminster and Belfast on equality issues. The substantive provisions were transferred matters. The Secretary of State retained responsibility for the statutory equality duty as it affects the public sector and for the Equality Commission. I hope that the Minister will assure us that progress will not be slowed by the suspension of the Executive.

As this is a short debate, I have highlighted only a few matters raised in the Select Committee's report. Northern Ireland has some of the most advanced anti-discrimination legislation in Europe, if not the world. The Government are committed to reviewing the legislation and related policies by 2005, which the Select Committee welcomes. As the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) implied, aspects of the legislation remain controversial, but I am pleased to report that the Select Committee's opinion was unanimous. I commend the report.

Unlawful discrimination on the grounds of religious and political opinion seems to have declined in the Province. In "Employment Equality: Building for the Future", the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights examined the monitoring data that the Fair Employment Commission published annually. It assessed the impact of the 1989 Act on the employed work force.

Analysis of appointments by larger firms shows that the Catholic share of applicants has increased in the public and private sectors among men and women. The statistics seem to show a good match between the proportion of Catholic applicants and appointees, but with minor variations. Although SACHR concluded that neither community was experiencing systematic discrimination at the point of selection, there have, without doubt, been individual cases of discrimination against Catholics and Protestants. However, emphasis should be placed on the word "systematic", and it is mainly in that respect that improvements have occurred.

There seems to have been a reduction in the under-representation in employment. The Fair Employment Commission's statistics show that the overall Catholic share of employment rose by 4.3 per cent. between 1990 and 1998. The statistics show an under-representation of Catholic males, but an increasingly small under-representation of Catholic females. However, the Catholic share has risen in every occupational group since 1990. Catholic representation in the public sector increased by 3.4 per cent. in the same period.

In security-related occupations, however, only 8.4 per cent. were Catholic in 1998—a 1 per cent. increase since 1990. Security-related occupations still lag far behind. The Patten report on policing recognised the need to attract more Catholics into the service. That is not a matter for us to debate today, but we should recognise that it is a serious problem that must be resolved. The private sector has seen a significant increase in the proportion of Catholics in employment. The Catholic share for males increased by 4.7 per cent. between 1990 and 1998, and for females by 4.5 per cent.

Those statistics are important, as they suggest that things are improving in Northern Ireland. They also demonstrate consistent progress in all walks of life for men and women. Despite that, however, there is still some way to go.

Unemployment occurs for many different reasons, but all those affected are socially disadvantaged and they deserve the assistance and encouragement of Government agencies to help them to find productive work. The unemployment differential between Catholics and Protestants is still significant, and the rate for Catholic men is still twice that for Protestants. That is not necessarily the direct consequence of discrimination; nevertheless, something must be done. I believe that that is partly the result of fair employment not occurring across the full gamut of occupations and partly the result of employment practices not being equitable throughout the community.

It is apparent that the persistence of the unemployment differential is not a valid indicator of the success or otherwise of fair employment legislation. We cannot say that the legislation has failed simply because those differentials exist. However, we must recognise that, although progress is being made, it will be a long haul to achieve what we want.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept the Fair Employment Commission's assessment that there has been a sea change in attitude to fair employment within the Protestant and Roman Catholic communities? In fact, the greatest factors that have influenced the opportunities available for those under-represented in employment have been the extent of recent under-investment and the significant number of new jobs created as a result of the new deal in Northern Ireland.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The attitudes that tend to support discrimination are unsustainable if the primary dynamic is economic. The importance of inward investment cannot be overstated because, as Northern Ireland returns to normality, so it needs to recruit the best people. Recruiting the best people tends to mitigate the discrimination that we have seen. Indeed, it is that attitude that has allowed employment legislation to work. Overall, it is clear that the legislation has made an important contribution to improving fairness in employment in Northern Ireland, even if the precise extent of that contribution cannot accurately be determined.

Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act provides that each public authority shall have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity. I should like to ask the Minister a few questions, to which I hope he will be able to reply when he responds to the debate. First, do the Government have any plans to extend fair employment legislation specifically to monitor equality of opportunity among the groups mentioned in section 75 of that Act? Specifically, do the Government intend to monitor equality of opportunity between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status and sexual orientation? It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether the Government intend to monitor equality of opportunity between men and women, between persons with and without disability and between persons with and without dependants. We all recognise that Northern Ireland has the potential to be a role model for equality of opportunity. It would be a wasted opportunity not to monitor the impact of the legislation way beyond the more traditional divides that probably prompted the legislation in the first place.

Secondly, the report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on the operation of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act said:

We consider that the community differences in unemployment should remain an appropriate and important issue of concern for Government.

What progress has been made in setting targets for the reduction of those community differentials? It might be useful to set specific staging-post targets towards the longer-term goal of entirely eliminating those differentials.

Thirdly, can the Government outline the timetable for circulating the final guidelines on equality? There has already been some delay, which I would not want to be extended. Are the Government taking steps to ensure that the schemes will be sufficiently detailed and concrete to serve their purpose, because vague plans are worse than no plans at all? The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) mentioned the civil service, where it seems that an issue still remains, but that is an area in which the Government can make a more direct intervention. What progress has been made in the review of senior Northern Ireland civil service appointments, given that a profound differential still exists? I accept that part of the differential is historic and will take time to equalise as people percolate through the system.

The report also stated:

We recommend that, in order to prevent conflicts of interests arising, the Secretary of State should establish her own Equality Unit within the Northern Ireland Office, in part to advise her on the exercise of these functions, and in part to co-ordinate the equality schemes of UK Departments and public authorities designated by her under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

What measures have been introduced to ensure effective quality of advice to the Secretary of State with the creation of an equality unit within the Northern Ireland Office?

The fact that we are having this debate and that there is some reasonably good news on the subject should give us grounds for optimism. Therefore, I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to welcome the momentum that has already been generated, thanks to the legislation, and ensure that, in terms of attitudes, the civil service acts as a role model for the public and private sectors it is efforts to eliminate what has perhaps been a slightly neglected issue, and which has unquestionably been a source of great irritation of certain sectors of the Northern Irish community.

I compliment the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). I am a peripatetic constituent of the right hon. Gentleman—not that I ever vote for him, as I am sure he appreciates.

This is a fine report, which makes many significant recommendations. Joan Harbison and her excellent team at the Equality Commission play an important role in such matters, but—as I have said to Ministers before—I am anxious that the body's staffing may not be adequate. I, too, think that the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 has worked well, and those of us on this side of the water have much to learn from it. However, there are still problems, as has been acknowledged.

Employment practices in Northern Ireland are increasingly anti-discriminatory. Discrimination does still exist, some of which is structural. For example, as the report mentions, there are problems in the civil service and with the delay in the designation order, which I am sure the Minister is addressing.

The hon. Gentleman's observations on senior staffing levels in the civil service may be a little out of date. The establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly and 10 new Departments has led to the creation of new posts, affording the first opportunity in almost a lifetime to ensure a greater spread of representation at a senior level.

I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman praising the Assembly. As he knows, I was there on the day of the farmers' lobby and saw it at work. Indeed, at the conclusion of the day's business, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) said to me, "Norman, you have seen for yourself that this place works." Indeed, it does. I look forward to it being reinstated soon so that the fair employment practices mentioned by the hon. Gentleman may be re-established.

The hon. Gentleman is right: the Assembly provides an opportunity for everyone in Northern Ireland who recruits and trains employees to be as fair as possible in their gatekeeping work. I should be delighted to learn that discrimination in the 10 new Departments is being given the boot and kicked out of the door. It is for the Minister to provide such an assurance; it is not humble—or perhaps, not so humble—for a Back Bencher such as myself.

Discrimination still exists, especially in relation to the long-term employed. What is being done to help such people? On page xxxvi of the report, the Select Committee notes

the continuing under-representation of Roman Catholics in the Senior Civil Service.

Is that still the case? If so, what are the Minister and the Secretary of State doing about it?

What is being done to help the over-50s back into employment? They are at a particular disadvantage in finding decent work with good terms and conditions. How many civil servants are aged over 50? What proportion of the civil service do they represent? Do they hold senior positions? I am getting perilously close to my retirement, having hit 60, but I am not looking for a job with the Under-Secretary, if he will forgive me for saying so. The important point is that many people aged over 50 to whom I have spoken in Northern Ireland, as in Scotland and elsewhere, feel that they have been discarded from the labour market. The Minister must devote serious resources to finding work for the long-term unemployed, especially those aged over 50.

I shall respond to another comment made by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs). The other day, while at the Royal Ulster Constabulary Markets division, I spoke to Sergeant Stephen Jones, who won the good community policing award last year for the remarkable work that he does in a nationalist area—albeit, a small one—and a commercial area. I told him and the others who were at the meeting that I had stayed at the Hilton the night before and asked them how many people from the Markets area had found work at the Hilton or elsewhere in that area. Some of those people mentioned the new call centre that is being built on the old gasworks site, which will provide 500 jobs. I have no doubt that, following the good practices under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act and the recommendations of the fine Select Committee report, the employer will ensure that equality rules the day in recruiting those 500 employees, but I hope that older people, as well as young people, will be taken on.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, instead of the Industrial Development Board devoting much of its resources to supporting training in companies that have decided to move to Northern Ireland, serious consideration should be given to targeting the unemployed, of whatever age group, and making available specific funds to ensure that those people have the skills that will enable them to apply successfully for jobs in call centres or other targeted sectors of employment?

I find myself in the curious position of constantly agreeing with the hon. Gentleman today. Employment in call centres is important, but we must train youngsters and others so that they can take on highly skilled work in Northern Ireland. The 1989 Act and the recommendations in the report will encourage many firms to set up in Northern Ireland. I do not want all such companies to go to Northern Ireland; I should like some of them to come to Greenock. However, they will be encouraged by the concerns that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster and his colleagues have shown about the Act, which was passed, I seem to recall, by a Conservative Government.

We must prepare people on an absolutely fair and utterly anti-sectarian basis for employment, with good terms and conditions. Those to whom I spoke in the Markets area the other day had two overriding concerns: to live in decent, affordable houses, which many do—new kitchens, for example, are being installed—and to have a decent job. It goes without saying that people want to live in a peaceful community, but they want access to the labour market too.

A moment or two ago, the hon. Gentleman permitted himself an aside, saying that he thought that the legislation under review was passed by a Conservative Government. I confirm that it was; at that time, I was the Government Whip responsible for conducting the measure through the House.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is a delightful fellow, but, he is not known for his modesty. I made the aside because I thought that he might take the bait, or, as he is a fly fisherman, the fly. The measure is good legislation, as Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland have told me. The Under-Secretary must re-examine the policy on targeting of social needs. I know that it is under consultation, but it should not be a blunt instrument; it must be sharp enough to get at the problems that some still believe cannot be eradicated.

I want briefly to refer to highly skilled jobs at Harland and Wolff. A couple of my Catholic constituents—one, Bart Monaghan, a good friend of mine, was a shop steward—were sent to work in Harland and Wolff. Bart was advised to learn the words of "The Sash" and be able to sing it before he went to Belfast. In those days, a Catholic had enormous difficulty finding work in Harland and Wolff, no matter how highly skilled he might have been back on the Clyde, although that has now changed.

It is essential that the Government and the Departments involved, including the Ministry of Defence, ensure that the shipyard remains open. I was a shipyard worker, although I doubt that I would get a job in my trade of shipwright now. I want lots of orders to go to the Clyde, but orders from the Ministry of Defence and others can be shared with Harland and Wolff. Every vessel that has gone down its slipway is a testimony to that yard's find tradition and superb skills, which must be maintained.

The Minister must carefully consider the report and what the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said about it, especially the matters relating to the Equality Commission. The targeting of social need must be a sharp weapon to deal with the problems. The Minister must do all that he can to ensure that Harland and Wolff remains in business. He must keep up the good fight against discrimination, which still means a lousy life for many Catholics in Northern Ireland.

As I am a member of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs it would be immodest of me to praise the report, but I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) did so. However, I can praise the work done by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). The 1999 issue of Irish Political Studies recognises fully the right hon. Gentleman's role on that Committee. I declare an interest in that I am a member of the Political Studies Association of Ireland.

Growing and full employment help to tackle bias and unfairness in employment. Full employment at least reduces the scope for unfairness in employment to the level of discussing promotion and who gets which jobs. That is one aspect of the problem of unfairness in job distribution in Northern Ireland.

I follow the hon. Gentleman's line of argument entirely sympathetically. Will he join me in noting that unemployment in Northern Ireland has halved in the past 10 years?

I was about to point to the success of the new deal, which has already been mentioned. The Select Committee is examining the question of inward investment, which is important for job creation in the Province. Such developments help to tackle some of the problems of unfairness in employment.

I have always thought that full and fair employment is both a cause and a consequence of developments towards peace in Northern Ireland. It is easier to achieve the objectives of the peace agreement in a setting of full employment. Peace itself helps to achieve that where it is missing. It is not easy to distinguish which element needs to be more fully discussed, but the two issues—the cause of peace and the consequences of it—seem vastly important. Our discussion is of matters that are of significance to people's daily lives, and fairness between groups of people, but we are also discussing the peace process and the possibilities within it. We were right on two grounds to involve ourselves in this investigation.

In the modern world, employment often requires people to be highly mobile. Sometimes jobs are available only for specific periods, after which people have to move and look elsewhere. That is a bigger problem in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. People in the Province are now more divided into separate Catholic and Protestant communities than at any time in their history. As a consequence of the troubles, people have been moved from areas and have gone to the communities where they feel safest. That obviously creates difficulties for the establishment of fair employment. Economic developments will take place more readily in some areas than in others. That creates a problem because people need to move around and into new areas, so it is important to move away from placing people in areas that become almost ghettoes.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, although civil unrest has existed in Northern Ireland for 30 years, unrest has never reached the workplace, and that Northern Ireland's record will show that, compared with other regions of the United Kingdom, less time was lost in industry and commerce because of industrial disputes? That shows how well people from each community worked together in the workplace to ensure each other's prosperity.

The tensions within Northern Ireland were reflected in the working communities, but the Northern Ireland trade union movement always directed itself to tackling that problem, and always sought reconciliation and agreement between groups rather than play either card or fly the flag of a united Ireland or of the United Kingdom. It organised its own campaigns against violence and intimidation. It saw that that attitude among the work force could reach out into home and community life, and we should fully recognise the importance of that.

It is interesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) took part in the inquiry, although he is now busy with other activities within the London area. However, in our first question and answer session, my hon. Friend said:

I was one of those who felt that the 1989 Act was just a sop to try and buy up the campaign for the MacBride principles. In the event, I am clearly very glad to see it has turned out to be much more effective than many of us feared.

The significance of the legislation was recognised by someone on the Committee whose political views could be said to be close to the aspirations of republicanism and to some of the Catholic community's ideals for a united Ireland. Much propaganda had been associated with the MacBride principles, but it was recognised that something significant had been achieved, and that was reflected in the evidence provided to us and in the report.

If the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) had been living in Northern Ireland, does the hon. Gentleman think that he would have had a case against the Labour party's selection procedures under the fair employment legislation?

I might have many things to say about that, but on another occasion. On this occasion, what I say will remain entirely relevant to the matter in hand.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

The Department of Economic Development in Northern Ireland supplied us with evidence, which produced the response from the hon. Member for Brent, East. It showed that between 1990 and 1997, Catholics employed in firms with 26 or more employees had risen from 33 per cent. to 36.9 per cent. If the non-denominational were excluded, the rise was from 34.9 per cent to 38.8 per cent. There was still a bias in view of the potential number of Catholic workers, but significant developments were clearly taking place.

Maldistribution is shown clearly in the statistics for 1997: 42.4 per cent. of Catholics were employed as plant and machine operators, but only 36.5 per cent. were employed in management and administration. The wider issue of who secures which jobs is still significant, and still needs to be properly investigated.

The Fair Employment Commission's statistics showed that some fluctuation had taken place and that Catholic employment in the public sector had barely increased between 1991 and 1995, although it was claimed that that was because various measures had previously been introduced that had helped to achieve an increase. In the private sector, some significant developments occurred between 1991 and 1996, although the number fell back in 1997.

