I am delighted to have secured this Adjournment debate. It is about putting the east midlands on the map. I have the honour of chairing the east midlands group of Labour Members of Parliament, a group that is 30-strong and far from silent. Its voice comes from Back Benchers and Cabinet Ministers, and among its notable members are, on the Back Benches, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), and in the Cabinet, my right hon. Friends the Members for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon). The span of Government is well and truly covered.

I am delighted that those of my hon. Friends who represent seats in each of the five counties of the east midlands are here today. They all have a special contribution to make. The east midlands group of Labour MPs recognises the region's need for a clear, positive and memorable image. The east midlands should have a regional identity to help persuade firms to remain in the area and to promote the region to outside investors, and we believe that it is important to secure parliamentary time to help us achieve that aim.

The day after the Budget is an opportune day for such a debate. The east midlands has much to celebrate; 11,000 families can welcome the increase in the working families tax credit; 480,000 families will receive the record increase in child benefit; 580,000 pensioner households will see the winter fuel payment increased to £150; and 9,000 of the poorest pensioners in the east midlands who have worked hard and have modest savings, will now be able to claim more money to support their daily lives. The 50,000 businesses in the east midlands will welcome the tax cuts that will encourage long-term investment. Another positive announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was the £70 million of funding for early stage investment through the creation of regional capital funds.

The location and form of our diverse region remains a well-hidden secret and, as I said, this debate is part of our attempt to change that. Lest there be any doubt, the east midlands comprises Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire. It is in the centre of the country, which adds spice to the debate on the north-south divide. Indeed, that debate can rage quite happily within our region, because it contains so many comparisons and contrasts. For example, the east midlands runs from High Peak to Northampton; and it stretches from the north-west at one extreme to the south-east at the other.

By and large, people who live and work in the east midlands do not have a strong regional identity. That situation is further confused by the range of television stations that serve the region. For instance, in my constituency we can watch BBC East Midlands, Look North, Central and Yorkshire television stations—in that sense, we can face in many directions at the same time.

There is no doubt that the diversity of the east midlands is not simply its character; it is also its strength. It has a diversity of landscape, population and economic activity, which offers tremendous potential and a positive future in Britain's heartland. The Labour Members in the east midlands are determined that the region should be on course to becoming one of Europe's top 20 regions by the end of the decade. It is one of the few regions in Britain with a growing working population.

The diversity of the east midlands is entrenched in not only the contrast between large-scale agricultural production in areas such as Lincolnshire and industrially based cities such as Derby, but in the nature of the economy from coalfield areas in the north to Formula 1 motor sport specialism in the south. The growth areas are information technology, finance, insurance and distribution. In addition, call centres are finding the east midlands an ever-attractive location. My constituency will welcome British Telecom when it locates its new call centre in Lincoln, bringing 900 jobs to the city.

In the past 20 years, the east midlands economy has grown faster than the United Kingdom average. Interestingly, we can look forward to an above average growth in employment which, unusually in this country, is predominantly in full-time jobs. However, there is significant deprivation within areas of prosperity. We need to be able to fine-tune the targeting of financial support and resources, whether that is single regeneration budget moneys, objective 2 status or any other means of support, to areas that need it.

The 1998 index of deprivation draws attention to some of the issues by ranking the most deprived local authority districts in England. It takes into account a number of factors—crime, housing, unemployment and health. It is important to understand that deprivation cannot be judged on just one factor. In the east midlands, Nottingham ranks 16th, Leicester is 32nd and Lincoln is 46th. The picture will be chequered in any local authority. The problem is being able to get the support to where it is needed, no matter where that may be. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to that.

The report "Sharing the Nation's Prosperity", which was compiled for the Prime Minister at the end of last year, said:

some parts of the UK continue to suffer from the economic problems of the decline in traditional employment, most notably in mining, steel and manufacturing.

The east midlands can lay claim to all those industries, and that is one of our many concerns. Rural areas, which are a fundamental part of our region, form the backdrop to those industries. Almost half the population in the east midlands live in rural areas, which is well above the national average. Average earnings of those who live and work in the region's rural areas are lower than the regional and national averages. We know that poor public transport and inadequate road and rail links are major problems and a significant disadvantage.

We look forward to the east midlands receiving its share of the £280 million, pledged by my right hon. Friend in the Budget yesterday, which is earmarked to remove some of the disadvantage experienced in rural areas. My county of Lincolnshire is an interesting case in point. The disadvantaged areas are concentrated on the coast, in parts of Lincoln and in isolated rural areas. They are brought together by the need for investment in transport and other infrastructure that will support business and communities. We find that problem in all our counties.

What are the main features of the east midlands? Let me give some of the main headlines: gross domestic product is just below the national average; levels of manufacturing productivity are lower, but there are signs of improvement; relatively low earnings—

On the GDP, the hon. Lady may know that the East Midlands development agency's economic strategy document stated:

There is a wide diversity of GDP patterns within the region.

She has plucked out the figure for the region as a whole, which is listed in Government documents, but we do not recognise that figure in Leicestershire.

I said that the region is diverse; indeed, that is the point I am trying to make.

Let me return to the headlines. I am sure that the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) will be interested in the immense local variation in earnings. For example, average earnings are greater in Northamptonshire, south Derbyshire and Leicestershire, while Lincolnshire and north Nottinghamshire have seen the strongest growth in earnings. You will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why Labour Members acknowledge the value of the national minimum wage in regions such as the east midlands. It enables the range of earnings in our region to be brought closer together.

The east midlands region is increasingly able to create jobs. Interestingly, one third of all new jobs are in manufacturing, and half of those involve chemicals and man-made fibres. The regional picture on decreasing unemployment is very good: it is 2 per cent. better than the national average. Between 1997 and 1999, the number of unemployed people in our region decreased by 23,000. In the same two-year period, an extra 36,000 were finding work. The picture is looking good in the east midlands, but it is important to unpick those figures. For example, the January 2000 figures for our parliamentary constituencies show that, while the average unemployment rate in the region was 3.9 per cent., it ranged from 1.7 per cent. in Daventry to 10.8 per cent. in Nottingham, North.

Such variations must be attended to, but we also have regional achievements of which to be proud. Since 1997, the east midlands has seen a reduction of 65 per cent. in long-term unemployment and a reduction of 72 per cent. in the number of young unemployed people. The new deal has been a raging success and some 43,000 people have benefited from it. My constituency has seen a 9 per cent. decrease in unemployment in the past year, which is well ahead of the regional figure. Diversity and variation are key characteristics within the east midlands and we want to level up the situation.