As the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee said, the Equality Commission was established on 1 October 1999 to take over from the Fair Employment Commission, as a consequence of the peace agreement. It is important that we are updated on developments in order to ascertain whether the hopes that were placed in the Equality Commission to extend the work of the Fair Employment Commission have been fulfilled, or seem likely to be fulfilled, as the period involved is short.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a continuing vital role for the Equality Commission will be detailed monitoring? In the event of clear evidence of under-representation of one or other community in either the public or the private sector, we must ensure not only that the figures involved are reported, but that we are shown evidence of on-going monitoring to correct imbalances.

I am sure that, given the work of the Fair Employment Commission and the work that will be done by the Equality Commission, such considerations will be to the fore.

I am worried that the Equality Commission has taken on rather more than it can handle, given its size, having assumed responsibility for gender, race and disability. Will those aspects work together? The commission has to work that way as a result of the Belfast agreement, and I do not complain about that, but I have always been worried about disability legislation in the United Kingdom. We have established a Disability Rights Commission in Britain, but disability is part of the Equality Commission's responsibility in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, a commitment has been made to full civil rights for disabled people. That has been reflected in the House and by all the political parties in Northern Ireland outside the House that I have contacted in the past, which favour such measures. The only body from which I have not received a response is Sinn Fein, which may be embarrassed that it has been in the disability-creating game for a time.

I hope that the Equality Commission's range of responsibilities will enliven its ability to tackle those areas, rather than detract from it. However, we must be careful that one aspect does not miss out at the cost of another.

The report shows that, given the massively difficult circumstances in Northern Ireland, some satisfactory advances have been made. It is a matter of prodding and pushing, and ensuring that we are not complacent and that objectives are delivered in line with agreed principles. What emerged from the contribution of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster was that he wanted to pursue several detailed points, and although he did not disagree on the principle or direction he wanted those points to be acted on. That is a correct role for a Chairman to play in ensuring that a Select Committee's work leads to responses from Government Departments.

I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. One of the conclusions in the report of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs related to the parliamentary scrutiny of fair employment legislation in Northern Ireland. The Committee felt that it was inadequate that such an important matter should have been dealt with by an order rather than primary legislation. It hoped that any review of and changes to the legislation would be dealt with by primary legislation, so that more adequate parliamentary scrutiny could be ensured.

The Ulster Unionist party clearly wants fair employment, but we feel that it must be created using the principle of merit. When the fair employment legislation was introduced in Northern Ireland, we were concerned that it would be a blunt instrument that would not properly and fairly tackle problems such as long-term unemployment. We have worked with the legislation and encouraged our constituents to use it when necessary. We have tried to improve it and the methodology that was used by fair employment tribunals and the former Fair Employment Commission.

We have adopted a positive approach to the legislation in seeking to deal with religious discrimination. It is important to recognise that that problem is not one-sided. There is evidence that both the main traditions in Northern Ireland are discriminated against. Some large employers have serious disparities between the levels of Roman Catholics and Protestants employed, and the register of companies monitored under the fair employment legislation shows that some of the worst cases involve under-employment of Protestants.

The problem is portrayed as one-sided because of the over-use of the unemployment differential, which is constantly mentioned as an example of discrimination in employment. That creates a wrong impression. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee concluded that the unemployment differential was not the only measure of the differences in unemployment between the two traditions.

Lately, we have seen the effect on the economy of Northern Ireland of changing global situations that do not discriminate against one community or the other. Global changes and difficulties in competition from the far east may lead to the closure of the Harland and Wolff shipyard. That will have a serious impact on the community in east Belfast. As the area has a large Protestant majority, it will disproportionately affect the Protestant community.

The recent decline in the textile industry has led to several factory closures in North Down, which have had a disproportionate impact on the Protestant community. Unemployment in Northern Ireland is principally due not to discrimination per se, but to economic and social factors that are influenced by matters far beyond the purview of Northern Ireland and by the fact that we have many multinational employers. To argue that unemployment is caused by religious discrimination is to minimise the problems that exist in the affected areas.

My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the threatened crisis if there is no direct intervention and Government support for the mainly Protestant work force of the Belfast shipyard. He also mentioned the employment losses in textiles in North Down, which again is a mainly Protestant area. For the sake of the balance that we both seek, does my hon. Friend agree that in the shirt factories of Londonderry, where more than 90 per cent. of the work force are Roman Catholic, cheap imports are forcing cuts and closures, and are having a damaging effect on employees?

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right. I was about to make the point that the social trends and economic conditions that have given rise to recent closures and job losses are by no means restricted to the Protestant community. The impact on the textile industry in the west of the Province, particulary shirt manufacturing, has had a disproportionate effect on the Roman Catholic community there. Two thirds of the long-term unemployed are Roman Catholic: that is not acceptable. My party wants the problem of long-term unemployment to be addressed. Resources need to be targeted at areas with high long-term unemployment, regardless of the community's political colour, demography or religious balance. Long-term unemployment must be tackled, and the best way of doing that is to create employment by bringing jobs to such areas.

The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) referred to a friend who went to work in a Harland and Wolff shipyard who had to learn not only the words of "The Sash", but how to sing it—there is a difference between knowing the words and knowing how to sing it. The hon. Gentleman will be only too aware of Monklands council, close to his own constituency, where there were cases of religious discrimination. Religious discrimination is not exclusive to Northern Ireland. I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentlemant is arguing that it is a major factor, and nor am I denying that there is such religious discrimination in Northern Ireland, but it is important to place it in context.

Monklands is some distance from my constituency. Historically, the cane sugar refineries overwhelmingly employed Catholic employees. The campaign to keep Harland and Wolff open could learn a great deal from the campaign that was waged on the upper Clyde to keep the Govan shipyard open. I hope that there will be some interchange between the two.

The hon. Gentleman is right. Many sub-contractors working in the Belfast shipyard were previously employed in yards in Scotland and the north of England. I hope that we can combine our efforts to maintain employment in the Belfast shipyard, not only for the good of the employees who live in Belfast, but for those who live in other parts of the United Kingdom whose skills are being utilised in the Belfast shipyard. The retention of those skills is important to our economy.

I shall deal now with some aspects of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee's report and the Government's response to it. I touched on the issue of long-term unemployment, and I urge the Minister not to believe that the employment differential is the only way in which to tackle the problem. Employers are worried about the growing cost of compliance. I welcome the Government's proposal to undertake research into compliance costs for the next review in 2005. Such an important matter cannot be ignored.

I welcome the moves taken by the Government to increase the number of part-time chairmen serving on the fair employment tribunals to double the number of lay members of those tribunals. It is frustrating for people to experience long delays before their cases are heard, and I hope that the Government's action will lead to a reduction in the backlog.

We expressed concern during the passage of the Northern Ireland Bill about the problem that may emerge if religious discrimination and related issues dominate the work of the Equality Commission. We hope that the valuable work on gender imbalance carried out by the Equal Opportunities Commission will continue, and that it will be enhanced by the Equality Commission.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) has referred previously to the problem of disability discrimination, and there is much work to be done in Northern Ireland on that. I hope that the issue will not be marginalised by the decision to bring it under the umbrella of the Equality Commission.

Although race relations is not a major problem in Northern Ireland, it must still be given its proper place in discussions. Age descrimination is an emerging factor not only in Northern Ireland, but throughout the United Kingdom, and I hope that the Equality Commission will bear that in mind when allocating resources.

Reference has been made to appointments at senior levels within the Northern Ireland civil service. My hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim rightly drew attention to the restructuring of Government Departments in Northern Ireland as a means of redressing the imbalance at senior levels in the civil service and providing an opportunity on the basis of merit for people from the Roman Catholic tradition to apply for senior positions.

Applications from the Roman Catholic community to the Royal Ulster Constabulary have increased considerably since the reinstatement of the IRA ceasefire. Recruitment is now at more than 20 per cent. We welcome that. It points to a clear link between intimidation of people from the Roman Catholic community who want to join the RUC and the number of Roman Catholics actually in the RUC. I hope that the continuation of the ceasefire will give more Roman Catholics the confidence to join the RUC. We welcome the fact that more are now being recruited.

Finally, I want to speak briefly about targeting social need, which recognises that a range of social factors contribute to long-term unemployment. It is important to consider the indices that are being applied, and the use of local government wards to identify pockets of social need, because some areas and pockets of social deprivation are being missed under the targeting social need initiative. For instance, the Seymour Hill ward in my constituency is just outside the area covered by the making Belfast work initiative, and it sits alongside the electoral wards of Twinbrook and Poleglass, which attract assistance under the TSN initiative. High levels of social deprivation are found in the Seymour Hill ward, yet its people are not being assisted under TSN, unlike people in neighbouring wards. I hope that the Government will deal with that problem.

This has been a useful debate. It has given us the opportunity to review progress since the report was published, and we have had the chance to discuss some of the issues that are important to ensuring equality and fair employment in Northern Ireland.

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). His involvement with Northern Ireland matters is long and distinguished. That service continues to great effect in his role as Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee. In his opening speech, the right hon. Gentleman raised most of the critical issues to which we must now turn our minds.

The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) made a typically thoughtful speech, which raised some slightly different matters that need to be considered. His later remarks were about targeting social need, and he argued that we should revisit the methodology and the statistical base involved in TSN. I am certainly prepared to consider that matter with my officials. I may or may not agree with him on the subject, but it is important that we should give some attention to such constructive criticisms.

A number of issues on fair employment law were dealt with under the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It is, of course, a transferred matter. At the time of devolution, we implemented a number of new provisions, some of which passed to the offices of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. One of the first substantive issues to come before the Assembly was an equality Bill that dealt with disability—an issue that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), with which he has long been associated. The Government deeply regret the circumstances that led to the suspension of the Assembly, and we hope that in the near future the devolved institutions can be restored.

The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster gave us a history of fair employment and equality legislation. It would be superfluous to go through that again. However, he raised an issue that is of great concern to the House and should be of great concern to everyone who takes an interest in the issues that have divided society in Northern Ireland for so long. If we are serious about getting things right in Northern Ireland, it is vital that we address issues such as equality and fair employment. The effects of not having policies to promote equality and fair employment are deeply corrosive. One need only to consider the history of the past 30 or 40 years to see just how corrosive those effects are and to understand how people feel when they believe that they are being discriminated against. If we are not fair, especially in employment matters, that feeds the arguments of those who would take a completely different path from the democratic process that we believe is the right way forward for Northern Ireland.

I shall now deal with some of the specific points raised by right hon. and hon. Members. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said that community differences in unemployment should remain an important issue for the Government, which I fully accept. However, I should reiterate the Government's concern about the differential impact of unemployment in the two Northern Ireland communities. The latest data collected in 1998 suggest that the ratio of the proportion of male Catholics and Protestants unemployed is 2.3, and the comparable statistic for women is 1.4. People might hold different opinions about the current and historic factors that have created those differentials, some of which were referred to by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley. However, they are unacceptable and the Government are committed to their reduction. It is heartening that everyone who has spoken in the debate subscribes to that central tenet of Government policy, which is part of the solution to the problems that we are all eager to address.

In order to tackle the ugly scar of long-term unemployment, the Government have introduced several new initiatives, including the new deal and the new policy on targeting social need. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) raised an issue, which was echoed by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley, about those older members of the potential labour market who are unemployed. They will both be aware that the Government intend to introduce the new deal for the over-50s this year, and it is right that we should do that. I say that not only because I have recently passed the age of 50 myself, but because a significant proportion of people of that age in Northern Ireland and elsewhere still have a contribution to make and are still capable of supporting themselves and their families. They have been overlooked. It is especially important that we should tackle that serious problem in Northern Ireland through the new deal for the over-50s because that source of discrimination, or perceived discrimination, may hit hardest those groups who are least able to find their way back to remunerative employment without help.

The Equality Commission has a role in advising the Government on measures to reduce the religious imbalance among unemployed people, and on targets and timetables. I shall say a little more about that in a moment. We regret the fact that persistent long-term unemployment differentials exist, but progress has been made to close that gap, especially since the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 was introduced. It has not been closed entirely, but we are moving in the right direction. The data show that the gap stands at 1.3 percentage points compared with 3.4 percentage points in the 1991 census. That is an important sign that we are making progress towards fair participation. It clearly demonstrates an achievement of fair employment legislation.

I am sure that the Minister will write to me if he cannot respond now, but what is the record of the Northern Ireland Office on the recruitment, selection and employment of people aged over 50?

My hon. Friend is right; I do not have those statistics, but I am reasonably confident, having looked around a room of civil servants at briefing meetings, that a fair number of staff at a senior level are over 50, although there are exceptions, as your gaze indicated, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall write to my hon. Friend if I can obtain reliable statistics.

The Select Committee's report raised a number of issues on the Equality Commission, especially on appointments, resources and the need to avoid an overlap between its work and that of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. The work of the Equality Commission is a priority. The Government will ensure that adequate resources are made available to enable it to carry out its work effectively. The commissions are discussing a memorandum of understanding and are liasing well on a range of matters in which they have a mutual interest. On appointments, I can add little to the Government's response. We do not consider that a review of the appropriateness of the Nolan-Peach procedures is necessary but we hope that with the return of the devolved responsibility that will be a matter for local consideration.

I pay tribute to the work of the commissions and their chief commissioners, Joan Harbinson and Brice Dickson. They were good and far-sighted appointments. They have worked well together and with the Government, sometimes explaining how we could improve our performance. I am confident that their productive relationship will continue.

In addition to the establishment of the Equality Commission, other important developments have taken place since the Select Committee produced its report. Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act became operational on 1 January. By 30 June 2000, those public authorities to which it applies will have to submit equality schemes to the Equality Commission. Work is progressing on those, with a view to early public consultation. They will set a framework for the assessment of the impact of policies and for consultation.

The targeting social need policy has also developed. Draft action plans were published in November 1999, and consultation ended on 28 February. Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office are considering the proposals contained in approximately 150 responses. Finalised action plans will be put to Ministers. As in all consultation, we welcome constructive criticism and hope to respond positively where appropriate.

The equality agenda is progressing in line with the spirit of the Good Friday agreement and the 1998 White Paper "Partnership for Equality".

I put six or seven questions to the Under-Secretary on behalf of the Select Committee, and I appreciate that he may write to me about those to which he does not respond now. However, I should like to ask specifically about section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act, and when he expects the Secretary of State to approve the draft guidelines put to him by the Equality Commission.

I shall come to that. If there is time, I hope to deal with all the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

We are conscious of and concerned about the backlog of employment tribunal cases, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. As the hon. Member for Lagan Valley readily conceded, resources for the tribunals office have been increased: more staff, panel members and tribunal rooms have been made available. The number of complaints has reduced—there were 666 in 1997 and 499 in 1999, which is a 25 per cent. reduction. It is important to resolve cases as quickly as possible and not to allow backlogs to build up.

The right hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the equality unit in the office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Plans for its expansion, agreed by them, will go ahead. A deputy secretary will be appointed to head the unit, which, during suspension, will advise the Secretary of State on equality issues.

We are conscious of the issue of monitoring and targets, which was raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. We and those who advise us on the subject are trying to set realistic and achievable targets that are properly monitored.

As to contract compliance, it is important, as an objective of procurement, that the securing of value for money for the taxpayer should not be distorted by the use of other purchasing objectives. However, in Northern Ireland, a formal feature of contracts is that contractors are bound to observe the equality and fair employment legislation. We are keeping a careful eye on developments in England, where, through the single regeneration budget, local authorities and central Government agencies, we are investigating how to use the appropriate leverage to create employment opportunities for local people. We may be able to learn from that.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire also asked about the Equality Commission and its resources. A further £425,000 is earmarked in the year. We are committed to ensuring that the resources necessary for it to carry out its duties will be made available.

As to designations, we consulted the Equality Commission before finalising our plans. Several suggestions from the commission are under consideration. Some hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, will appreciate that there were problematic issues with respect to further and higher education. I understand that some progress has been made on them. We hope to make the initial designation order shortly, but it is likely that a further and more comprehensive order will be made later in the year, after consultation.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire asked about anti-discrimination law. Perhaps we can debate that important matter on another occasion.

I have not been able to answer all the questions put to me, but I shall write to the hon. Members who asked them.