There are many key players in the east midlands region. The east midlands group of Labour MPs has worked to develop positive relationships, as we believe that that is the best way to achieve the best for our constituencies. I shall mention a few examples. The Government office of the east midlands works tirelessly on behalf of the region. I am pleased that it is currently working closely with the engineering industry to examine the strengths and weaknesses of engineering in the region. It has identified high-growth areas such as Toyota, the aerospace industry, Rolls-Royce energy equipment, ABB Alstom in Lincoln and railway equipment as provided by Adtranz in Derby. The Government office of the east midlands is making a good attempt to find the strengths and weaknesses of one of the key industries within our region, as well as working to promote the link between engineering and education. Those are all positive ways forward.

In May last year, the East Midlands Assembly was formally recognised by the Deputy Prime Minister in a statement made in Parliament. That recognition came before it was given to most other English regions. The regional assembly is a vehicle that brings together a range of partners who believe in and are actively prepared to work to improve the quality of life in our region. They bring a fresh perspective, commitment and a willingness to think in new ways and to find innovative solutions to some deeply entrenched problems. The regional assembly is a key body for assisting in regional thinking. It provides guidance and support as well as democratic scrutiny for the regional development agency.

The regional assembly should be particularly complimented on producing the interim regional transport strategy for the east midlands. Transport is a matter of concern in the whole area. Connections to and within the eastern sub-area and to the east coast ports in particular are poor. The main north-south road routes are increasingly congested. We have some very good public transport links, but those are particularly good at peak hours in urban areas. In rural areas or when trying to cross the region, life is more difficult. East Midlands airport provides an excellent international link and recently obtained approval for a runway extension that will open it to longer-distance flights. Many people find day-to-day travel in the east midlands extremely difficult, which is also problematic for economic development.

I pay tribute to the East Midlands development agency, which has clearly set out its strategy in the document "Prosperity through people". My Labour colleagues and I welcome and support the document, but what really matters is what it produces. It correctly states that there is a need in the east midlands for people to have the right skills and knowledge, and for businesses to be equipped to compete in the increasingly competitive global marketplace. Also, the region needs to be positioned to make the most of opportunities coming from the information and communications technology revolution. We need, too, the right climate for investment as well as strong local communities. No one could disagree with any of that and I hope that there will be support to make it happen.

We should particularly welcome some of the practical steps taken by the regional development agency—notably the east midlands planning charter, which is practical and honest in acknowledging difficulties. As we know, planning permission is an important stage in any job-generating development and delays and misunderstandings from any source can cost jobs. That is a cost we cannot afford. The charter recognises that an efficient planning process is a major factor in improving the economic competitiveness of the east midlands. It states:

Quick but good-quality decisions demand a two-way process. Developers need to understand what information the local authority needs and why. If developers provide that information, they are entitled to expect a prompt, efficient and transparent response.

That is the basis of the charter and I hope that it will be welcomed as an example of the ways in which the regional development agency will be able to make progress.

I pay tribute also to the midlands Trades Union Congress, which is the voice of the working people in the region. People are our key resource. The TUC is very much a partner with the other relevant groups, although I wondered if it was taking partnership a little too far when I read an article that stated that

Christine Wood, emda board member for cities, who is regional TUC secretary, was hoisted to the top of a former knitwear factory in Leicester as a tradition dating back to medieval times was performed by a vicar.

"Topping-out" ceremonies on buildings were designed to ward of evil spirits hundreds of years ago.

In a throw-back to a time when people worried about ghosts, ghouls and witches, the Reverend Philip Watson blessed a jumping cat weathervane at the Benjamin Russell building, which has been turned into a student residence, shops and pub.

The serious point is that a major regeneration project has brought together private and public partners to the benefit of the local community.

The Confederation of British Industry is also an important partner in the east midlands and it makes interesting points in its regional trends survey. It says that business confidence has risen, although there is a marginal decline in manufacturers' optimism about export prospects. Clearly, we must attend to that. It also talks about stability and the deterioration in plant and machinery investment. I hope that the CBI and all businesses will welcome measures announced in yesterday's Budget, such as the extension of first-year capital allowances. I hope that that will assist in putting right some of the difficulties raised by the CBI.

Credit must also go to local authorities in the east midlands and to the east midlands regional local government association—their commitment to public services is always to the fore, serving our region well. The training and enterprise councils, schools, colleges and universities provide education and training, which means that our economy can move into the future with confidence, skill and stability.

Where do we go next as a region? We have several needs that must be addressed and we can do that by working with partners and the Government. We must have improved access to investment finance. We must keep up with technical innovation. We must ensure an adequate transport and communication system, especially in a county such as Lincolnshire. We must have an adequate skills supply—there is a great need for continued training due to replacement demand in declining employment sectors, such as engineering and textiles. We must keep highly skilled individuals in our region. We must address the inadequate supply of land for new developments and further develop an inward investment strategy to attract new firms.

There is a great need to target support on sectors with potential. The region has comparative advantages, notably in advance manufacturing, high-value engineering and aerospace, distribution, technology and research and development, especially in biotechnology, computer software and services. We must recognise that, although employment in sectors such as textiles and clothing is forecast to decline, there are still high-performing firms with real growth prospects that also need support and services.

As I said in my opening comments, we must develop a positive and memorable image and regional identity to help retain existing firms and to promote the region among outside investors. We may do that only by working in partnership and by being honest about the strengths and weaknesses of our region and the diversity within it. The east midlands has much going for it. It has a positive future and a tremendous strength in its diversity. It is important that we play to those strengths.

I took part in a debate in the Chamber last week and was much reminded of 1 Corinthians 13, which refers to a sounding brass, tinkling cymbal and talking shop. For the benefit of those not well read in the Bible, the chapter also includes the bit about "through a glass darkly" and "childish things"—the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) will know that. I am afraid that debates in this Chamber are a talking shop. That is shown by the fact that Ministers occasionally fail to turn up.

Nevertheless, I congratulate the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on securing the debate and on her speech. She made a good fist of defending the east midlands as an entity. I suspect that the genesis of the debate might not be a million miles from the Government Whips office—many Labour Members are here to support the debate.

For information, those of us here have a genuine interest in the east midlands economy and in promoting the region to ensure future prosperity. That is why many Labour Members but, unfortunately, not many Conservative Members, who represent east midlands constituencies have attended the debate.