The report of the International Development Committee on conflict prevention and post-conflict reconstruction lies at the heart of developmental issues. Many of us who have been in the field for a long time are aware of the need for stability. Lord Judd and I discussed that need at the beginning of this Parliament, and concluded that unless there are conditions of stability and an absence of conflict, development is not only impossible but will go backwards. People in unstable countries and areas of conflict would become much poorer, so conflict prevention lies at the heart of development debate and policy.

Conflict haunts the developing world and prevents a 50 per cent. reduction in the number of people in abject poverty by 2015, which is one of the main objectives of the Department for International Development, as set out in its White Paper. The prevention of conflict and post-conflict reconstruction therefore lie at the heart of the developmental objectives not only of the Department for International Development but of all the national and international institutions and non-governmental organisations engaged in this field, from the International Monetary Fund and the World bank to the smallest non-governmental organisation working in one country.

The report attempts to bring together all the factors and initiatives that can prevent conflict in the first place, or begin the task of reconstruction after conflict has ended. It cannot be simple coincidence that 20 of the poorest 34 countries of the world are either in the middle of armed conflict or have recently emerged from it. Conflict and poverty may not be recognised as causally connected, but they are very close companions. There is no better way to produce abject poverty than conflict. Many years of painstaking development work can be destroyed in a few months by an outbreak of hostilities that takes many more years to repair. Without political stability and security, development and poverty reduction cannot be achieved. It is for those reasons that the Committee embarked on its comprehensive review of conflict and the policies that would prevent it in the first place or help rehabilitation in the second.

The production of the report took the Committee many hours of painstaking work, combined with visits to Uganda, Rwanda and Kenya, and later to Kosovan refugees in Macedonia. In a departmental memorandum, the Secretary of State for International Development stated:

The damage done to development by violent conflict is enormous. To give but one example, the 15-year civil war in Mozambique destroyed 70 per cent. of the country's schools and cost the country an estimated US$15 billion. Today, Mozambique is officially designated as the world's poorest country.

As we know, the world's poorest country has suffered in recent weeks the most devastating floods around Maputo, where the Limpopo has overflowed its banks because of the unprecedented rainfall in the interior of the country and in Zimbabwe, Botswana and Zambia. It will therefore take many more years than we had anticipated to begin to enable Mozambique to climb out of its serious difficulties.

The Committee concluded that sustainable development alone provides genuine solutions to endemic conflict. It is difficult to isolate individual factors that bring about conflict, although the report covers the principal causes: poverty, inequality, economic shocks, such as the sudden drop in the price of coffee in Rwanda which affected two thirds of the country's farmers, human rights abuses, failures and abuses of political leaderships, arms proliferation and the exploitation of poor countries, especially in Africa, by both sides in the cold war.

I shall highlight the causes of which the Committee had first-hand experience. On our visit to Rwanda, the effects of over population were immediately apparent. Every hill and valley was totally exploited for farming. The hill tops were covered not with Rwanda's natural vegetation but with eucalyptus trees, presumably imported under the colonial Belgian administration. As a result, individual farmers had only a tiny piece of land. Rwanda's traditional land usage practice of dividing land equally between each family member meant that such people had unsustainable plots scattered over the village and surrounding areas. Families were therefore incapable of sustaining the most meagre life. Indeed, they could not sustain a recognisable standard of living.

Such circumstances are likely to lead to conflict and jealously, although that is not necessarily so. Mr. Chairman, out of desperation, people—

Order, I hesitate to correct the hon. Gentleman. However, in this place, a Deputy Speaker presides over debate.

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not accustomed to speaking in this Chamber.

In Rwanda, land is precious and has been made infertile by over-cultivation. That leads to desperation, which erupts in unpredictable and un-African conflict. Generally speaking, Africans are accommodating and generous to their neighbours. They do not object to large numbers of refugees coming to live in their country, unlike people in the United Kingdom, who object strongly to only a few refugees taking up residence here.

Rwanda exploded into conflict between the Hutus and Tutsis and was invaded by Tutsi forces based in Uganda. The international community did not help to prevent that conflict and did not even take elementary precautions when it was obvious that conflict was inevitable. Rwanda was not the central focus of developmental assistance, although it needed such assistance to prevent the outbreak of conflict between the Tutsis and Hutus. We should do something about that, but we are failing to do so. However, I am sure that hon. Members will attest to the seriousness of the position.

I know that my hon. Friend will cover a great deal in our debate. The aftermath of the Rwandan conflict has moved west into the Democratic Republic of Congo, formerly Zaire. Things have not improved since our report was published. The DRC is involved with Zimbabwe, whose helicopters were not available to support Mozambique because they were being used in a conflict in the DRC. We have seen only the tip of a dreadful, unending circle of conflict in Africa.

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The conflict in Rwanda has spread into the DRC, because the Hutus are being looked after in camps run by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, where they have been able to reconstruct their activities. That is another factor to be taken into account when we consider the role of international organisations in such situations.

The conflict that threatened Rwanda's stability led to attacks on DRC forces, and hence the DRC war, which brought in Angola, another very poor country, and Zimbabwe, whose economy has been brought to its knees. Thus the whole sorry tale continues. It is essential in the war against poverty to try to prevent conflict in Africa and to help with reconstruction after the conflict has subsided.

We must consider how to put in place secure governance, which includes an Executive and an impartial system of justice. To prevent the outbreak of conflict, the people who feel aggrieved must be confident that their problems will be sorted out in a just and objective manner that is accepted by the whole country. Such systems were absent in Rwanda and, at times, in Uganda. Uganda under President Muzeveni is having a renaissance because of the lack of conflict in most of the country. The Committee visited the north of Uganda, which borders the Sudan, where there is conflict. We witnessed the people of north Uganda in the most appalling conditions of poverty and fear because of the conflict overflowing from southern Sudan, where the forces of the Government of the north are constantly engaged in a war against John Garang. He, in turn, is taking teams of armed soldiers, many very young, into northern Uganda, capturing boys as young as 11 or 12, keeping them in conditions resembling slavery and teaching them to be soldiers, on threat of death. We met some of those young soldiers: the story was in their eyes. They were listless and in despair; many have committed suicide because of the hopelessness of their situation. They are the victims of conflict, and we must help them to go back to a reasonable life.

We cannot help development in northern Uganda while such activities are going on. I hope that the debate will bring the conflict to the top of the in-baskets at the Foreign Office and the offices of the international organisations. We have a responsibility to settle the war in the Sudan and north Uganda, where there is terrible starvation and horrendous offences against women and children happen every day. Unless we achieve a settlement, there can be no development in northern Uganda or the Sudan.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the world appears to have forgotten what is happening in the Sudan? The British Government should be making much more of an effort to resolve the conflict, which has been running intermittently for 30 years.

I hope that the hon. Lady's ambitions for the Sudan, which are the same as mine, will come to fruition. It has been forgotten, and I cannot understand why. The country is well known to the British, and many friends of the British live there. We should be striving to find a solution in order to restart development in that country. It is a tragedy, and it requires the combined efforts of Saudi Arabia, the United States and its neighbours Kenya and Uganda, as well as Britain and the international organisations, to make progress there.

I cannot help thinking of another country in which I spent seven years of my adult life helping to further its development, which was going very well in the 1960s and early 1970s. It experienced not a conflict, but a serious failure of governance in which elections were rigged by the then President Burnham to keep him and his party in power. A one-party state was established, and from one form of corruption—the corruption of the electoral machinery—others followed. The sugar, bauxite and timber industries and the retail sector were all taken over, as was anything else that the Government could lay their hands on by borrowing money that they could not repay. Guyana was reduced from a middle-income, least developed country to one of the poorest countries in the world. It was one of the first countries to benefit from the HIPC initiative—the world community's attempts to write off debt, so that development can be restarted in heavily indebted poor countries.

Governance is hugely important in itself, and conflict breaks down governance. The whole of the judicial system in Rwanda was obliterated: there were no judges, no magistrates, and no clerks to magistrates or to any other courts. We witnessed an event that will always haunt me—the incarceration of 1,200 prisoners in an old warehouse in Kigali. When we visited those prisoners, they had been there for four years. None had been charged: they were simply there, and their morale and physical condition was constantly deteriorating. Many suicides took place within that prison.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that attempts by the United Nations to bring many of those implicated in the genocide to justice were not as speedy as they should have been and, in some respects, hindered the Rwandan Government's attempts to do so themselves? We should be pressing the United Nations to ensure that justice is more readily available to countries such as Rwanda that are facing complete and utter annihilation.

I very much agree. We should contrast the condition in which the international community left Rwanda—without any capacity to implement justice—with what is happening in Kosovo. I hear that we are going to send judges, magistrates and clerks to help provide a system of justice—only a year after the Kosovo conflict. That did not happen in four years in Rwanda, although some people are now being trained there to take on the task of administering justice. Without justice, and the capacity to charge and try people objectively, there can be no resolution of conflict. That became clear in Kosovo and action was taken, but it was not taken until much later in Rwanda, and it is still rudimentary justice.

My hon. Friend and I reached similar conclusions when we discussed the report. I wish to reinforce his point about governance and political leadership. In the countries that we examined, and in some that we visited, governance and political leadership were fundamentally important. Where there has been conflict, invariably there has been poor governance. That was so in Iraq, in Rwanda before the war and in Mozambique, whose problems are extremely complicated. When a better Government is in place, as in Uganda, in Mozambique now and in Rwanda, although it is not a democratic Government, and there is better governance, it becomes possible to suppress conflict and drive it away.

I agree entirely with that analysis. A good system of justice is a major way of preventing conflict in a country. Objective judicial systems are needed to begin with; they have to be in place to prevent conflict. They must not be corrupt in any way, and the people must trust them if they are trying to reconstruct a country that has suffered conflict.

My hon. Friend made the powerful point that within a year of the conflict in Kosovo we are sending in a barrage of lawyers to underpin the legal system. That never happened in the four years after the conflicts on Africa. Does my hon. Friend agree that that raises serious questions for western Governments, especially our own, as regards employing double standards between European countries and African countries? We must be careful to be even-handed in our approach to conflict anywhere in the world, be it on our doorstep or in Asia.

Our report contrasts the amount of money that was donated and committed to the reconstruction of Kosovo with the sum that was committed to the reconstruction of Rwanda. Kosovo was oversubscribed, while Rwanda received less than 25 per cent. of the amount that was thought necessary for immediate disbursement there. That shows that the international system is not even-handed, and it will encourage jealousies and distrusts, which we should not excite in any way. The world must address itself to this problem, because it is clear that there is one generosity for those with whom we can identify—white people, not to put too fine a point on it—and another for black people. No self-respecting person or institution can sustain that, in this country or anywhere else. I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am extremely angry that it is happening. None the less, we must keep working to ensure that international assistance is given to places such as Rwanda, Guyana, Zimbabwe and South Africa.

Our report also refers to truth commissions and the application of other methods of justice in post-conflict situations. When justice has broken down completely and there are no people to set up and administer justice, let alone conduct court cases, other methods must be used to bring about reconciliation. It is important to learn from the truth commisison in South Africa, which has shown that there is a way quickly to re-establish justice, albeit a rough-and-ready method. There are faults with that system, but at least it would have prevented 1,200 young men from having to sit in a warehouse in Rwanda for four years with nothing to do, deteriorating in every possible way. Resentments and jealousies build up, and that may lead to further conflict. These methods must be worked on, improved and refined, but they represent a quick way to begin to reestablish justice in a post-conflict situation, which is essential.

In Africa particularly, but also in Europe, democracy is crucial to providing a stable system of government. It has served this country well. It is evolving and changing all the time to adjust to new circumstances and demands by the electorate. It also provides a means of changing Governments without conflict.

The report examines whether it is possible, in view of their history, to establish a sustainable democracy in countries such as Rwanda, Mozambique and South Africa. My answer is yes, it is—partly because democracy is an African form of government. In truth, democracy is not just an African or European form of government, but a human form of government. It provides the essential element of justice, because it provides a method of discussing issues that engenders consent to the decision adopted by the majority. A bad or wrong decision can still be obeyed under the rule of law, and people can live with it for the time being until others come to power and change the Government. That is the essential element of decmocracy and it is an African system.

The Committee visited Swaziland only two weeks ago. The King of Swaziland is one of the few remaining monarchical figures in Africa, but he is not a military dictator or a dictator of any sort. He has to hold meetings in the traditional fashion and in two Houses—an aristocratic, landowners' House and a non-landowners' House. Is that not familiar to people who know the Westminster system? As I say, that is a traditional African system. The King has to find out the majority opinion among his people before he implements any decisions. Democracy can assist Africa to avoid conflict, as the report confirms, but, if democracy is to be firmly established, it must have help.

We were in Malawi two weeks ago. The Malawi Parliament meets twice a year for two weeks because it cannot afford to meet more often. I do not accept that, but that is what it says. There is a shortage of money, but it has a public accounts committee and a treasury committee, and a committee dealing with labour standards—and it looks wonderful. Those committees have to share two or three clerks to help them with their deliberations. I asked when they last met and was told that they had never met. The reason is that they have to meet at the same time as the Parliament and there are not enough staff to run both Parliament and the committees. That suggests that the country needs assistance with running its Parliaments—the essential part of its democracy.

Such countries need assistance to run their electoral systems properly, to evolve their government and call their Executives to account. That is vital to producing a framework for economic development.

Another important issue is the role of the private sector. The White Paper on international development clearly recognises that the private sector is the engine of development, and that money that flows into private sector investment and trade far outweighs any sums that can be produced through aid agencies, the Department for International Development, the World bank and the International Monetary Fund. It is essential for the private sector to be involved. However, it may contribute to the difficulties that a country faces if it becomes involved in corrupt practices. Paragraph 15 of the report states:

The Development White Paper lists the consequences of corruption—higher prices and fewer employment opportunities, the diversion of scarce resources away from poverty elimination, constraints to growth due to the uncertainty and unpredictability of costs to prospective investors, reduced representation for the poor and the perpetuation of elites.

Does my hon. Friend share my sense of outrage that when we were in Malawi and saw one of the few functioning anticorruption services, we were told that to pursue a pretty obvious case of corruption within the country, the service had applied to the United Kingdom for assistance and had been told by the Department of Trade and Industry that there were no powers within that Department to compel a British company to explain its conduct. When the service went to the Home Office for help, the latter said that the matter was nothing to do with it.

It is disgraceful to be preaching the gospel of anticorruption abroad, only to find that our own legislative practices make it impossible for developing countries to pursue crooks there.

Yes, I share my hon. Friend's disgust at that. He will remember that in the report that we are discussing we made a positive recommendation that legislation should be enacted in the United Kingdom to make it an offence to bribe government officials and any other persons in a third country. As far as I know, such legislation has not yet come before us. It is essential that it be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity. We should at least put our own house in order. Bribery takes two people, the person to offer and the person to accept. Sometimes Mr. Fayed seems also to forget that, but that is another matter.

I shall illustrate the corruption that is taking place, especially in regard to power supply. In each of the countries that the Committee has visited recently—India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malawi and Zambia—we found that the power supply company had been corrupted. These companies have been corrupted by their Governments because they do not pay their bills. If Governments do not pay their bills, the price of power supply has to increase for those who do pay their bills.

Corruption arises in other ways. We are told that in Bangladesh, electricity is supplied to large undertakings at very much lower prices than the standard tariffs. We find that power supplies are continually undermined by Governments and by powerful people within the community. As a result, the electricity service deteriorates and it cannot be supplied to rural areas to poor people. That is extremely important in developmental terms, because electricity provides a source of light that does not strain people's eyes if they are studying at night. Education is hugely important in the anti-poverty drive. Electricity is very important also because rural people without a power supply are obliged to cut down trees to enable them to light fires to keep warm and cook food.

These corrupt practices do not need to happen in a developing country. Electricity supply companies should be profitable and should be contributing to the elimination of poverty by supplying power to rural and other areas. They are not the most profitable areas to supply, but it is essential that they be supplied, in the drive for development. A regular power supply is essential to run computers and other modern equipment. It is only by jumping over developmental gaps into new technology that many countries will begin to work themselves out of poverty.