I am delighted by that intervention because I notice that the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) did not deny that the Labour Whips might have had a hand initiating the debate.

What is the east midlands? It is an artificial creation for administrative convenience. I have no problem with that, but in travelling around my constituency—I have been a Member of Parliament for eight years, which is not as long as one or two people in the Chamber have been Members but longer than many—no one has ever said to me, "I am an east midlander and I am really looking forward to there being an east midlands regional assembly." My constituents say that they come from Blaby, Lutterworth, Croft or from Leicestershire in England—admittedly, that is in the eastern bit of the midlands, but the people of Blaby do not look to Brackley in Northamptonshire, Boston in Lincolnshire or Buxton in Derbyshire. People in Lutterworth will be delighted to hear from the hon. Member for Lincoln about job creation and investment in Lincoln, but they will not feel personally concerned because they do not see themselves as east midlanders.

As I have said, the east midlands is an artificial creation, as is the East Midlands development agency. The hon. Lady mentioned the regional assembly, but has anyone other than those who are closely involved with it ever told her that they are in favour of a regional assembly or that an assembly would have democratic legitimacy or accountability?

The hon. Gentleman seems to be somewhat confused about the means and the end. The purpose of the debate, initiated by the east midlands group of Labour MPs, is to promote the east midlands and to further employment prospects and prosperity in the area. We will achieve those ends by working with groups such as the regional assembly, the regional development agency, the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress and others. I hope that the hon. Gentleman supports our aims.

Order. The hon. Lady is making an intervention, not a second speech.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady because she did not say that lots of people were flocking to her surgery to say how much they want an East Midlands development agency or an East Midlands regional assembly, because they do not. Indeed, only six or nine months ago, the Leicester Mercury carried out a survey of businesses in Leicestershire, which found that more than 50 per cent. of businesses had never heard of the East Midlands development agency—so it is obviously doing a good job.

What is the purpose of the debate? Where should the region go next? Of course, I want the whole region to flourish. I hope that Lincolnshire, Derbyshire, Northamptonshire and Nottinghamshire do well, as I hope that the rest of England does well. I hope that Birmingham, Longbridge, Leicestershire and Herefordshire also do well, but that does not detract from the fact that the east midlands, the East Midlands development agency and the East Midlands regional assembly are entirely artificial creations. The east midlands may be used for administrative convenience but for nothing more.

Every region is an artificial creation in some respect. People in the north-east do not say, "I come from the north-east"; they say, "I come from Newcastle" or "I come from Sunderland." People in the north-west do not say, "I come from the north-west"; they say, "I come from Liverpool" or "I come from Manchester", so the hon. Gentleman's arguments about regional identity are spurious.

I am not the one who is arguing for undemocratically formed regional development agencies, such as the East Midlands regional assembly, a Liverpool regional assembly or a north-east regional assembly. It is the Government who are arguing that, so the hon. Gentleman has made my point for me.

There are many concerns in my constituency about the economy, but my constituents look to Birmingham and to the west midlands. Indeed, the East Midlands development agency—that great standard bearer of this regional government that we must apparently have—said, that the key regional characteristic was diversity, something that the hon. Member for Lincoln noticed. However, when the agency's representatives go abroad to attract inward investment, they find that people do not respond to the term "east midlands". The economic strategy document—

rose—

I will let the hon. Gentleman speak in a minute.

The agency's representatives team up with the west midlands, because people understand about the west midlands but have never heard of the east midlands. They understand that there is a country with lands in the middle, and so the areas are put together and sold as "the midlands". That is eminently sensible, but torpedoes the idea of having an artificially created east midlands region.

The hon. Gentleman is making the same point as Labour Members. The east midlands does not have an identity, which is why it has been held back for years in terms of inward investment. The point of a regional development agency for the east midlands is to create an identity so that we can build a strong and prosperous future for all the people of the region. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that?

The hon. Gentleman again makes my point. I want to see a strong economy and prosperity for the whole of England and the United Kingdom, not for only some narrow region of the east midlands. My constituency is on the border of the east midlands, between Northamptonshire and Leicestershire. I live four or five miles from Warwickshire. People in Warwickshire should do as well as people in Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire.

Surely the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) misses the point. The east midlands has been successful at attracting inward investment. Under the previous Government, it attracted the largest single investment ever made in this country, which was a Toyota plant. Inward investment is not confined to what the regional development agency can do.

My hon. Friend makes an argument to which I would have come. Governments should create frameworks and economic conditions in which investment can flourish, as I think that even new Labour now believes. Investment has flourished, which is why unemployment in Leicestershire has decreased rapidly since about 1993. I am delighted that it continued to fall until last month, when it went up slightly. I shall not blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government for that. I blame the Chancellor for economic trends and conditions that he may create, but he is not responsible for slight dips or rises in unemployment, any more than he is responsible and should take the praise for the descending unemployment figures since 1993. They have come down because the economic conditions that he inherited were put in place by his Conservative predecessor.

Unemployment in my constituency fluctuates around 2 per cent. That was the case before the general election; it might have been about 2.5 per cent. in 1997. That is excellent for my constituents. I am delighted that we have inward investment in Lincoln, Derbyshire and elsewhere, but my constituents are more concerned about the economy of the whole United Kingdom. Their area is not confined to the Leicestershire boundary a mile from where many of them live.

The economy is diverse, as the hon. Member for Lincoln said, so why is she trying to place the east midlands into the straitjacket of a regional development agency and—for heaven's sake—a regional assembly? She talked about wanting a memorable image and regional identity for the east midlands, because it is a well-hidden secret. That is not true for the people who live there, although they may not say, "We are east midlanders." I wonder how many hon. Members in the Chamber would stand up and proudly say that. They know what happens in their region, their county and their country—[Interruption.] I am afraid that I missed that sedentary intervention. Perhaps the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) wanted to say that he was an east midlander. The east midlands exists as an administratively convenient region, and its people do not want artificial boundaries foisted on them, as a survey in the Leicester Mercury pointed out last year.

About a week ago, there was a piece in the Leicester Mercury by the chief executive of the Leicestershire chamber of commerce and industry. I notice that two of my colleagues who represent Leicestershire constituencies are present. It states that the

Euro would only add to the burden on business … I believe that the business community faces too many government-imposed burdens at the present time.

It goes on to discuss the single currency further.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I am always happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the writer of that column supports the East Midlands regional development agency?

Well—

Yes will do.