The corruption that we have witnessed in power supply companies is extremely dangerous. Sadly, it is typical of much of what we find in developing countries. Much of the corruption is caused because these countries do not collect their revenue properly. They need assistance in collecting taxes and in devising means by which their customs and excise services can be run properly. They need assistance in collecting sufficient revenue to enable them to pay their civil servants properly. That applies also to their police forces and armed services. As these people are not paid anything like a living wage, minor corruption it is huge in its impact, because almost every one of them has to be corrupt—is a serious problem in introducing good governance in developing countries, and we need to help them overcome the problem. I know that the Department for International Development is doing a great deal in this area, and I am sure that the Minister will tell us about some of the initiatives that he will take.

There are non-oppressive methods that can be used to defeat corruption. I take as an example the road that is being built between Johannesburg and Maputo. It crosses an international boundary, and it will be built by the private sector, which has been given a 25-year lease. It is required to provide toll booths and to ensure that lorries using the road are not overweight and that drivers do not exceed speed limits, for example. The private sector will have to maintain the road for 25 years and hand it back at the end of that period, or possibly renew the arrangement.

Such an arrangement has the benefit that it eliminates the many forms of corruption that are still taking place on the road between Mombassa, Nairobi and Kampala in east Africa. In that area, Ministers own trucks and shipping companies. They overload their trucks because that is clearly beneficial for them. The road deteriorates and collapses as a result. That is a typical example of corruption.

In the context of the road between Johannesburg and Maputo, if the private sector pays more in bribes or if there is ministerial corruption, the price of the road and hence the tolls will increase. If the toll is fixed, the private sector will not get its money back so quickly. Corruption can be eliminated by the way in which the contract is let. Such arrangements should be thought out and considered in developing countries. That will lead to a reduction in corruption and its pervasive influence.

Good governance and good administration and justice systems are essential if development is to take place. The absence of conflict is essential. Development cannot take place in circumstances where violent conflict is an ever-present threat or reality. Progress towards the achievement of international targets for development and the halving of poverty by the year 2015 cannot take place in those circumstances.

rose—

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind hon. Members that we have taken up 40 minutes of a one-and-a-half hour debate. It is clear that other hon. Members want to speak and it will be appropriate, although my successor will be in the Chair when the Minister is asked to reply, to give the Minister adequate time to respond. I hope that all hon. Members will note that.

Because of the time left, I shall be brief. In fact, I shall make only one point, which is to follow on from the remarks that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) has made about the crucial issue of governance. We must invest in governance—in capacity building and co-ordination of capacity building—if only because of the financial cost of the destructive consequences of a failed prevention strategy.

The issue of governance is rising up the development community's agenda. It is no use investing money in good services such as education and health unless those services are properly administered. In Bangladesh, the administration of the Government education system is appalling. Good systems of administration are needed if services are to be delivered effectively.

There are innumerable agencies other than the Department for International Development now involved in good governance activities: the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, through know-how funds; the British Council and the Commonwealth; the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union; police services, local government bodies and trade unions; and the European Union, through its administration of the PHARE and TACIS funds. In addition, the World bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation are involved. Only last week, the director-general of the WTO said that one of his priorities is capacity building, because if countries cannot be part of the world trading system owing to a lack of capacity, it is a recipe for disorganisation and future conflict.

Non-governmental organisations do a great deal of work in this sphere, and I pay tribute to two with which I and other hon. Members have been associated. The Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which was established by the previous Government with all-party support, does invaluable work. I have been involved in its activities in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Nigeria and Kenya. It is soon to start operations in Sierra Leone. That organisation enables parliamentarians to help parliamentarians of other countries to establish systems of good governance, and I commend its highly fulfilling work. I also pay tribute to the BBC. Under its retiring head of training, Gwyneth Henderson, the BBC World Service has done a huge amount of work to train journalists in central and eastern Europe who are attempting to set up a free press, free television, free broadcasting and so on.

We have to ask whether we are getting full value for money from all the activities associated with good governance. Institution building is extremely difficult: it is easy to rebuild buildings and physical infrastructure, but building social institutions is far harder. Our current experiences in Northern Ireland and Kosovo tell us that. I am pleased that such activities are occurring, but they are unco-ordinated, even when only the British Government are involved. Countries such as Sierra Leone and Nigeria present huge challenges, but much of our work is short term, unco-ordinated and not part of a general plan of social reconstruction.

What I would like to know from the Minister—[Interruption]—is how we stop that noise.

All I can suggest is that we continue to make progress while those who are in charge of the sound try to do something about it.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

In places such as Nigeria and Sierra Leone, the amount of investment needed, especially in human resources, is vast. I understand that the Department for International Development is soon to produce a governance strategy paper; perhaps that will provide the focus that is needed. Certainly, the theme of governance needs to be focused on more tightly, and a catalyst is needed to bring together available resources. We do not need to create a new institute or academic institution, or to reinvent existing structures. For example, if the problem is media operations in a democracy, the BBC, the independent television companies and the free press can help.

Long-term work is needed to achieve good governance, not short-term projects. We as a country have great assets: our language, our contacts with many parts of the world, our democratic stability, our key membership of bodies such as the Commonwealth, the United Nations Security Council, the World bank and the International Monetary Fund, and the quality of work done by the Department for International Development and other agencies.

I draw hon. Members' attention to paragraph 42 of our report, which states the views of International Alert and Oxfam. International Alert told the Committee that

attempts to persuade governments to engage in peaceful conflict resolution had in the past "been made difficult by the lack of consistency in policy on the part of the international community."

Oxfam stated that in the area of conflict prevention

more than any other, a consistent approach is needed across government departments, bilateral donors, multilateral organisations, non-governmental organisations and the private sector.

The issue of structural stability, about which the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, the Chairman of the International Development Committee, spoke, is one that needs our finest minds and our best work on institution building. Much of our activity is worth while, but I am not convinced that we have recognised the scale of the work that is needed and the extent to which planning of that work is needed.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) on the sympathetic and knowledgeable way in which he has presented the report. Like him and the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), I look forward to hearing the Minister's speech. The report of the International Development Committee was published some time ago—indeed, much of the evidence was taken in 1998—as was the Government's response. I am sure that I am not alone in thinking that a report of such significance and importance should have been debated on the Floor of the House and afforded a three-hour debate, instead of being debated for one and a half hours in Westminster Hall. I hope that the Minister will write to hon. Members who raise points to which he is unable to respond in the time available to him.

I am only too aware of the results of conflict. That knowledge is shared by the entire population of the United Kingdom, because of the rapid communications systems available in the modern world. Improved communications have great benefits, and they allow to be beamed straight into our sitting rooms reports that reveal the sights and sounds of conflict. However, that greater awareness can result in complacency, or acceptance of the inevitability of conflicts in some parts of the world. We should not delude ourselves, either, that conflict is inevitable, or that it can always be prevented. Instead, we should use our increasing awareness to focus on what is possible and on the programmes and actions that can be pursued, especially by our own Government.

I believe that the report makes a contribution to that process. It offers an invaluable insight into events around the world and the Government's attitude toward them. It has not escaped my notice that the report received unanimous, cross-party support on the Committee; there were no dissenting voices.

A story broadcast on the radio this morning caught my attention, because it involved a fellow European Union country. As a current example of conflict, the story concentrated on Angola and the possibility that diamonds are being brokered through Belgium. A Belgian Foreign Office spokesman acknowledged that the diamonds probably were coming through Belgium and being sold so that arms could be supplied to fuel the conflict in Angola.

In the papers this morning we read of the potential conflict in the Pacific rim. In Taiwan, one of the candidates in the elections there has expressed views on independence, which brings its own dangers.

The media bring into our homes daily stories of potential and existing conflicts all round the world. We must not take our eye off the ball. We must concentrate on what we can do to help to prevent those conflicts or limit the damage from existing conflicts.

I shall not take up the Chamber's time for too long as other hon. Members want to contribute, but I wish to raise a few issues arising from the Government's response, to which I hope the Minister will reply.

In paragraph 2, the Government express the view that

the international community has an array of measures—including development co-operation and security sector reform as well as diplomatic pressure and UN interventions.

I hope that the Minister will join me in pressing once again for a full examination of the situation in Kosovo, so that we can evaluate the success, or rather the failure, of the diplomatic pressure that was brought to bear in Rambouillet. The Opposition have called many times for a full investigation to be undertaken, instead of the matter being left to three Select Committees. I hope that the Minister will respond on that.

The Minister should also consider what the European Union is doing. In a recent Conflict Prevention Newsletter, it was noted that the Helsinki summit in December decided to go ahead with a rapid reaction force, but that

progress on the conflict prevention agenda, by contrast, is modest.

We need to know what the EU will do to help to apply diplomatic pressure, and what other measures the EU has at its disposal.

The Government stated in their response that the

DTI will carefully consider the Committee's views in preparing future departmental reports.

That was on 21 October 1999. In the light of comments that we heard earlier about the trading position, can the Minister tell us what steps have been taken by the DTI to move that agenda forward? What evidence of progress can the hon. Gentleman offer?

Paragraph 11 deals with institution building. The Committee rightly drew attention to the work of the British Council, and in particular requested information on how the British Council was engaged in conflict prevention through institution building. What is the Minister doing to support the British Council? Reports show that his Department is withdrawing projects from the British Council. In Africa, British Council activity has diminished substantially, as a direct result of the withdrawal of contracts by the Department.

Paragraph 33 refers to the International Criminal Court. I am particularly disturbed, as was the Committee, that the legislation to allow the UK to ratify the statute of the International Criminal Court has not yet been introduced. Can the Minister update us on the progress that has been made in that regard, and tell us whether the draft legislation will be produced this year, next year, some time or never?

There are many other issues in the report that I should like to cover, and many Government responses that need to be probed further. However, I notice that I have been speaking for eight minutes, and I want to give others a chance to speak. I hope that the Minister has made a note of all the questions that I posed. I shall write to him about other matters that I have not been able to raise in debate this morning, to which I hope he will respond.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady.

I must follow in the footsteps of my hon. Friends, who have acted with more restraint than I have ever witnessed in politicians during my time in this place. I shall omit most of what I had intended to say, and concentrate on one salient point. That concerns the rules-based approach to international conflict resolution, about which we have heard so much.

Everyone in the Chamber is agreed that without a rules-based approach, we will for ever be faced with conflicts like the one in Rwanda. Instead of the UN doing what it was set up to do in the aftermath of the second world war, it did the reverse, for whatever reason, and left the country when it was on the brink of genocide, instead of stepping in to prevent that genocide.

What practical measures can my hon. Friend the Minister and the Department suggest to prevent that? I have read most of the literature on the subject, and I can see no realistic alternative in the long run to some type of UN standing army. A UN intervention force must not be subject to the national interests of certain member states; at present, they judge whether it is in their interest to get involved in a particular conflict, rather than considering the merits of saving the lives of those at risk.

We saw in Rwanda that one Canadian UN general with 200 UN troops saved the lives of 25,000 people. Because America had had a bad experience in Somalia shortly before, it was not prepared to send in Americans. There have been other occasions when we have not been prepared to send British soldiers in.

There will always be occasions when member states think that, for their own political interests, it is not appropriate to step in at the point at which conflict prevention is possible. That is the subject of the report.

Politics is the art of the possible. If the Minister tells me that at present it is impossible to assemble some type of UN standing army operating on a rules-based approach as opposed to national interest, what can be done to make it possible? That is our job. If my hon. Friend cannot respond in detail now, I should be immensely grateful if he wrote to let me know the Department's view.

There is cross-party consensus in the Chamber on most of what we are discussing. That makes it more likely that in the future we can create the political space needed to achieve the desired result. That is the only way in which I believe we will bring about early intervention by the UN to prevent the sort of conflict—or rather the carnage—that the Committee witnessed in Rwanda.

I shall be brief. I want to make three points. First, I am struck by the Department for International Development's extraordinary and largely politically correct reluctance to engage with the faith communities in various parts of the world. If we go abroad as a Select Committee, it is extremely difficult, unless we specifically request it, to have meetings with the leaders of religious organisations included in the programme. In a country such as Rwanda, where the only medium of communication with the mass of the population is the regular church service on a Sunday, such pussy-footing is extraordinary.

I understand that the matter is complex and difficult and that some conflicts are fuelled by the faith communities themselves, but unless we engage with them and recognise their long experience of the countries in which they operate, we are missing an important trick.

The power of ideas as the basis for conflicts is underestimated. We still have the notion that if we improve economies and provide better health and education, we will eliminate conflict. I am sure that that would help. However, some powerful ideas are being batted around the world, and the developed world must accelerate the dialogue between, for example, the Muslim and the Christian countries about the theological bases on which they proceed. That will prove one of the most important ways of eliminating conflict.

Secondly, for understandable reasons, one of the Government's more ambivalent replies to our report relates to our position as a major arms supplier. Over the next few years, this country must reconsider whether it can credibly go round the world claiming that we must reduce conflict while supplying more arms to more people than anyone else in the world apart from the Americans.

Thirdly, I have been struck by the influence and importance of the diaspora of the countries that we have considered. The Department for International Development is engaged in consultations with some of them. As an international community, our use of disapora needs to be better organised. Many of the most influential, intelligent and best educated people have fled their countries because of conflict. They have established themselves in many countries overseas and become extremely sophisticated; they are often well off. Their contribution to preventing conflict needs to be developed and encouraged.

I welcome the debate on the report. I was a member of the Select Committee on International Development when the report was produced. We spent many hours interviewing witnesses and had an unjolly trip to Africa, where we had experiences and heard stories that we shall remember for the rest of our lives. I have no time to tell them, but they were unforgettable.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), the Chairman of the Select Committee. He is extremely knowledgeable, fair and good humoured. He always rules us with tolerance and kindness.

I want to comment on two aspects of the report which concern me greatly. The first is co-ordination between Departments. The Under-Secretary of State for International Development—who, more often than not, is on the side of the angels—is present, but where are the boys from the Foreign Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence, the Treasury and other Departments that I shall mention? Their absence is my only sadness about the debate.

The Department for International Development has created a conflict and humanitarian affairs department: great stuff; it has produced good pamphlets. There is an interdepartmental working group on conflict and we hear about conflict impact assessments. However, do other Departments take that seriously? I reiterate that the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury, the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and even the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food need to take it seriously. Where is the evidence that they do?

Paragraph 10 of the Government's response to the Select Committee report deals with policy coherence and consistency. It states:

DTI is taking development increasingly seriously and working closely with DFID, particularly in the context of trade policy.

Can the Under-Secretary provide some examples? I know of two examples that show the contrary. We have heard about the DTI failing to take action on corruption when British companies operate abroad. As far as I know, it has taken no action on the ethical trading initiatives; DFID has done that.

Paragraph 13 refers to early warnings of conflict. Jane Sharp of the Centre for Defence Studies gave evidence to the Select Committee. She said:

in most conflicts we are not short of early warning—we are short of political will—and I think that sometimes, particularly in the United Kingdom, you have staff in British Embassies overseas who could be monitoring human rights abuses, but in fact invest a lot of time pursuing arms contracts.

The Government's response was confusing. It implied that the responsibility was split between the FCO and the Ministry of Defence. There is no co-ordination, despite the Government's claims.

There are many other examples: arms sales to Zimbabwe and Indonesia; multinationals operating with Government blessing in Colombia and Burma, where there is real and threatened conflict; British firms encouraged by the DTI to invest in the Sudan. Warnings have been issued now, but it is too late.

Civil war has raged in Sudan for 30 years. The Canadian Government commissioned a report, which condemned the activities of one of its oil companies, Talisman, around the oil fields in Sudan, where the Nuer people are being raped, taken into slavery and driven off their land. Yet a British company operates there and helps with the pumping equipment that pipes the oil to the north of Sudan. Where is the commitment across Departments to conflict prevention?

Arms proliferation is the second subject that I want to tackle.

Does the hon. Lady agree that the proliferation of small arms is important? My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) referred to children in conflict. Small arms proliferation perpetuates children's involvement in conflict. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government's response is inadequate?

Yes. I had adequate proof of that when I visited southern Sudan last year. I asked the rebel leaders whether they had any problem in obtaining arms—there is, after all, an embargo on both parts of the Sudan. They looked at me as if I was mad. They can get small, large or middle-sized arms from anywhere they like. As the hon. Lady said, the small arms do much damage in developing countries.

Discussing the subject has become almost boring—I have been accused of raising the matter almost every day. I do. However, the Select Committee's recommendations on arms proliferation were clear and unanimous. We acknowledge that countries may need to defend themselves. The Government responded positively to the Committee's recommendation that the interdepartmental working group on conflict should agree policies on the security requirements of specific developing countries. How many times has the working group met? What are its conclusions on the requirements?

The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) pointed out that Zimbabwe is engaged in a war with the Republic of Congo. Where was the consideration of security requirements in Zimbabwe vis-a-vis development? Is there any progress on Sierra Leone and Nigeria? I look forward to the Under-Secretary's reply.

I remain unconvinced that DFID's advice on arms exports is taken seriously. I shall give two examples, which were mentioned in the report: Eritrea and Indonesia. The Government's response to criticism about arms to Indonesia stated:

particular arms exports would not, by themselves, hamper Indonesia's development.

DFID was not allowed to examine the cumulative effect of many individual arms exports. That is crazy and irresponsible. It is like saying that alcohol will not make us drunk if we take each drink in a separate glass. That is nonsense.

On Eritrea, the Government's response states that DFID raised anxieties about poverty and development. Criterion 8 of the European code of conduct on arms sales clearly deals with the effect of trade on development in specific countries. However, the FCO ignored it.

We are told that the Secretary of State for International Development does not sign the annual report on strategic exports because the Department sees only 15 per cent. of export licences. That is also utter nonsense. That 15 per cent. represents exports to the most sensitive areas of the world—those countries at most risk of conflict. Who are the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments trying to kid?

I could go on, but I dare not. Instead, I shall end with some questions. When will the arms trafficking and brokering Bill be published? We have been promised, it so when shall we have it? When will the Scott report recommendations be implemented? They are four years old. When will we have a register of arms brokers in this country? When will the Government fully comply with the European Union code of conduct on arms sales and, in particular, criterion 8, which deals with the effect on development? In short, when will the Government take development and conflict prevention seriously?

Notwithstanding the speech of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and the challenging questions she posed, the Government greatly welcome the International Development Committee report. We also welcome the debate, albeit that it has lasted only an hour and a half. It was open to the Opposition to choose conflict prevention as the subject of a three-hour debate on the Floor of the House tomorrow.

Will the Minister give way?

It worked.

This is not a question of the Minister's remarks working because it is worth pointing out that Mozambique has been chosen as the subject for tomorrow's debate. It also deserves to be debated in the light of what has happened. He is quite uncharitable and makes a bankrupt point.

The members of the Select Committee know that the Secretaries of State for International Development and for Defence gave extensive evidence on Mozambique to the Committee yesterday and they were well received. We commend the Committee's work on that particular area.

I want to answer as many questions as possible and shall endeavour to answer in writing any that I do not touch on, as requested by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who spoke for the principal opposition party. I shall move on, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is that the right form of address, John?

Order. The Minister is confused. He has had to call me everything from treasurer to Mr. McWilliam to Mr. Deputy Speaker over the years so I can understand why he has problems. However, the correct form of address is Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The Committee has, like many others, recognised that the nature of conflict has changed, that wars increasingly take place within, rather than between, states and that, tragically, civilians, rather than soldiers, are the main victims of those wars. It is widely appreciated that in many developing countries war and violent conflict are the major cause of poverty—as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), the Chairman of the Select Committee, said in his introduction—and a major barrier to progress in development. The Chairman also mentioned the clear acknowledgement from many people, including other Development Ministries around the world, that the development and security agendas are inseparable and that violent conflict arises, more often than not, because of the failure of development. As Kofi Annan put it:

The prevention of conflict begins and ends with the promotion of human security and human development.

The best guarantee of peace and of stability is economic and political development, which, as a number of hon. Members said, gives people a stake in their society and the government of their country. As the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford generously acknowledged, since the election in May 1997 the Government have led a radical shift in the focus of our development work towards the goals of poverty reduction and the achievement of the international development targets. All our work is now geared to that end. Our commitment to a human rights-based approach to development is about giving people a stake in the political system of their countries—that is one of the key elements—and a say over decisions that affect their lives. That means helping countries to improve the effectiveness of governmental and administrative systems, supporting legal and judicial reforms such as those that have been asked for in the debate and providing support for action against corruption, to which hon. Members also referred.

In relation to corruption in particular, hon. Members should read the Government's reply to the Select Committee report:

The Home Office is currently conducting a review of the UK's existing legislation. The intention of this exercise is to tighten certain definitions used in the application of law and to consider related issues, such as the extent of the territorial jurisdiction of offences of corruption.

Action is being taken by the Government, as our reply shows.

Our work will help to build societies in which disputes can be managed peacefully rather than through violence. That is why we believe that our development and conflict prevention strategies are one and the same. Promoting sustainable development also means promoting the conditions for sustainable peace. The hon. Member for Richmond Park asked about Departments working together. I am pleased to tell her that the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence work closely together to tackle these areas.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) referred to that work. We use diplomatic and other assets to detect, monitor and address rising tensions and, together, promote human rights, good governance, democratisation, working together, the rule of law, the development of strong and vibrant civil societies and sustainable economic growth, which benefits all sections of society. As he said, we are about to produce a target strategy paper on good governance which covers all those areas—corruption, accessible justice, the rule of law and conflict. Hon. Members, and members of the Select Committee in particular, will be able to contribute to the paper during the consultation.

A number of hon. Members concentrated on Africa, and the Department welcomes that concentration as it is one of our major areas of activity. Africa was compared with Kosovo: members of the Select Committee and other Members of Parliament are pressing us to take further action there, but it is wrong to compare one with the other. We have intensified and increased our activity and our spending in Africa, and hon. Members should recognise that. Africa currently accounts for half the armed conflicts in the world and is an example of the devastating impact of war. For example, it is estimated that about 50,000 people have died in the tragic war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. In Angola's civil war, 200 people a day are dying from war, hunger and disease, and about 1.7 million people are displaced. In Sierra Leone, upwards of 50,000 people have been killed and a quarter of the population has been displaced. More than 1 million people have died in the long-running civil war in Sudan, which hon. Members mentioned.

I say to the hon. Members for Richmond Park and for Hertford and Stortford that Sudan is not forgotten and we are active there. The peace process is absolutely vital and we are the forefront in urging it on.

Does the Minister think it wise to continue to refuse development aid to southern Sudan when the war is continuing and children are not even allowed any sort of educational aid? How can that part of the country be denied development aid when the war has gone on for so long?

As I have said to the hon. Lady before, where we do not work through Governments we can work through agencies, non-governmental organisations and the United Nations and its agencies. We continue to provide humanitarian aid.

Not development aid.

That is another matter and we can discuss it on another occasion.

To ensure that we tackle conflicts in Africa in the most effective way, we are undertaking an innovative interdepartmental cross-cutting review of conflict in the continent. That will please the hon. Member for Richmond Park. The review is chaired by our Secretary of State, but includes representatives from the Departments that she mentioned, and its conclusions will be announced in due course as part of the 2000 review of public expenditure. I say to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham that it took our Government to institute that review of Africa, although the previous Government could have done so.

Over the past two and a half years, we have moved into more controversial territory—conflict analysis, in which the Committee is particularly interested, security sector reform, post-conflict peacebuilding and small arms trafficking. There is also our collaboration with private sector business, which a number of Members raised. Those are all new issues taken up by the new Labour Government, although, again, the last Government could have done it.

Let us take conflict analysis, in which, as I said, the Committee has shown a particular interest. We are currently conducting conflict assessments in a number of countries—Moldova, Sri Lanka, Krgystan and Nepal. An explicit and systematic analysis of conflict will assist in the identification and design of development and emergency interventions that are sensitive to the dynamics of conflict, and will thus produce opportunities for contribution to long-term stability.

Security sector reform is also a priority for us. Participatory poverty assessments clearly show that the poor of the world place a high priority on security, justice and order, for the simple reason that without those things it is impossible for them to continue. A security sector that is well tasked and well managed serves the interests of all, especially the poor, but in too many countries a bloated security sector soaks up resources that would be used better elsewhere, while elements in that sector can be a major source of insecurity and human rights abuse.

The security sector also tends to pose particular problems in post-conflict societies. In such circumstances, numerous ex-soldiers without employment or the prospect of employment are often waiting for long periods for the chance to return to a normal civilian life. If action is not taken to deal with that, there is a real prospect that demobilised soldiers will resort to violent crime, the underlying causes of conflict will be reactivated and full-scale civil war will recur.

Sierra Leone is a perfect example of the dilemma, and provides the first practical test of our work with the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office on security-sector reform. The signing of the Lome agreement gives Sierra Leone a chance of peace and development. As well as providing humanitarian assistance for those who have been made homeless by the war, Britain is giving emergency budgetary support to the attempt to sustain the essential functions of government and to implement the peace agreement. Just as we were the first and most generous donor in the case of the floods in Mozambique, we are the most active and generous in Sierra Leone. Members should acknowledge that.

The Chairman of the Select Committee pointed out that a tremendous problem is the inadequate salary—or, indeed, lack of any salary—received by many public servants. We were told an extraordinary story. A policeman had been extracting food bribes at a road block, but it turned out that the poor chap, who had been put there by his Government, had received no food or salary for the preceding three weeks, and was dying of starvation. In a sense, it would not have been exactly corrupt of him to start asking for a bit of food from passers-by.

That is why we are putting more resources into Sierra Leone, and why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have urged other countries to join us. This is not just Britain's responsibility, although we accept a great deal of the responsibility. Since March 1998, we have contributed more than £50 million to the post-conflict reconstruction and humanitarian needs of the people of Sierra Leone.

Sierra Leone demonstrates that many donor countries are happy to sign up to conflict prevention and peacebuilding in theory, but are deeply reluctant to engage in practice. That is often due to an unwillingness to become involved in what can be very risky environments. We acknowledge that we are all taking a risk in Sierra Leone, but it is right and worth while to do so, because the potential achievements and rewards are so great.

A number of Members raised the subject of arms exports and small-arms proliferation—in particular, the hon. Member for Richmond Park. Again, for 18 years under the last Government nothing was done, but action is now being taken, although—rightly—we are being pressurised to do more. We have received representations from the Select Committee, and, in July 1997, the Government announced new criteria for the assessment of arms-export applications. Arms exports are not permitted if they might be used for internal repression or external aggression, or if they would seriously undermine the sustainable development of the recipient country. Our Department is particularly concerned about that, and our criteria were incorporated in the European Union code of conduct that was adopted in 1998.

Ours has been the first British Government to publish annual reports on strategic export controls. We give details of the export licences that we have issued and those that we have refused to issue. That puts the United Kingdom at the forefront in terms of transparency on arms transfers.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park asked whether the Secretary of State would sign future reports. We are reviewing that in the light of recommendations made by the quadrilateral committee, in which members of the Select Committee participated. The hon. Lady also asked about arms trafficking and brokering. The new export control Bill will introduce tougher controls, and not before time. The Department of Trade and Industry is currently preparing draft legislation based on the White Paper on strategic export controls, and taking account of subsequent comments. After 18 years of no action, within less than three years action is being taken by this Government. [Interruption.]

Order. I have just heard a device go off. Madam Speaker deplores such activities. Anyone who has a bleeper switched on must either switch it off or take the batteries out.

Not only Madam Speaker deplores such activities; I do as well.

A number of Members mentioned military expenditure. We have just held a major seminar, bringing together representatives of developing countries, international financial institutions, other donors and non-governmental organisations, in order to encourage a more informed debate about the appropriate levels of such expenditure—and they need to be appropriate. Many developing countries divert resources into the military that would be much better spent on the basic social needs of the poor.

Because the device interrupted us, I did not hear the Minister say when the legislation would be introduced. Did he tell us?

The hon. Lady did not miss a thing. I said that it would be introduced as soon as possible.

When?

As soon as possible. The hon. Lady's Government had 18 years in which to act, and did not do a thing. We are acting within a much shorter period.

Our Department, working closely with the Foreign Office, is taking a greater role in the attempt to limit the means of waging war by acting to curb the proliferation of small arms and light weapons—another subject that was raised today. We are also trying to find out whether it is possible to curb the illicit trade in diamonds, which was mentioned by a number of Members and which has provided the funds to fuel and prolong conflicts in Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sierra Leone.

At an international level, the Government strongly support the European Union's programme to prevent and combat illicit trafficking in conventional arms. We are also working with the private sector—a new area for us. The project starts from the premise that conflict is bad for business, and that companies have much to gain from the development of effective conflict prevention strategies. Our primary aim will be to produce specific tools for companies to help them to develop such strategies.

I have not had time to answer all the questions that were asked, but, as I said earlier, I shall write to Members about the specific points that they raise. I thank members of the Select Committee for their report, which we think is a great step forward. We believe, however, that the Government are taking even greater steps forward: we believe that conflict undermines the poor people of the world, and that preventing it is one of the most important things that we in the Department and the Government can do.

I am grateful to have secured the debate and to have an opportunity to speak up for sixth form colleges. They are bright stars in our educational firmament and have been a shining light amid the educational gloom. I am concerned that they should be properly appreciated, nurtured and supported.

I should declare something of an interest. I have been a governor of Luton sixth form college since incorporation, as well as in the early 1980s during its earlier local authority incarnation. Both my children attended the college and were, in their turn, chair of the student council and of the student governors. My wife was at one time a parent governor, so we have strong family connections.

The college has been part of my life for almost 20 years and does a superb job for the young people of our town. It was the first of its kind; is one of the largest colleges; and has been confirmed as one of the best, as evidenced by its glowing inspection report last year. My regard for sixth form colleges in general is, I hope, objective, but I cannot help but see a rosy picture from my Luton experience.

Sixth form colleges are part of the further education sector, which is funded through the Further Education Funding Council. As treasurer of the all-party group on further education, I am an enthusiast for further education and, indeed, have in my constituency Barnfield college, one of our largest and best further education colleges.

In the 1970s, I taught in a college of further education and undertook some part-time teaching in FE in 1995. For some years, I was chair of governors of the former Luton college of higher education, now the university of Luton. At that time, more than one third of its capacity was devoted to further education.

Sixth form colleges have been grouped with further education colleges, although they do a rather different job. There is some overlap with further education colleges, but they complement each other, rather than competing. Luton sixth form college has a significant number of general national vocational qualification courses, but the centre of gravity of further education and sixth form colleges, their focus and core business are different. There is a spectrum of provision, with further education towards one end of our post-16 rainbow and sixth form colleges towards the other, with tertiary colleges bridging the gap.

Sixth form colleges look to schools more than further education colleges. I am conscious that in some areas there is competition for sixth form students between schools and sixth form colleges. I instinctively prefer planned provision rather than competition, but some competition is inevitable where there is parallel provision.

In Luton, we have 11-to-16 high schools feeding our colleges and one 11-to-18 Catholic high school, which is generally over-subscribed because of the large Catholic population in Luton. Therefore, I am perhaps freer than some Members to extol the virtues of sixth form colleges without offending other post-16 providers.

Why are sixth form colleges so good? From the students' point of view, they provide extraordinary flexibility in choice of courses. With a large number of students, they can provide parallel classes in the same subject at different times, so that students can tailor their pattern of courses precisely to their needs. I went to an old-fashioned grammar school and was given the blunt choice of languages, science or classics. At sixth form college, I might have chosen a different pattern of A-levels and possibly other courses, had they been available. The sheer number of A-level subjects that are taught at sixth form colleges is astonishing. At Luton, we have around 2,000 students, who can choose between 37 A-level options, 10 advanced GNVQs and a range of other courses.

Even large schools, understandably, cannot match that range of provision. Academically, sixth form colleges are successful. If students wish to achieve good examination results, to maximise their chances of progressing to higher education on a course and at an institution of their choice, or to move to a good job, they cannot do better than study at a sixth form college.

Sometimes, students from fee-paying schools have chosen to transfer to a sixth form college because of its record of success—students moving from the fee-paying education sector to the state sector for positive educational reasons—but I am much more concerned about sixth form college successes with students from non-traditional, non-academic and less-affluent backgrounds. In that respect, sixth form colleges do a wonderful job.