As it happens, I have no idea, but I doubt it, because the members—

Yes.

I have never asked. The hon. Gentleman may say "yes", but I doubt it, because the members of the Leicestershire chamber of commerce and industry whom I meet every week in my constituency do not, and the gentleman in question is their paid representative.

Deloitte and Touche in Leicester asked companies in Leicestershire whether they though that the Government were pro-business. The company maintains a sceptical stance. It said:

Last year 29 per cent. of respondents said Yes. This year the percentage is down to 26 per cent.

I am sure that someone will leap up in a moment and say, "But after the Budget, my goodness, they will all say that the Government have changed." I doubt it.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lincoln on having made a good fist of the subject, but few people in the east midlands regard themselves as east midlanders or see a connection between the economies of Derbyshire and Leicestershire. The area is an artificial creation, and we should look to enhancing the economy and prosperity of the entire United Kingdom, including England and our counties and constituencies, rather than buy the Government line of important regions with undemocratic regional assemblies.

rose—

Order. I must advise the Chamber that I have quite a list of hon. Members who want to speak. Hon. Members will realise from the number of Members standing how many are involved. Our time is limited. The convention is to hand over to the Front-Bench speakers at 10.30 am. Thanks to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, we shall have a couple of minutes more, but I appeal to the hon. Member to make their contributions concise, clear, to the point and less repetitive than they have been until now.

Following my brief contribution, I must leave to attend a Standing Committee, for which I apologise.

I draw to my hon. Friend the Minister's attention the need for considerable work to be done on the regional infrastructure in the east midlands to enable continued, sustainable economic growth. Our transport systems are inadequate and impede the movement of people and goods, and our problems have an adverse impact on the quality of life of scores of communities that lie close to the pressure points. One example is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) said, that the main north-south routes are congested. Plans to widen the M1 and Al are, quite rightly, on hold to allow analysis of more multi-modal solutions. The economic boom that the so-called M1 corridor is experiencing is generating considerable increases in road freight movement and private car usage, despite the great potential for public transport links, which are currently starved of investment.

The east midlands lies in the centre of the country, as the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) reminded us with such insight. Right at the centre of the east midlands is north-west Leicestershire, straddling the main transport infrastructure—the M1, the midlands main line and East Midlands airport, to the north of the area. The area's problems are typical of the region. North-west Leicestershire has no connections to the main rail network, which is a major obstacle to the creation of the multi-modal transport system that is so urgently needed.

The return of passenger services to the Ivanhoe railway line is crucial. I was astonished by the recent decision of the Liberal Democrat and Conservative group that controls Leicestershire county council to abandon the planned route of the Ivanhoe line in favour of linking Loughborough to Leicester and to Nuneaton in the west midlands.

The original route from Leicester through north-west Leicestershire to Burton and beyond has considerable economic and tourism potential. It would serve most of the National Forest towns and give people, particularly those without cars and those in rural areas, access to employment and training opportunities. It could be the first step towards an integrated transport plan being developed for a wider section of the east midlands.

I shall move on swiftly from the need for an improved rail network to the need for an improved road network. The recently announced bypass around my home town of Ashby-de-la-Zouch is most welcome, but one key project remains outstanding. There are real problems around junction 24 of the M1 because of serious, chronic congestion. I cannot overstress the urgency of completing the Government's multi-modal strategy in that area. Until the matter is dealt with, the local area will remain in a vacuum, awaiting urgently needed road investment such as the A6 bypass around the village of Kegworth.

Given that my hon. Friend is referring to bypasses, it would be remiss of me not to mention the Rothwell-Desborough A6 bypass. It is scheduled for the year 2001–02, but does he agree that an early announcement about a definite start date on such projects, which we welcome, would be an advantage to the local economy?

I certainly agree. It is on the A6 trunk road, 35 miles to the south, that similar problems are being experienced in my hon. Friend's constituency. One way in which to control the growth in transport in the interests of the environment, but without damaging the economy, is to encourage more appropriate employment to be generated in, or close to, important towns in the region, such as Ashby and Coalville in my constituency. Such towns fall through so many funding nets, even though they often have similar problems to the major cities.

I welcome the East Midlands development agency placing more emphasis on market towns and their rural hinterland. Its initial approval of the SRB6 bid for Ashby, Swadlincote in south Derbyshire and Coalville is the first step towards redressing the imbalance, but more is needed. We need encouragement of new direct economic activity and we need to ease the flow of workers into and out of the existing centres of employment.

As for other aspects of the infrastructure, more support is needed for micro businesses and business innovation. Yesterday's Budget was excellent in that respect. [Interruption.] I am pleased that the hon. Member for Blaby echoes that sentiment. The Government's new enterprise grant, for which significant parts of my constituency will be eligible, is welcomed most warmly. Greater support for and investment in the National Forest is required if the organisation is to realise its full potential as a provider of economic opportunity. There has already been substantial growth attached to the forestry and land use aspect of the forest, but more needs to be done if the tourism potential is to be fully developed. The benefits that we have reaped so far in the former Leicestershire and south Derbyshire coalfields from the restoration of land, the revival of dozens of communities and the regeneration of the economy has been most significant. I emphasise to the Minister that the main constraint in north-west Leicestershire and in the east midlands to current and future economic growth is infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure.

It will come as no surprise that I am about to speak about my constituency because there are lessons to be learnt in regard to the east midlands. Erewash is between Derby and Nottingham. Significantly, it does not have the critical mass of some of the major towns in the east midlands. Ilkeston and Long Eaton are two principal towns, with smaller settlements in between. Like many areas in the east midlands, Erewash was founded on traditional industries such as coal mining—of which none remains engineering and textiles, essentially lace. Employment is below the national average and has been for a very long time and there are significant pockets of high unemployment. A few years ago, the local enterprise agency, Erewash Partnerships, did a skills audit of the constituency and found that a high percentage of the work force were skilled or semiskilled. Very few fell into the managerial and professional classes. Wages were lower than in the surrounding urban areas. The audit concluded that the area needed a learning community because education and improved skills were essential for sustainable growth and prosperity.

On the education agenda—I am an ex-teacher—there has been significant progress in my constituency over the past couple of years, with class sizes being brought right down. Derbyshire had some of the largest classes when we took control in 1997. Literacy and numeracy are progressing well. Local alliances have done some superb work, targeting areas with significant deprivation and concentrating on the early years and parental learning, which they see as critical to creating the virtuous cycle. The single regeneration budget in one area concentrates on training, and the local further education college has been innovative in expanding education, particularly for adult learners. The new deal has cut youth unemployment by 65 per cent. and long-term unemployment by the same amount. The learning and skills councils should, when up and running, provide a coherent framework for the provision of skills and training.