In Luton, approximately 60 per cent. of students are from ethnic minority backgrounds, often the first generation of families who have not previously had any prospect of educational advance beyond an elementary level. The educational value added achieved by sixth form colleges such as Luton is remarkable. They make an immense contribution to widening participation in education and to providing a springboard to further educational advance and better life chances. They are also a great social integrator, especially in towns such as Luton.

If sixth form colleges are doing such an exceptional job, why have I chosen to seek the debate? The truth is that the value of sixth form colleges is not properly recognised. We have warm words from official quarters, but I am sorry to say that it is not always matched by the provision of adequate resources. Many areas have no sixth form college and many Members are not familiar with sixth form college provision. I do not think that it was properly understood and it was certainly not appreciated in Government circles at the time of incorporation.

Sixth form colleges were allocated to the further education sector, but I have a distinct feeling that that was a rather arbitrary decision and that they could equally well have been left with local education authorities, along with schools. As a result, sixth form colleges have had an uncomfortable time in recent years. Funding comparisons have often been made with further education colleges, rather than schools. In reality, further education colleges derive much of their funding from external sources, whereas sixth form colleges are entirely funded by the state through the Further Education Funding Council. If the comparisons are made with schools, sixth form colleges come into their own. They have such economies of scale that they easily outperform school sixth forms in value for money.

That again presents a problem. Schools understandably are sensitive about those comparisons. Where school sixth forms operate alongside sixth form colleges, in an environment where Governments are looking for efficiency advantages, schools feel uncomfortable.

What is extraordinary is that the funding gap between school sixth forms and sixth form colleges has been increasing, rather than narrowing. Given their success, it is surprising that sixth form college teachers are paid less than their counterparts in schools. A salary difference of between £500 and £600 a year is typical and promotion in school sixth forms is easier to achieve than in sixth form colleges. I am not suggesting that good schools should be shorn of their sixth forms to create sixth form colleges, but sixth form colleges should at least be funded fairly.

Britain has a varied pattern of school and sixth form provision. If one could start from scratch, a sixth form college system throughout the country would be very attractive. It would be of advantage to students and to public finances, but no Government would countenance such an upheaval, so I will set aside that possibility now.

We are entering a new and exciting era with Curriculum 2000 beginning in September. I have long thought that the A-level curriculum for most students is too narrow. I strongly support the reforms. Sixth form colleges are well placed to make those reforms a success, with their wide range of courses and their flexible teaching provision, but Curriculum 2000 will need additional financial provision. Information gathered from sixth form colleges in recent days suggests that nowhere near enough money has been provided. The Further Education Funding Council must look again at sixth form college allocations.

I understand that an assumption has been made that half of sixth form college students will follow Curriculum 2000 from September, but the reality is that the great majority of all sixth form college students will do so. Some colleges have been allocated only a fraction of what they need to provide Curriculum 2000 for their students.

Before the general election, many sixth form colleges were facing financial crises. Class sizes had risen, pressures on teachers had greatly increased and the crunch was coming. Additional funding provided by the new Government relieved the pressure, but that merely staved off disaster and did not really provide the additional general funding that colleges required. Some additional funding has been allocated, but much of that is targeted, at additional IT provision, for example. Sixth form colleges need more money, so that they can pay staff salaries at least comparable with those in school sixth forms.

I am sorry that I have had to raise the difficult subject of funding as I know that every area of the public services has the same concerns. However, sixth form colleges have had a hard time. If they are to continue performing as well, they must be adequately funded. The issue will not go away.

In 1996–97, students studying for three A-levels were funded by 25 per cent. more in schools than in sixth form colleges. The most recent information from the Association of Colleges for Further and Higher Education says that the gap between sixth form college and school funding has increased to nearly 30 per cent. Sixth form colleges also face additional costs relative to schools, including provision for internal and external audit. Sixth form colleges have an average class size of 18, but it is quite common to have 25 or more. As I have said, an assumption has been made that 50 per cent. of sixth form college students will require additional Curriculum 2000 resourcing. In reality, the figure will be much higher. One college reported to me this week that 85 per cent. of its students will be covered by Curriculum 2000.

In its report on further education published in June 1998, the Select Committee on Education and Employment, emphasised the need to ensure that harmonisation is achieved by additional funding for the further education sector rather than the process of levelling down. The report says:

It should be possible to establish a common entitlement for 16–19 year old students on similar courses at schools and colleges and to fund it accordingly.

A substantial change in the funding arrangements and co-ordination of 16-to-19 education and training will occur when the Learning and Skills Bill becomes law. I welcome the change and believe that it will provide closer co-operation between different types of institution and more coherent and rational provision for all students.

I do not underestimate the difficulties involved and I hope that the minority sixth form college interest will be well served by the new learning and skills councils. The Bill envisages the creation of local education authority sixth form centres and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister and his ministerial colleagues to ensure that sixth form colleges are funded fairly within the new arrangements.

There are some issues that I cannot cover in the time allowed, but I hope to raise some of them privately with my hon. Friend and his Department. I re-emphasise my view that sixth form colleges are an immensely valuable national resource, providing first-class education for thousands of students on quality courses with dedicated, highly qualified and highly skilled staff. They remain minority providers across the country as a whole with less than a quarter of hon. Members having a sixth form college interest. The great value of sixth form colleges may not, therefore, be fully recognised. The quality of education they provide is of the highest order. They make a vital contribution to the economy and, above all, to the advancement of those students fortunate enough to pursue their studies at such a college.

As a nation, we could do well to expand sixth form college provision, but, even at present levels, colleges must be nurtured, sustained and properly and fairly funded. I look forward to my hon. Friend's response and to on-going dialogue in the coming months and years.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) for raising this important issue. I know that sixth form colleges have coped effectively with a variety of challenges and new opportunities in recent years and have shown professionalism and dedication to their students. I have no doubt that they will continue to do so under our proposed new arrangements for post-16 provision, in which they will continue to have an important role. I know of my hon. Friend's close interest, advocacy and involvement with sixth form colleges in his town.

The chief inspector's annual report for 1998-99 reported that much of the work of sixth form colleges is of good quality and of significant benefit to students and the nation. There is clear evidence that overall levels of achievement are rising and that the great majority of colleges are well managed. The report highlighted the valued service that sixth form colleges provide to their communities.

In a recent inspection report, Luton sixth form college, which as my hon. Friend said was the first of its kind in this country, was judged to provide excellent facilities for its staff and students. The report also highlighted outstanding provision in business studies and said that the college was exceedingly well managed. I take this opportunity to congratulate the college and its staff and students on that report.

I am pleased to see that staff in many sixth form colleges are working constructively in response to the Government's agenda of raising standards. Many have recognised that the most effective way to improve quality is for them to take responsibility for their own quality assurance by evaluating their performance and making the necessary changes. That is clearly an area which Luton sixth form college takes seriously.

It is clear that many sixth form colleges have high levels of achievement and are good examples of excellence in the post-16 world. An obvious indicator of that is that four of the 15 further education colleges so far accorded beacon status by Ministers are sixth form colleges. Those beacons will help the Government raise standards by spreading good practice across other sixth form colleges.

The latest inspection evidence shows that there are 30 sixth form colleges with achievement rates of 90 per cent. or higher. The list of colleges with outstanding achievement shows that four of the six colleges with that rating for science are sixth form colleges. All five with that rating for business studies, including Luton, are sixth form colleges. The colleges are to be congratulated.

Sixth form colleges have a vital contribution to make to our level 3 national learning targets. We want to see 60 per cent. of young people achieving level 3 by the age of 21. I am delighted that success at A-level continues to grow. Since incorporation, the number of sixth form college students achieving three or more A-levels has risen from 18,300 to 25,600.

Will my hon. Friend look at value added measures as well as simple A-level success? Many sixth form colleges are in central urban areas with many students from deprived or non-traditional academic backgrounds. Therefore, their performance is even more remarkable by value added standards than by a simple A-level pass standard.

I agree with my hon. Friend. I wanted to emphasise the A-level standard because, understandably, a great deal of emphasis is placed on it. I agree, though, that in our society, other measures are sometimes more important. The way in which a school or college works with a pupil and enables him or her to make progress is crucial.

In his polite and calm manner, my hon. Friend cast some doubt on the Department's commitment to sixth form colleges. Since becoming a Minister at the end of July, I have had many discussions and been involved in dialogue with sixth form colleges and those representing their interests. On a personal level, our three children attended and enjoyed John Ruskin sixth form college in Croydon. I hope that that personal involvement will convince my hon. Friend that, although I am trying to use part of my speech to deal with policy issues, I have some parental understanding of the subject.

I know of my hon. Friend's support and admiration for sixth form colleges. I was not intending to level accusations at the Department. I was talking about a lack of appreciation in the generality of the government machine and the House, arising from the fact that so few members are familiar with sixth form colleges. I was emphasising a general lack of appreciation rather than criticising the Department.

I understand that.

There are equally outstanding activities in sixth form colleges, beyond exam success: sport, music, the arts, community services and many other activities flourish and provide the opportunity for young people to develop across an enormously wide and enriching spectrum.

For the future, the new post-16 arrangements announced last summer in the White Paper "Learning to Succeed"—the Bill is now before the House—mark a step change in the organisation of education and training for people aged 16 and over. As I said earlier, sixth form colleges will continue to play an important role as we put into practice the Government's vision for post-16 learning. They can help us with our aims of widening participation. By implication, my hon. Friend was referring to that when he talked about the value added role. Sixth form colleges can offer young people a broad range of high-quality options from which to choose.

I recognise that the previous Administration's disastrous approach to further education funding means that sixth form colleges are now funded well below school sixth forms. That was the burden of much of my hon. Friend's comment. He made some forceful points in this debate about the disparity of funding between schools and sixth form colleges. I assure him that we are aware of the situation. Last summer's consultation paper on school sixth form funding put the disparity at 20 per cent. for a student taking a package of three A-levels. In response to that consultation, further education and sixth form colleges were very clear that they did not want downward convergence for schools, but a levelling upward for themselves. Of course the Government agree with that clear point.

Colchester sixth form college operates in a town with three schools with sixth forms. Will the Minister confirm that the funding gap between schools and sixth form colleges is approximately one third, not the figure that he gave? The gap can be even wider where schools with sixth forms rearrange their finances, essentially to suck up money from the 11-to-16 age group.

The disparity that I cited was 20 per cent. However, I should be very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on the matter, and to copy the correspondence to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North, so that we can be absolutely clear about the figures.

The Government agree that upward convergence for further education colleges, including sixth form colleges, is the way forward. However, we realise that that can only happen over time, and subject to resources being available. I am convinced that such convergence will come. I think that the new learning and skills councils, with their overview of all post-16 provision outside higher education, will help with that aim.

I should like to bring a little comfort to my hon. Friend and the Government. I believe that sixth form colleges would not need exactly the same funding levels as schools, as they have natural, built-in economies of scale, and that substantial movement towards school funding would solve all the problems.

Clearly, we need to move towards a position in which every young person doing A-level or vocational courses at that level—regardless of whether they are in a sixth form, sixth form college or an FE institution—is being treated properly and fairly. That is our objective, but it will take some time to achieve.

Meanwhile, let us not forget that the Government have been responsible for the biggest ever injection of funds into further education and sixth form colleges. Hon. Members will know that further education is to receive significant additional funding. We are confident that our planned investment of £3.9 billion, in 2001–02—including the largest-ever annual increase for further education, of £365 million, for that year—will provide significant help to those making 16-to-18 provision in the FE sector. We have also substantially moderated the efficiency gains required by the previous Administration.

I have a specific question that I should like to ask the Minister on behalf of the principal of the Farnborough sixth form college—which is one of the very best in the country, and is everything that the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) said. Given that there are to be the new local sixth form colleges under LEA auspices, will the Minister give an undertaking that the 20 per cent. differential between sixth form colleges and sixth forms will get no worse, and that he will try at some point to close that gap? Otherwise, the new colleges, with existing sixth form schools, will continue to enjoy an advantage over sixth form colleges.

I give that reassurance to Farnborough college, and to the sixth form colleges that I have already mentioned in my speech. We want to bridge the gap positively, with sixth form colleges moving upwards. I should be grateful if, in the final six minutes of the debate, hon. Members will bear with me and allow me to make some progress in my speech, to address the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North.

As for the post-16 curriculum reforms—known as qualifying for success, or in some quarters as Curriculum 2000—the Further Education Funding Council has made it clear that it will have early discussions with those colleges requesting increases to their provisional allocation formula for 2000–01. Each college will have a different mix of students and courses, and will decide for itself how best to implement the new post-16 curriculum. The Government are not seeking to prescribe a particular kind of curriculum, but we do want to see broad-based and flexible programmes of study. The FEFC has also guaranteed that those colleges that have requested increased funding will receive confirmation before Easter of a revised provisional allocation, where appropriate.

Today, the FEFC has provided me with the following reassurance:

Colleges are in the process of responding to their provisional funding allocations. Early indications suggest a positive take up of Curriculum 2000, particularly for sixth form colleges and general FE colleges with large numbers of A level students. Where colleges are informing the Council that they expect to have an increased number of students following the new expanded programmes, the Council will fully fund the expansion and revise colleges' funding allocations straight away.

I hope that that reassures hon. Members participating in this debate.

Sixth form colleges should also bear in mind and take full advantage of the FE standards fund. The fund was introduced to implement improvement strategies for better achievement and retention in FE. It can be used to rectify areas of weakness in colleges, for training and professional development of staff, and for the dissemination of good practice.

As has been noted in the debate, the Learning and Skills Bill makes it possible for LEAs to establish and maintain schools—sixth form centres—that cater solely for 16 to 19-year-olds. The Government have no preferred model of post-16 provision; nor would we wish to prescribe one. The opportunity for LEAs to create those new institutions should not be seen as any form of threat to sixth form colleges and their valid place in 16-to-19 provision.

Sixth form colleges will remain firmly in the further education sector. They are different types of animals and will serve different purposes. It will still be possible for new sixth form colleges to be established, if that is felt to be the best way of meeting the needs in a particular locality. LEA-maintained 16-to-19 institutions are not intended to compete with sixth form colleges, but— when appropriate, and with the agreement of the local learning community—they could provide an alternative way of meeting local needs.

Our drive is to bring more coherence to the 16–19 sector, and, simultaneously, to increase choice, drive up standards and offer breadth of provision. When individual school sixth forms cannot offer sufficient curriculum breadth, the school and the LEA will need to look carefully at a range of options, such as collaboration, consortiums agreements and LEA-maintained institutions.

I hope that the outcome of the new, more joined-up approach to the post-16 world will be much better collaboration between sixth form colleges and school sixth forms. The joint report, at the end of last summer, from Ofsted and FEFC inspectors, gave some clear messages about the value of such an approach. Above all, collaboration serves to broaden the curriculum on offer. Additionally, a greater number of courses and more subject combinations are available to students, and there is a wider range of routes for progress. Moreover, courses can be provided more economically when collaboration tackles the issue of classes that individually would be too small. I hope that sixth form colleges will show a willingness to open their doors to such arrangements.

The new post-16 arrangements are designed to ensure that patterns of provision meet local needs, drive up standards and encourage greater collaboration. I give the clear assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North that sixth form colleges have a vital role to play in that process, in delivering the high-quality education that young people in this country need to enable them to make the most of themselves, and of the opportunities that are available to them, as they move forward into adult life.

Our commitment, as a Department and as a Government, is not to structures—and it is not our desire to side with school sixth forms against sixth form colleges or FE colleges. Our concern is to enable our young men and women, post-16, to have the very best opportunities, whether academic or vocational, or sometimes a mix. Different institutions—including schools, sixth form colleges and those in the FE sector have a vital role to play in that significant agenda for our country.

Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for addressing this important issue, and for doing it in such an able way.

I am glad to see a north-east Member in the Chair, a north-east Minister here to reply to the debate and at least one other north-east Member in this Chamber.

At the beginning of March, Barclays customers in Belford, Lowick and Norham received a patronising letter telling them that their branch would close in five weeks' time. A map was enclosed showing that there was another branch between eight and 16 miles away, No bus timetable was enclosed, as that would have revealed the near impossibility of getting there and back again and transacting banking business. The branches recommended were in Seahouses and Wooler. The Seahouses branch presents additional practical problems for anyone needing to park their car and deposit cash at the bank.