My constituency is characterised by small and medium enterprises, many of which are incredibly enterprising. Drawing on the traditional skills that they acquired when working for the traditional firms of the area, such as Rolls-Royce, they have branched out into specialist areas to cover a niche in the market. Atlas Composites in Ilkestone is such a firm, which specialises in carbon fibre components for the aerospace industry and Formula 1. I shall give a brief potted history of the firm—we have much to learn about SMEs in the region and beyond. Two men with traditional engineering backgrounds and skills saw a niche, bought secondhand machinery, found a suitable building, invested everything that they had earned back into the business, outsourced the design element, recruited locally and linked with the local college to develop the appropriate NVQ to support the business. They designed their own course and had it verified by the college and the training board.

There are many examples of such businesses in my constituency, which have taken advantage of the capital allowances and lower corporation tax offered by the Government. We need to understand much more about what makes a successful business. What are its roots, what are its ingredients, what develops it? The RDA and the small business service have the strategic task of continuing to develop that understanding and strategies to support businesses with so much potential.

I also see a role for venture capital and for banks. I am pleased that banking services to the SMEs have been referred to the Competition Commission.

My county of Northamptonshire, which is also represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Sawford), is similar to Erewash in having many SMEs. Does my hon. Friend agree that development agencies are vital engineers of growth, precisely because of the need to foster the innovation to which she referred? Such firms are the engine room of the economy; they do not somehow float about by themselves, but need an appropriate level of government?

I could not put it any better than that. My hon. Friend sums up my point succinctly. The traditional sector that is not doing well is the textile industry, although even that industry has its exceptions. Firms that have invested, found a niche in the market and kept their skill base up to speed have done extremely well. I welcome the Government's textile strategy, which is currently out for consultation. The RDAs could have a strategic role in the industry to ensure that firms receive the support that they need in training, marketing and exporting.

I will talk briefly about transport and communication, which echo the theme taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor). Transport links in the area are not good. There is significant scope for improvement, especially in Ilkeston, which is land-locked and has waited many years for a final link to the Ml. The absence of such a link has caused congestion, which is constricting development. The town has no railway station, and it used to have four, although we are making progress on that. The integrated transport strategy must move ahead more quickly than it has done.

Nevertheless, the skill base, the education base and the potential for growth have all improved. I have used the debate merely to highlight further developments that could take place.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on securing the debate, which is important to us all. I will make a couple of key points about problems that affect the region and my constituency.

The east midlands is sharing the boom in economic prosperity that the Government have brought about since the 1997 election. Problems in the region should not disguise the fact that unemployment has plummeted. Long-term unemployment has been halved, and youth unemployment has been cut by two thirds. A measure of the success of an economic policy is whether it can move people who are out of work back into work. If we are to tackle poverty and social exclusion, people must be in work. All over the east midlands, the Government are trying to meet problems head on; they are not ignoring them. That is especially true in parts of Nottingham where there are some of the worst unemployment black spots and the greatest difficulties in getting people back into work. The Government are giving people hope, the desire to work, and opportunities. That sets the scene for my next remarks.

Some areas have high unemployment. The Minister knows—I have written and spoken to her several times—that there are small pockets of deprivation in areas of general affluence. Could she give further thought to the problem faced by Netherfield, which has tried for years to obtain help so that it can support people who need retraining, better housing and education? It has never received that help because it does not fit in with the way in which Government statistics—or perhaps regional or European statistics—are calculated. All hon. Members who represent parts of the east midlands can pick out small pockets in their constituencies in which the general policy does not apply.

Clearly, difficult restructuring is taking place in the east midlands. The textiles industry is affected—Courtaulds recently announced the loss of many jobs in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell). The coal industry continues to decline, and we should make no mistake about the fact that in the east midlands, and especially parts of Nottinghamshire, that industry has gone. In Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, communities that depended on the coal industry are still trying to come to term with its collapse. We must remember that problems have been caused by the closure of coal mines not only now, but five, 10 and 15 years ago. At last, an attempt is being made to deal with those problems. The Government's retraining packages and the new deal for communities are important, because they try to support restructuring and ensure that new growth industries are located so as to be accessible to those communities.

I disagree profoundly with the hon. Member for the east midlands—[Interruption.]—I mean the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). I wish that I had meant that joke. I disagree with him, because those problems cannot be considered in isolation. The areas are interdependent, so the Government are right to focus on the whole region. To tackle the problems, it is no good treating a small village in Leicestershire, or even Leicester itself, in isolation. It is important to support people by retraining them and helping to restructure their industries and communities.

I have some quick points to make on transport. My hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Liz Blackman) and for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) raised some serious issues, and I do not want to repeat what was said about the access problems between Nottingham and the M1. However, they did not mention the fact that, although the east coast line and the west coast line are electrified, the midlands main line to St. Pancras, which serves Nottingham, is not. It should be electrified, and the track should be improved. In a couple of weeks' time, some hon. Members and I will meet representatives from Railtrack, and I will suggest those improvements. New services have been introduced, but the track needs to be improved so that the trains run faster and provide speedier connections between the region and London.

We also need to preserve existing pit lines and improve the local rail network so that it interconnects more easily with other transport systems. The greater Nottingham area rail development strategy coordinates the lines coming into Nottingham from all over Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, and also, I believe, from Leicestershire, yet we do not relate that scheme to other transport schemes. Roads can block up, and they often have railway lines next to them. If we could have more local rail services on those lines, connected to the existing pit lines, we would make more progress.

I will keep my remarks brief, although I have several points to make. I wish that the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) was still here to listen to the arguments about the need for a regional identity, and that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) was here, because he talked about inward investment. The east midlands has always attracted proportionally lower inward investment than other regions, partly because it has no regional identity.

One of the reasons for the debate, which I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) secured, is to ensure that parts of the region work together to promote the area not only in the UK, but in Europe and other parts of the world. Most inward investment comes from places such as Japan and the United States and it is difficult to sell the east midlands because it does not have an identity. We can do that only by working together.