To add insult to injury, Barclays customers found in the newspapers at about the same time a two-page full colour advert saying:

A big world needs a big bank: with more offices in Europe than any other bank.

As far as Barclays current management is concerned, rural Northumberland is not in the big world or in Europe, so it does not deserve any offices or branches of the bank.

The implications of the Barclays closure programme for the Government's policy for regenerating rural areas are devastating, particularly when combined with threats to post offices. They affect pensioners and families, particularly given the Government's plans to have benefits paid through bank accounts—what bank accounts at what banks?

My constituency is not alone in this deprivation. There are 17 motions and many amendments on the Order Paper attacking Barclays bank closures—more than I have seen on any other single issue in 26 years in the House. Whatever else it has done, Barclays has scored another public relations disaster to rival its grasping plans for cash machine charges.

Who on earth will want to bank with an institution that is so disloyal to its customers? Some people have no choice. Since the days of Martins bank, which Barclays took over, Barclays has been the dominant banker in the rural communities of Northumberland. Outside the three main towns there are only two branches of banks other than Barclays and no building society branches. There are no cash dispensers. In the three communities where Barclays branches are being closed, there are no other banking services apart from those provided by the invaluable local sub-post offices, which are themselves deeply worried about the future.

The two smaller communities of Lowick and Norham are nevertheless larger villages by Northumberland standards. I know that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is familiar with them. He likes to spend his spare time in my constituency and I often encounter him around the countryside of Northumberland, so he knows the distances involved and the communities that I am talking about.

Lowick used to have many shops and businesses and no fewer than six churches. It still has several businesses, three churches and two pubs. There are many pensioners and numerous disabled people who need access to a bank, with the part-time sub-branch of Barclays meeting their needs. It is many miles to the towns where there are banks. Norham still has a butcher, a baker and several shops and needs its banking services. Again, many pensioners there depend on the bank.

Perhaps the most extraordinary closure plan is at Belford, which is thought of as a large village, but has many of the features of a small market town, with quite a wide range of shops and businesses and large numbers of summer visitors. It is a community that is determined to build for the future with the very active Belford Trade Association working enthusiastically with local councillors and with me to promote improvements. With an active rail users group, it is well on the way to getting Belford station reopened for passengers. New signs that have been planned for the A 1 will bring many more visitors to use the local services, and they will expect a bank to be one of those services. The community is working on funding to revive the town's industrial estate. The community is designated for growth by both borough and county councils, yet Barclays wants to abandon this growing and strengthening community where more than 700 people hold Barclays accounts and many more Barclays customers use the branch to service Barclays accounts elsewhere.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with my constituents in Newbigginby-the-Sea and Guide Post who have also been affected by a recent Barclays closure announcement? They were absolutely dismayed to see Barclays spending tens of millions of pounds on an advertising campaign to attract new customers, having turned its back on customers who have been loyal for many years. Does the right hon. Gentleman further agree that that money would be better spent on providing a service for existing customers, and that Barclays should immediately lift the threat of closure from those branches and reopen the banks that it has recently closed?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, some of my constituents in the village of Lynemouth used to use the Barclays branch in Newbiggin-by-theSea, which is also threatened with closure. Barclays' advertising campaign must have been one of the most wasted in history as its actions speak so much louder than its words. The two-page advertisements telling you to open an account at Barclays will be totally unconvincing to my constituents who will see that as soon as you open an account, the branch will be closed—

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is referring to me. I can reassure him that I have no such intentions, particularly in current circumstances.

Indeed. I was referring to you figuratively, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you apply your customary shrewdness in choosing where to bank.

There is no evidence of decline in the use of the Belford branch. Indeed, it is such a busy place that it is a recognised community meeting point. Many pensioners depend on the bank's facilities and are unable to travel elsewhere. A large number of local businesses depend on being able to deposit cash at the branch and do not want the wasted time and greatly increased risk of a 20 or 30-mile round trip, sometimes daily, to bank their cash. Closure would be a real setback to village regeneration. That is an issue for the Government's rural policy as well as for Barclays.

What is particularly indefensible about all the closures going ahead so quickly is that the programme takes no account of work in which Barclays is currently involved to look at banking in rural communities, including the British Bankers Association report "Banking without Branches". The British Bankers Association commissioned an independent study from Bristol university into the effects of bank closures and how communities cope without a local branch. The major banks asked for time to consider the report, but they are not giving their customers time to consider before removing their services.

The report highlighted the disproportionate effect of closures on the most vulnerable—the elderly and the disabled—and on small businesses. That was assuming that there would be a bank within four miles, even after the local branch had closed. In my constituency, the distances would be much greater. The report showed that 70 per cent. of small retailers visit their local branch more than once a week, and 80 per cent. of those surveyed use paying-in facilities. Barclays is ignoring all that.

In addition, Barclays is involved in an experiment in Cornwall looking at community banking services. There is a proposal for up to 200 Cornish post offices to take over the four basic functions of a bank for Barclays' personal customers—not business customers—such as withdrawals, paying in, cashing cheques and so on. I think that it begins this week on 16 March—and is supposed to be in place throughout Cornwall by the end of April. It has been agreed between Post Office Counters Ltd. and Barclays, but it has not yet been agreed by all the postmasters in Cornwall. Questions are being asked about how logistically possible the arrangements are. There is no time scale for evaluating the experiment and there are security and other problems associated with it. Why is Barclays not awaiting the outcome of its own experiment before going ahead with rural closures at the other end of the country?

Barclays also make much of online banking. A survey of the 767 Barclays customers in Belford revealed that only a tiny proportion of them were engaged in online banking and most of them did not depend wholly on it; they continued to use the bank for cash facilities. One cannot pay cash into or get cash out of a computer screen. If anyone has found a way of doing that I would be fascinated to observe it. People still require a bank branch. Barclays is leaping ahead of its own customers in assuming that they do not require services that are clearly still needed. I have pleaded with the chairman of Barclays to defer the rural closures until there is a response to the survey and some results from the Cornish pilot scheme, and until there has been some consultation between the bank and local communities about alternatives to closure and services that could continue through local agents such as the Post Office.

I ask the Government to put pressure on Barclays to give us a breathing space and to start thinking more sensibly about rural communities. With a 30 per cent. profit increase to £2.5 billion, the bank can hardly plead poverty; it has room for manoeuvre, which it should use to help its own customers in rural communities.

I also ask the Government to give very careful consideration to the impact on rural communities of banking closures and to the measures that could be taken as part of Government rural policy. I ask them to look, for example, at United States legislation which I believe requires banks to assist in setting up alternative arrangements if a closure would leave a local community without a branch.

There is concern both nationally and regionally. The Newcastle Journal "Save our Villages" campaign underlines how strong the concern is throughout the north-east. With such widespread concern, the bank really ought to realise how much damage it is doing both to itself and to rural communities by rushing ahead with closures without consultation of the kind that I have described.

I hope that the Government can apply some pressure in their current discussions with the banks to get Barclays to give us some more time. The discussions have of course extended to the whole cash machine charges issue and have not been a very good omen for any further discussions that might take place.

Barclays, in particular, has not demonstrated a responsible attitude. It now has an opportunity to show that it cares about its customers and about the communities in which it has traditionally been dominant for many years. If it fails to respond, it will pay a heavy price and many people throughout the country will feel that it is not an institution with which they want to be associated in any way.

My most urgent plea of all is to Barclays: defer the closures and give rural communities a chance.

The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) represents one of the most beautiful constituencies in the country and, as he said, I am very familiar with it. I want to say at the outset that I share his disappointment with the attitude of Barclays towards its rural customers, and in particular the ones who will be affected by the closures.

The Government readily accept that ease of access to financial services is important in maintaining rural businesses and in encouraging rural regeneration, and that it is an important part of rural life. Barclays justifies its closure proposals by saying that it is concentrating investment in its busiest branches. It identifies what it describes as its "lowest performing branches", where it says that the number of transactions is declining. Those are the branches that have been chosen for closure.

Although Barclays has traditionally been well represented in the north-east of England, it now claims that it is

re-aligning the number of branches to get best use of them.

At present, the branches in Belford and Choppington offer banking services six days a week, while those at Lowick and Norham are more restricted. Lowick opens for two hours twice a week and Norham offers two hours three times a week. None of the banks has automatic cash dispensing facilities.

Belford in north Northumberland is a typical small rural village—it says "village" here but, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it thinks of itself more as a town, as do I, of about 1,000 inhabitants, with two financial service providers: Barclays and the Post Office. The post office has longer opening hours than Barclays bank: it is open six days a week, usually until 5.30, whereas the bank closes at 3.30.

The local post office has made arrangements with Lloyds TSB, Co-operative bank and Alliance and Leicester, offering free banking services to customers of those banks. Services include both withdrawals and paying in. That shows that it is possible to make alternative arrangements if one lives in Belford, and I recommend that, if Barclays persists with the closure, those who currently bank with it consider switching to one of the three banks that have that arrangement with the local post office. I notice that Lord Walton already has plans to do that, and it may well be that others will want to follow his example.

No such alternative arrangements will be available to my constituents if Barclays goes ahead with its proposed closure of its Hampstead Heath branch. The effects that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) described will be replicated in my constituency, albeit it is not rural, and those who will be damaged most will be the bank's most loyal customers, pensioners and the small businesses in the area, the majority of whose transactions are in cash. They will face additional burdens because of their need to go to the nearest alternative branch. There is also a security element should Barclays indeed install an automatic cash machine.

I strongly endorse everything that the right hon. Gentleman said. The Government should at least ask Barclays to consult before going ahead with closures that could do enormous damage to not only rural but urban regeneration and impact against the Government's proposals for tackling social exclusion.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The problems in her constituency are a bit different from those in the right hon. Gentleman's, but it is true that banks are also withdrawing from some urban areas, which could have some of the effects that she outlined.

In small communities such as those that the right hon. Gentleman described, it may well be that the future of banking lies with the Post Office. The Government are providing £500 million to the Post Office for computerisation, and that will in due course enable a wider range of services to be offered. The Post Office has about 10 times as many branches as the largest bank, which may provide an alternative for those without access to traditional bank branches.

The Post Office is currently implementing arrangements nationally and hopes to have them completed within the next 18 months. Belford post office is already connected and the postmaster there, to whom my officials have spoken in the past 24 hours or so, hopes to introduce a wider range of banking services in due course. The picture is not entirely gloomy.

As the right hon. Gentleman said, Barclays is currently carrying out a three-month trial in 270 post offices in Cornwall to see how services can be delivered through post offices. I agree that it is unfortunate that it should choose this time to close so many branches, before seeing how the experiment is working. Other banks are able to make use of the Post Office and I am disappointed that Barclays is taking what I regard as premature action in announcing the closures. At the very least, it would have been better if it had waited until its experiment in Cornwall could be assessed and alternatives set up to minimise inconvenience to customers.

In addition to the situation at Belford, Barclays proposes closing its branches at Choppington, Lowick and Norham. There are post offices or sub-post offices at all three villages and they, too, may be able to offer alternative and expanded banking services in due course. That may well be where the future lies if the big banks, or some of them, are no longer interested in customers in rural areas.

Perhaps I should say a few words about the wider picture. There is pressure not only on rural banks but on rural shops, pubs and other services, to say nothing of the current difficulties in farming. The Government intend to address the wider issues of the countryside in the rural White Paper to be published this summer. The White Paper will focus on sustainable growth and regeneration in rural areas and new directions for agriculture. It will establish service standards in rural areas and address, among other issues, social exclusion, ensuring a co-ordinated approach across Government.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has established a new Cabinet Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, to co-ordinate Government policies affecting rural areas. We have already greatly increased spending on rural programmes.

On rural transport, an additional £170 million will be spent over three years, including new support for rural bus services and encouragement for community transport initiatives. An additional £100 million has been provided for the rural bus subsidy grant to enable it to continue for a further three years past March next year. That has allowed Northumberland county council to provide improved bus services in some of its rural areas, including a post-bus service. I shall not go so far as to say that the Post Office will take over public transport as well as banking, because that would be asking too much.

The Government are encouraging local authorities to deliver improvements through local transport plans. In Northumberland, that has provided an additional £1.6 million, which may lead to an improved public transport interchange at Berwick-upon-Tweed's railway station— I expect that the right hon. Gentleman knows about that—and the possibility, to which he referred, of the re-opening of the station at Belford for passenger traffic.

The Government are implementing mandatory rate relief for village shops and post offices. Sole shops and post offices with a rateable value of less than £5,000, which will be increased to £6,000 from 1 April, in a designated settlement of under 3,000 people, are eligible for 50 per cent. rate relief. That must affect some of the shops in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, perhaps in some of the villages where the banks are about to close. Local authorities have discretionary powers to increase that relief up to a level of 100 per cent.

On a wider front, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recently announced plans for £1.6 billion of spending over the next seven years—a 60 per cent. increase—on rural development measures in England. The north-east section of the rural development plan identifies "improved access to services" as one of the goals for the north-east. That will be achieved through improvements to information technology services and increasing the number of multiuse facilities. It may be possible to use community centres and village pubs as local service centres, for example.

I would be out of order if I strayed too far into the wider issues of the agricultural crisis that our countryside faces, but I wish to press the Minister to make it clear to Barclays, perhaps through his ministerial colleagues who appear to have regular discussions with the banks, that the Government see the need for the bank to offer a breathing space to communities and allow time for consultation before closures. The Minister has expressed his approval of that proposal, but I hope that it will be made clear to Barclays that that is the Government's view. I hope also that the Government will indicate their interest in the Cornish experiment and the need to see some results from it before drastic decisions are taken. I also hope that the Minister's officials in the region, who have obviously looked into the matter in detail, will be encouraged to continue to take an interest in helping us to ensure that banking facilities of some kind remain available in the villages.

I shall certainly make sure that the message is passed to Barclays, and I have said on the record today that the Government's view is that Barclays should delay the closures until the result of the experiment is known. We are disappointed by the approach that Barclays has taken in this and other cases.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about some legislation in the United States of America. We have briefly considered that, but we do not see that legislation would help to solve the problem. We are watching progress in the area, but there is no evidence that the US legislation has led to better access to banking in rural areas. More than 20 years after the community reinvestment legislation, the percentage of the US population without any kind of bank account is twice as high as it is in the UK, where we do not have such legislation. The difficulties, and the distances, are on a wholly different scale in the US, but legislation may not be the right way to proceed.

I warn the Minister to be careful about his statistics, because he may have forgotten the drastic effect of American bank collapses on the willingness of Americans to put their money in local banks.

That is a fair point, but I shall not digress into the subject of the American banking system because I would swiftly be out of my depth.

And out of order.

I hope that I have said enough to indicate to the right hon. Gentleman and others that the Government take seriously the problems in rural areas in general, as well as the specific ones to which he has drawn attention. We consider that access to financial services is a vital element in achieving rural development and eliminating social exclusion. I thank him for raising the issue and I hope that Barclays is prepared to reconsider its proposals until such time as realistic alternatives are available, but if it is not, customers must vote with their feet.

I begin by expressing my gratitude at being given the opportunity to hold this debate, especially as my previous debate had to be withdrawn. It is happy timing to be able to have this debate in the week before the Budget.

You have visited my constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so you know that it is composed of remote islands. So remote are they that the BBC saw fit to use one as the location for its series "Castaway". Of course, the BBC mythology that the islands are inhospitable and uninhabitable is absurd and extreme, but they are remote, and that remoteness creates difficulties for the communities who live there.

The difficulties are felt most, not by those who have to live on an island for a 12-month docusoap, but by those who live there for year after year, under Government after Government. Cheap and easy transport is essential to the economic well-being and social welfare of the communities who inhabit these remote islands.

In Britain's inner cities, social exclusion means poor education, low incomes, drugs and crime. In Britain's remote islands, it means expensive and difficult transport, which compounds the difficulties implicit in the geographic reality of remoteness. It means exclusion from the economic rhythms and benefits that mainland Britain takes for granted. Combating social exclusion in the remote areas therefore requires Government policies designed above all else to improve transport links, and to try to reduce—or at the very least contain—their cost.