I will deal with the Leicestershire part of the east midlands economy because I recognise that there are sub-regions within the region, which do not always naturally match county boundaries. We use travel-to-work area statistics for a good reason: not all workplaces and travel-to-work patterns match county boundaries. People travel from Leicestershire to the west midlands and vice versa. Therefore, it is important that we have a regional perspective, while recognising those sub-regions. We must also build on points made by hon. Members this morning by recognising the difficulties and differences that exist even within constituencies.

I have always been interested in economic development and I want to ensure that my constituency benefits from the great advances made since 1997. I accept that unemployment was falling before the general election. Since December 1996, unemployment in my constituency has fallen by more than 30 per cent., while youth unemployment has been reduced by 76 per cent. and long-term unemployment by 65 per cent. I have always felt passionately that getting people back to work is a key priority, so we have a good story to tell.

Over the past six months, I have been really annoyed by the so-called great north-south divide debate. We in the east midlands and in the midlands as a whole are extremely frustrated that the concentration seems to be on the debate between the north and the south. We exist and we experience many of the problems found in the north. Leicestershire also has many of the problems suffered by the south. For example, there are development problems and pressure from population movements. Leicestershire is an attractive place for people to relocate to; it is a great place to be. That is why we suffer and seem to get missed out of the debate. One reason for raising the east midlands's profile is to make sure that we have a proper voice in the debate so that it is not only the north and the south who are involved in the argument.

In some ways, Leicestershire, particularly the Loughborough constituency, is a microcosm of not only the region, but the whole country. I will skip over the history of my constituency and the rest of Leicestershire, but there are factors that make them unique.

First, there is the dependence on the manufacturing sector, of which textiles form a large part. In Leicestershire, 29 per cent. of GDP is still based on manufacturing, which, as hon. Members know, is far higher than in other parts of the region. However, there are difficulties, especially in the textiles sector. In Leicestershire alone, 26,500 jobs depend on textiles, and all the forecasts that we have seen from Leicestershire TEC and the other bodies that work in the county show that that number is likely to decline for the next 10 years at least. We need to make sure that we tackle that problem together.

Will my hon. Friend accept that, although there are continuing problems in the textiles industry, it is important not to write it off as an industry in inevitable final decline: Will he also welcome the report recently produced by both sides of the industry with help from the Department of Trade and Industry? It considers how the textile industry can develop, based on innovation and new lines, so that it can compete in the world market.

I agree entirely with that sentiment, and I will deal with that issue when I speak about the five or six things that we need from the Government to ensure that areas in difficulty start to prosper. That will be achieved through innovation, technology and using our expertise.

Leicestershire is also unique in that it has three universities—Loughborough, Leicester and De Montfort. I declare an interest as a former student of De Montfort and a big fan of the other two. Most counties of Leicestershire's size would not have such expertise on their doorstep, and innovation and technology are crucial to the future of places such as Loughborough and Leicestershire. The Loughborough advanced technology initiative is a key example of what we can do by bringing companies together and working with the East Midlands regional development agency to create a technology cluster. Loughborough university is world famous for its links with Ford, British Aerospace and others, as well as for its sporting prowess. It is imporant to build on that. Many local companies that I have visited and to which I have spoken, such as Deltanet, I2R and Datalink, came out of Loughborough university several years ago. They are engineering companies of the highest order, which are growing in Europe, despite the high value of the pound, and creating jobs in the town. As I said, we have suffered from the decline in the traditional manufacturing sector and in textiles. Brush, which is one of our greatest manufacturers of locomotives, suffered a great decline during the early 1990s. It used to employ 6,500 people, but now appears, with only 900 staff, on lists of the biggest employers in Leicestershire. Such large numbers of job losses during that period represent a great decline, which we need to tackle.

I will skip over many of the things that I wanted to say. However, there are five key things that we need from my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that we move forward in Leicestershire and the rest of the east midlands.

We need to consider the strength of the pound and interest rates. They have a large impact on manufacturing—I think that all hon. Members accept that. The single regeneration budget needs to be targeted at local areas, and I hope that Loughborough's bid will be successful. The local plan needs to be completed as quickly as possible to allow development of brownfield sites, particularly in the town. Innovation and technology grants need to come through as quickly as possible because future growth will come from them. Training and lifelong learning are key elements, which will ensure that we meet our skill shortages.

In conclusion, things are looking extremely rosy in Loughborough. There are still problems that we need to tackle, and I have described five elements that I think will make a big difference. I hope that the Minister will respond to what I have said.

This has been a useful and entertaining debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on securing it. She mentioned the diversity and disadvantages of the east midlands. In one way, the region is indeed disadvantaged in the House: sadly, it is the only region that does not have a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament, but I assure the House that that will change soon. From the other side of the midlands, I say to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), "Ich bin ein Midlander."

The hon. Member for Lincoln mentioned several issues, and I will contrast what she said with what the Chancellor said—or did not say—in his Budget speech yesterday. I will deal with two specific matters, and I hope that the Minister will respond. First, the hon. Lady said that rural areas were fundamental, and she is right. Rural areas in the east and west midlands and across the United Kingdom are fundamental, and the crisis in agriculture that is affecting them is deep and real. It affects not only those directly employed in the industry, but the wider rural economy. However, in his speech yesterday, the Chancellor did not mention the word "agriculture" once. He totally ignored the issue, as if it did not exist. The Chancellor and Labour Back Benchers may deny it, but the Government consistently ignore rural areas. There are pigs sitting in Parliament square, and dairy farmers have to pour their milk away, but the Government consistently ignore such issues. I hope that the Minister will tell us what the Government intend to do about those matters. Why will they not match the agriculture compensation funds from Europe and put more money into our rural areas? As the hon. Member for Lincoln rightly says, that is fundamental.

The hon. Lady also mentioned the manufacturing industry, as did the hon. Members for Gelding—[Laughter.] I apologise. I should have said the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), but I was still thinking about agriculture—and for Loughborough (Mr. Reed).

Order. It is customary to address the Chair, not some nebulous audience.

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Manufacturing industry is vital to the economies of the east and west midlands. What did the Chancellor say about manufacturing yesterday? He said nothing and mentioned the word only once. There was no mention of the strength of the pound or, incredibly, of Rover and the effect that that crisis will have on the economy of the entire midlands. I hope that the Minister will deal with those matters when she replies to the debate.

Agriculture and manufacturing are vital to the east and west midlands and to other rural economies across our nation. I am surprised that we do not have a Treasury Minister here today. However, we have a very capable Minister from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and I hope that she will tell us what the Government will do about the crisis in agriculture and the strength of the pound.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on securing the debate, and on the presence of so many of her colleagues, who have made interesting contributions. As the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) said, the most curious aspect of this debate is that a Minister from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is responding, not a Treasury Minister. In a debate on the economy, we would normally expect a response from a Treasury Minister. The fact that the Minister's colleagues from the Treasury are nowhere to be seen is perhaps due to the complete lack of support for east midlands's manufacturing industry in yesterday's Budget speech. Is it because of the view of the regions held by those at the DETR? The hon. Member for Lincoln mentioned the role of the RDAs, which featured low down on the priorities list. They certainly featured below regional assemblies and the Government office. As she said, this debate has shown the lack of cohesion within the east midlands. It is a region that, like many others, is in search of an identity.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way—I have little time in which to speak.

As the hon. Member for Lincoln suggested, having a television station that covers the region is one panacea for the problem of regional identity. The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) made the extraordinary suggestion that inward investment is somehow dependent on a strong regional identity. He cannot possibly be suggesting that Toyota came to Derbyshire because people from that company thought, "Ah, the east midlands has strong regional cohesion, let's go there." Similarly, people at Daewoo, one of the largest employers in my constituency, certainly did not say to one another, "Let's go to the south-east because it has a strong regional identity and regional development agency, and it may have a strong regional chamber as well." It is complete nonsense to suggest that.

The hon. Member for Lincoln began by emphasising the diversity of the regions and it is the diversity within regions that makes the east midlands, in particular, a wholly artificial creation. In the five counties of the east midlands the size of the rural economy is above average, but nothing was done for that economy in yesterday's Budget. The gross domestic product per head is below average for the United Kingdom, as are the skills level and manufacturing productivity. The region features 40th out of the 77 regions of Europe, and there are big disparities in its GDP patterns. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) asked, what have Brackley, Boston and Buxton got in common? That same question was raised by Derek Mapp, the chairman of the East Midlands development agency. He was quoted last year as saying that the region had a reputation as one of the most divided in the United Kingdom.

The regional development strategy is laid out by the EMDA in the "Pathfinders to Prosperity" document. The document alludes to groups that were formed to identify solutions to business problems and which consisted of "energetic business leaders". Various sectors were mentioned in that context, including communications, construction and development, fashion and design, financial and professional services, the food chain, health care, high-growth engineering, the learning industry, retail and tourism, and cultural and creative industries. That is what the RDA, or part of it, has to say. Notable by its omission, however, is the textiles industry, which is the biggest sector in the east midlands and the one with the most problems. Is the EMDA abandoning that industry, which provides so many jobs? The Minister may like to comment on that. Is textiles manufacturing simply not new Labour enough? Similarly, the farming sector is completely ignored in the document, despite the high profile of agriculture in the region.

The EMDA trumpets its success before it has even started by saying that the integrated approach to strategic planning, based on a very close working relationship between the regional assembly and the EMDA, gives the east midlands a competitive advantage. Exactly how does that give the east midlands an advantage? Perhaps the Minister can elaborate. The strategy in the document contains 27 100—day targets which involve producing or checking eight plans, establishing six partnerships, commissioning four pieces of research, setting four targets and setting up an office in the USA. The targets include identifying a piece of land for redevelopment.

It is notable that hon. Members who have talked about the RDA—particularly the hon. Member for Lincoln—did not mention practical solutions or specific projects. The hon. Lady mentioned a document called "Prosperity through people" and a planning charter. There was an awful lot of talking, an awful lot about meetings and discussions, but no practical action.

The textiles industry in Leicester has specific problems. Figures produced in the Leicester Mercury show that unemployment rose in Leicester last month, bucking the downward national trend, with 8,226 people claiming benefit. The figure for the east midlands showed that unemployment had risen from 118,000 to 121,000, which is 5.5 per cent. of the population, again bucking the national trend. Nationally, the number of people claiming benefit fell. In the three months to January, the number of jobs in the manufacturing sector in the east midlands fell by 122,000 to just over four million, which is the lowest total since December 1994. Manufacturing employment has suffered disproportionately; the biggest falls have been in the textile and leather industries, which have lost 34,000 jobs in the past year—10 per cent. of the total. We have heard precious little about that this morning.

A survey on business in the region, which PricewaterhouseCoopers conducted last summer, makes for worrying reading, particularly for those in the manufacturing industry. The preceding six months were described as bad overall, especially for textiles. There is a general belief among business leaders that things will get worse over the next six months. Greater European integration is not seen as a factor that would make a substantial difference to business in the region. Thirty-two per cent. of businesses reported decreasing sales, and textile companies had a very bad six months, with 41 per cent. reporting a fall in sales of more than 5 per cent.

Only last week, Coats Viyella, a firm based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), closed with the loss of 200 jobs. What was there in yesterday's Budget to help the textiles industry, and manufacturing in general? We heard an awful lot about high-tech industries, and there were an awful lot of tax incentives to help internet millionaires, but there was precious little to help traditional businesses, such as textiles and chemicals, which feature heavily in the region. There was also nothing to help agriculture.

The energy tax, another feature of yesterday's Budget, will hit the chemicals industry in particular. Even an 80 per cent. rebate, targeted on industry groups that come under the integrated pollution prevention and control directive, will not help the electricity-intensive industries in the region compete against Europe and the far east. Many jobs will suffer because of the Government's blind insistence on going ahead with an energy tax despite the fact that the Environmental Audit Committee described it as a damp squib.

The west midlands has been getting the headlines because of Rover, but there will be a big spill-over into the east midlands because jobs there depend on that company, too. The big job losses in textiles will continue, but they do not make the headlines. We have heard that a textile industry study is looming—to use a pun—and we have heard about Coats Viyella, but what in yesterday's Budget will help the industry in the region? Absolutely nothing. It is a shame that no Treasury Minister is here to respond to that question. Over the past few years, stealth taxes have affected the east midlands as much as they have affected any place. It has been calculated that stealth tax rises imposed in the three Budgets before yesterday have cost the region £2.7 billion.

It is difficult to see how regional development agencies will help. Will the Minister confirm that 85 per cent. of the RDA budget in the east midlands has already been allocated to projects that existed before RDAs were created? Will she confirm, too, that more than £1 million is spent on unelected regional politicians—RDA board members, in other words—most of whom are expected to work only two days a month? What is the added value that RDAs will supposedly bring to regions such as the east midlands? What will they do cost effectively that was not previously done by Government regional offices, or could not be done by county councils or unitary authorities? What accountability will there be on the part of the EDMA and the regional assembly, and what interaction will there be between those two bodies?