I acknowledge that other parts of Britain are affected by Government policies on petrol duty and air passenger duty, and I welcome the interest of other hon. Members in this debate. However, I deliberately gave the debate a narrow title, to emphasise to my hon. Friend the Minister that the impact of those duties on remote island communities differs significantly from their impact elsewhere. The Government's future thinking must take account of that special impact.

The key to understanding the problem with fuel duty is to appreciate remote communities' greater dependence on transport by private car, given the obvious lack of public transport alternatives. I also want to highlight the scale of the gap between fuel prices in the most remote areas and in urban, mainland Britain.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and congratulate him on securing this debate. He will be aware that 68 per cent. of people in the highlands and islands own cars, or have access to them. The Scottish average is 57 per cent. Does he agree that no amount of improvement in public transport will ever overcome the need of people in remote areas to use cars? Public transport cannot go up every track and into every village. Is not it imperative that we make it clear that there is a great dependence on access to private cars?

The hon. Lady makes a valid point. It is especially valid in connection with remote island communities, such as those that her constituency also contains.

To illustrate the price gap that I mentioned, I have the latest "Pricewatch!" leaflet produced by comhairle nan Eilean Siar, the Western Isles council. It shows that motorists in the western isles paid 84p per litre for unleaded petrol in January. That is lop a litre—or 45p a gallon, in the older measure—more than motorists in Glasgow paid. That is a real price gap.

The Office of Fair Trading is investigating that gap, and its report is awaited with interest. However, the high price paid in remote communities, if not the gap itself, is clearly related to the level of the duty. Higher prices in the highlands also mean that disproportionately more is paid to the Treasury in the form of value added tax. It is estimated that the Treasury collects almost £3 million more in VAT in the highlands and islands than would be the case if uniform prices were in operation across the United Kingdom.

I acknowledge that fuel duty is an important tax for the Government; for environmental and revenue reasons. I do not disregard those benefits for the Government, nor do I want to downplay them. I do not argue against the basic philosophy underlying fuel duty, which is to exert pressure to make cars cleaner and more fuel-efficient. However, it is now time for the Treasury to pause, and to take stock of how it collects fuel duty, in light of that duty's enormous and rapid growth in recent years.

Fuel duty now pulls in almost £23 billion for the Treasury. It is the fourth biggest tax levied by the Inland Revenue and Customs and Exercise, after income tax, VAT and corporation tax. In comparison, the combined duties on wines, spirits and beer raise less than £8 billion. Tobacco tax raises less than £6 billion, while capital gains tax and inheritance tax raise less than £5 billion between them. In fact, apart from the big four taxes that I have mentioned, no tax levied by the Inland Revenue and Customs and Exercise raises more than £10 billion a year.

I cite those figures because I do not believe that the Government can continue to levy so huge a tax in a rigid, uniform, one-size-fits-all way across the whole of the UK. The other three "big four" taxes are not levied in that way: fuel duty should not be levied in that way either.

We accept that the other big taxes have to be adjusted and adapted if they are to be seen as fair, and if a political reaction against them is to be avoided. Adjustments to income tax and corporation tax are made according to income levels, and VAT is made fairer by the exemption of food and children's clothes. Similarly, we should adjust how we levy fuel duty, given the scale of the revenue that it brings in.

It will not be enough to hypothecate future increases in the duty. The manner of its collection will have to be adjusted as well, if the Government wish it to continue to play an important role in achieving their targets of revenue growth and environmental improvement.

The obvious way to adjust fuel duty so that it is seen to be fairer is to provide a concession targeted at the most remote of our rural communities. Other countries do that, and so should we. There will be technical difficulties in devising such a scheme, but the Treasury must make a real effort to overcome them.

I want to leave other hon. Members time to speak, so I shall turn briefly to air passenger duty. Once again, the situation facing remote islands communities is unique. Elsewhere in Britain, air services are a convenience, or even a luxury. They are certainly not a travel necessity. For the remote islands, however, they are an essential lifeline to the mainland. That is why the health services in the remote islands use air transport regularly—almost daily—to move patients and staff between the islands and mainland facilities.

The Government provide a subsidy to maintain non-profitable island-to-mainland links. That subsidy has been approved by the European Union through a public service order. That is why I believe that it is simply wrong for these lifeline air services to be subject to air passenger tax in the same way that regular air services around the UK are subject to it. I welcome the Government's consultation on that point. It is certainly more than the previous Government ever conceded.

However, I must caution my hon. Friend the Minister that the proposed exemption of internal flights between the highlands and islands will exempt only a quarter of the flights between islands and mainland Scotland. Most flights—the most expensive ones—are between the islands and other parts of Scotland that lie outside the highlands. They too must be exempted if the Government's expression of good intentions is to be turned into reality.

That proposition has the support of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who cannot attend this debate because of his duties in the Scottish Parliament, and of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart), who is absent for similar reasons. However, both have written to the Minister on this matter. I hope that he will take heed of their representations, and of the points that I have raised.

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on securing this debate. I know that he has been taking a close interest in these topics for a considerable period.

The matters that my hon. Friend has raised are of serious concern to people in remote communities. He rightly reminded us of the reliance that they place on the car for their daily transport. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) made the telling point that car ownership statistics were higher in this part of Scotland than in others.

My hon. Friend will recall that I acknowledged those concerns when he led a delegation from the Highlands and Islands Transport Forum, which I met at the Treasury on 24 January. The Government's White Paper "A New Deal for Transport", which was published in July 1998, set out our aim of extending choice in transport and securing mobility in a way that supports sustainable development. The White Paper recognises that fiscal measures and economic instruments have a major role to play in influencing travel choice and encouraging sustainable development. Road transport alone accounts for more than 20 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions and nearly 50 per cent. of nitrogen oxide emissions, so limiting those emissions is potentially important in tackling the environmental challenges that we all face.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer is very aware of the concerns of people in rural areas. It was in recognition of those concerns and others that he announced in the pre-Budget report in November that he would in future consider all social, economic and environmental factors when reaching his Budget decisions on the appropriate rates of fuel duty—including, of course, the affordability of fuel in remote and rural communities—rather than continuing with the automatic fuel duty escalator that has applied for a number of years. It was also in recognition of those concerns that my right hon. Friend announced that Customs and Excise would be consulting on an exemption from air passenger duty for flights from the Scottish highlands and islands. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for that announcement, and I will return to it a little later in my remarks.

My hon. Friend emphasised the price differences in petrol and diesel between the remote islands and urban areas in Scotland. He made the case for Government action to address those differences. It is worth saying that there is no difference in the duty paid on a litre of petrol sold in Glasgow and a litre sold in Benbecula. The Treasury does not collect more duty according to the retail price of the fuel. The question is why fuel is more expensive in remote areas or, alternatively, why it is less expensive in urban areas. My hon. Friend's point about VAT is accurate, but it does not apply to duty. Whether the Treasury collects less VAT as a result of that is a matter for debate, because it depends on what else that money would have been spent on. However, my hon. Friend's point about a higher amount of VAT being collected per litre is correct.

On the price of fuel, a number of different economic factors come into play. It costs more to transport fuel to remote areas, the volumes sold are not as great as in towns and cities, and there is not the competition found in urban areas, particularly given the presence of supermarkets. By contrast, in urban areas, transport costs are less, greater volumes cut operating costs and intense competition between the major suppliers lowers pump prices.

The Office of Fair Trading is working to ensure that there is no cartel on pricing in the petrol market. In May 1998, its report on competition in the supply of petrol in the United Kingdom specifically considered the supply of petrol in remote rural areas, including the structure of the market in north-west Scotland. The report concluded that consumers were not paying over the odds for their petrol in that part of the country. It said that higher prices were a function of the extra costs of supply and the fact that there is less competition there than elsewhere. There was no evidence of the operation of cartels. My hon. Friend has already said that the OFT is considering these issues afresh. Like him, I look forward to its report, which I understand is likely to be available later in the spring.

My hon. Friend makes the point that, given the size of the take on fuel duty, we cannot impose a one-size-fits-all approach. In reality, we do not—there are already differential rates for cleaner fuels, for example. That has been a feature of the fuel duty system for some time. However, on none of the taxes that he describes as the big four—his analysis was interesting—do we apply different rates on a geographical basis. I suggest that any attempt to do so would create serious difficulties. In all four cases, rates are applied in exactly the same way across the country. There is variation in the rate of those taxes, but not on a geographical basis.

The Government take seriously the transport needs of those in remote areas. We have already introduced a number of measures to address them. We allocated an additional £50 million to rural bus services in the 1998 Budget; we established the rural bus challenge fund; we set up a new rural transport partnership fund; we announced in the 1999 Budget a 20 per cent. increase in funds for rural bus services; and we announced that bus fuel duty rebate will rise in line with the rate of fuel duty for the second successive year. The rebate had been frozen for a long period, and it was unfrozen last year.

The Chancellor has said that he will consider the rates of fuel duty on a Budget-by-Budget basis. He has also said that any revenues from real-terms increases in fuel duties will go straight into a ring-fenced fund for improving public transport and modernising the road network, from which Scotland would receive its share in line with the Barnett formula.

Those are all important initiatives. I do not for a moment suggest that any of them mean that people in remote areas do not need a car. I accept that many people in remote areas and, indeed, in many parts of the country, need a car. However, it is important to emphasise how much the Government have done to improve the provision of bus and other public transport services. I would not want to underestimate the importance of the additional provision that they have made in improving public transport services for people in remote areas and elsewhere.

Will the Minister concede that in many of the island and rural areas that we are discussing, no amount of money put into bus services will address the essential problem to which the hon. Members for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) referred? We are talking about areas in which bus frequency is not measured in how many buses come per hour but how many buses come per month. Therefore, the Government's measures are not a substitute, in economic terms, for use of the car.

I accept that many people in many parts of country need to have a car. However, I would not want us to lose sight of the importance of public transport services, even in some of our more remote areas. I simply wanted to put that on the record.

When we met in January—and, to some extent, today—my hon. Friend suggested a number of measures that would help, including exempting rural motorists from increases in fuel duty and making red diesel available for on-road use. There are a number of serious obstacles to such proposals. Not only do they conflict with our legally binding obligations under European Community directives on oils taxation, but they could conflict with EC state aid rules. We had the opportunity to discuss those issues when we met in January.

EC law sets out clearly the circumstances in which oil may be subject to a reduced rate of duty. Any new differentiated rate of excise duty requires a derogation from that directive, and such derogations are difficult to obtain. No new derogations have been allowed on a regional basis since the introduction of the single market in 1993, and it is unlikely that any would be allowed.

Even if that were not a problem, there is also a question of principle involved in asking some UK motorists to pay for the environmental consequences of burning fossil fuels while others do not. Other problems would be involved in administering the changes which, although less significant, still need to be considered.

My hon. Friend mentioned the difficulties with European Union regulations. Does he accept that Portugal and Greece have concessions that have a geographic basis? Why is it unlikely that the United Kingdom would be able to obtain a similar concession?

Those derogations were already in place when the single market was established. In a sense, the European Commission was willing to make an exception for some existing arrangements to bind those countries into the single market. The prospects for obtaining new derogations, in the UK or anywhere else in the EU, is pretty slim. I would not want to mislead hon. Members into thinking that there may be a prospect of that at the moment.

I certainly recognise the concerns expressed this afternoon. However, many other groups consider their need for access to cheaper petrol and diesel to be equally as great including, for example: road hauliers; people with disabilities; the unemployed; and those on fixed incomes, in particular pensioners. My postbag, and I suspect that of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members present, contains vigorous representations from all those groups.

At the meeting in January, I told my hon. Friend that the Scottish Executive should certainly consider how best to use the rural transport fund to help to alleviate some of the difficulties in remote communities. Representatives of the Highlands and Islands Transport Forum at the meeting said that they would be interested in providing advice to the Executive on how best that money could be spent. I would urge that those discussions should proceed.

When we met, my hon. Friend called for discussions about the feasibility of a vehicle excise duty concession for the remote Scottish islands. There have already been contacts between the Treasury and Scottish Executive officials to discuss both the proposal for a general concession for car owners in the islands and the scope for widening the existing small island vehicles concession for goods vehicles to cover some of the larger Scottish islands as well.

Both those measures would be complex to administer and difficult and time consuming to legislate for, but, nevertheless, Treasury and Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions officials will be discussing the practicalities of those ideas with the Scottish Executive to inform the Government's future Budget options.

I remind my hon. Friend that a lower rate of VED was introduced in the Budget last year for cars up to 1,100 cc. That rate applies throughout the country, but it has offered some relief to people in rural areas, such as the ones to whom hon. Members have drawn attention, who have to depend on a car and have chosen a smaller-engined model.

On air passenger duty, remote communities—in particular island communities—often rely heavily on air transport links to maintain their way of life. There is no doubt about that; nor have I been left in any doubt that people in those communities see the air passenger duty, which may be included in the price of their air travel, as a burden. I say "which may be included" because, as hon. Members will be aware, many routes use small aircraft, which are exempt from the duty.

The Government recognise the importance of air transport to the Scottish highlands and islands, which is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his pre-Budget report last November that we would be consulting on an exemption from air passenger duty for flights departing from airports in the Scottish highlands and islands. Our primary aim in doing so was to consider ways to reduce the impact on the region's air travellers of the removal of the present exemption for the return leg of a domestic round trip, which is necessary to comply with our European Union treaty obligations.

At present, air passenger duty is charged not on the return leg of a return flight within the UK, but only on the outward leg. This different treatment for domestic flights compared with flights within the EU needs to be ended and we are consulting on what adjustments to make to the scheme at the same time. We are consulting on an exemption for flights from the Scottish highlands and islands. The formal proposal is to exempt flights from airports in areas that fall within the EC's nomenclature of units of territorial statistics II classification, where the population density is 12.5 persons per square kilometre or less—the standard definition of sparsity.

In the course of the consultation, we have received many letters from a wide variety of interested parties, including members of the public; small businesses; tourist organisations; and members of both the Scottish Parliament and this House. As hon. Members here would expect, those letters were almost universally in favour of the proposed exemption, although many urged us to go further—as my hon. Friend has done—and to exempt flights to the highlands and islands.

Hon. Members would not expect me to comment further on the likely outcome of the consultation at this stage. That is a matter for another speech, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be making next week. However, it is worth pointing out that an exemption would not merely mean that travellers from airports in the highlands and islands would pay no more duty than at present. Exempting flights made from airports in the region would mean that all passengers on flights between airports within the region would be relieved completely from air passenger duty. Duty would be due only on flights to airports in the region from outside—in other words, on one leg of a return journey between the region and anywhere else in the world, as at present, and on neither leg of a journey within the region.

I emphasise that every flight leaving any airport in the highlands and islands would be exempt under our proposal—not merely a proportion of them— irrespective of destination. Inverness would be included as one of the airports to benefit, but Aberdeen, which is located in the north-eastern Scotland region, which is a less sparsely populated region on the EU definition, would not.

Some representations have suggested that the exemption should also cover flights to the Scottish highlands and islands. My hon. Friend made such representations today and when we met in January. Other hon. Members have done so by letter. All those representations are being carefully considered within the consultation exercise and I am not able today to prejudge the conclusions that the Chancellor will reach. However, I need to point out the real practical and legal difficulties that would arise from such an exemption. To remain compliant with EU law, any exemption on flights to the highlands and islands would have to extend to flights to any region in the European Economic Area that meets the same criterion of remoteness. That would probably include northern Sweden, northern Finland, Norway and Iceland. The concession would therefore have to go a good deal further than for the highlands and islands, and hon Members would acknowledge that that would present us with a problem in introducing a change of that sort.

I hope that I have been able to demonstrate to my hon. Friend and hon. Members that we take very seriously the concerns that he has consistently raised, which are shared by his constituents and hon. Members who represent the remoter areas of Scotland. Equally, I think that he will understand that major questions of Government revenue, environmental protection, fairness and European law need to be taken fully into account in dealing with these matters. I am sure that he will be listening with special interest to the announcements that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be making to the House next week. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that my officials and I will be happy to discuss these matters further with him once the Budget announcements have been made.