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lincoln again, because she rightly raises many of the problems in her region. There are two real problems. First, nothing that the RDAs have to offer seems to address the difficulties that I have mentioned. Secondly, even if a sense of identity united the five counties, it would have no greater impact on attracting investment from outside than what could be achieved by counties individually, or by unitary authorities working in partnership with one another or with the Government.

The hon. Member for Lincoln may want to create a regional identity—I congratulate her on her wish to do that—but is this the right way to go about it? She said that one of the strengths of the west midlands was diversity. Long live diversity, but let us not stifle it, or stifle enterprise, by imposing a costly and bureaucratic regional development agency that has produced no solutions, so far, to many of the problems of the east midlands region that have been mentioned today. Yesterday's Budget merely compounded the problems of manufacturing in the east midlands and the rest of the country.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on securing what has been an interesting and important debate. We have had the opportunity to challenge the rhetoric of Opposition Members and to make clear to the people of the east midlands, who are at the core of the debate, what their local Members—their local Labour Members, at any rate—and the Government are doing to secure their future prosperity and ensure that they share in rising national prosperity.

We have had an interesting and illuminating debate, including some very knowledgeable and analytical contributions, for which I thank my hon. Friends. I commend their efforts to put the east midlands on the map: representing their region is a legitimate and important role for Members of Parliament. Obviously, the Opposition did not consider that to be a task worth undertaking. Labour Members' contributions were in stark contrast to the sole contribution by a Conservative Member from the region, the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). He feels so little concern about the issue that he could not stay in the Chamber for the full debate.

The Minister, of course, does not come from the east midlands. As she is aware, this is just a talking-shop debate, the purpose of which is to get coverage in the local newspapers. It is a load of nonsense. I care very much about my constituency, my county and my country, but not about some artificial creation such as the east midlands.

The hon. Member for Blaby quoted the Bible. As I listened to him then—and again now—it was a quotation from Shakespeare that came to my mind:

… full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

His contribution showed little concern for the east midlands economy. He referred to the narrow region of the east midlands. People in the east midlands will be very interested in that, and in the fact that the only Opposition representative of the region who spoke had nothing to say about the local economy.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

No, I shall not give way again. I want to make progress.

I want to draw hon. Members' attention to the obvious difficulty that Opposition Members had in understanding the Government's strategy, which my hon. Friends supported, for addressing—

Regional assemblies.

No—economic development.

We take a dual approach. As yesterday's Budget showed, we are exercised about the issue of raising general levels of prosperity throughout the United Kingdom. We also want to assist the regions to deal with inequalities between them, and diversity and inequality within them. Those two political objectives are not mutually exclusive, as the Opposition seem to think. The Opposition have difficulty understanding that broader concept, and how those important political objectives for the national and regional economies can be—indeed, must be—fused. It is the Government's job to put in place the mechanism to achieve that.

As the speeches by the two Conservative Members clearly demonstrated, the debate has been about regional economies and regional economics and regional economic development, with a focus on the east midlands. That is why I am here, speaking for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We will not have any nonsense about needing a Treasury Minister. Hon. Members should be perfectly satisfied with me—I am very competent, and I will speak strongly on the subject.

It is important that the contributions made by my hon. Friends acknowledged that the east midlands has a great deal going for it. The region has a varied and resilient industrial base and a strong tradition in many manufacturing industries, and there is growth in many high-tech industries. There is a great deal of potential. There are centres of excellence in learning and research, and the region is an important part of the total United Kingdom economy.

As my hon. Friends said, however, there are wide disparities in prosperity between different parts of the region, with some areas suffering from deprivation and decline, including parts of the four main cities, and the former coalfields. There are signs that business confidence is increasing; high value added manufacturing is performing well, as are services and construction. However, some of the sectors that have fared less well nationally, such as textiles, clothing and footwear, are heavily represented in the region. That is having an impact on the economy, as is the fact that industries that are doing well nationally are less well represented. My hon. Friends the Members for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) and for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) emphasised the need for infrastructure, and I accept the analysis by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough of the issues that should be addressed.

A core issue in the debate was our focus on the regions, in the context of economic development, and in particular the role of regional development agencies in helping regions to drive up their performance, and in targeting resources and solutions on the areas in which they are needed most. We had a clear demonstration of the corner into which the Conservative party has put itself. The Opposition have been hung by their own petard. Their knee-jerk reaction at the start of the Parliament, when they said that they would abolish the regional development agencies if they ever had the chance—which, of course, they will not means that they have to defend that position in the face of the obvious success of the agencies and the associated chambers of commerce in beginning to mobilise the regional partnerships that are so essential to the achievement of the economic development that we want to see.

Contributions were made by my hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Liz Blackman) and for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble)—[Interruption.] I apologise for mispronouncing Erewash; it must by my north-west dialect. As the hon. Member for Blaby has said, I am not from the east midlands. My two hon. Friends made it clear how important it is to have a mechanism at regional level for delivering the means and resources to those who need them, particularly the small and medium enterprises, enabling them to drive up their performance and contribute to economic activity. That cannot be done at national level. It is surprising that the party that claimed for so many years that it had exclusive expertise in business and was the friend of business, should show itself to be completely unable to understand the important role that business-led organisations will play in developing enterprises, especially small and medium enterprises in the regions. That says much about the Conservative party's complete lack of understanding of the needs of businesses in the east midlands.

In conclusion, I draw hon. Members' attention to the subject of our debate. [Laughter.] We can all use technical terms such as economic development, gross domestic product and RDAs, but, as my hon. Friends have demonstrated, what really matters is the people of the east midlands. My hon. Friends' interests are clearly different from those of Conservative Members—

Order. We now move on to our next debate, which is about the future of the Commonwealth. Will hon. Members who want to leave the Chamber please do so quickly and quietly?

It is a pleasure to speak in this Chamber, whose layout I saw for the first time today. I am glad that adversarial politics is not dead, despite the hemicycle layout of the Chamber. I also welcome the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) back to the Palace—it is a great pleasure to see him here.

It is a pleasure and a privilege to introduce this brief debate on the future of the Commonwealth, which played an important part in most of our lives while we were growing up. It was created 50 years ago, in 1949, and it is currently in a period of transition. The current Secretary-General, Chief Anyaoku, is about to retire, to acclaim from everyone who worked with him, and the new Secretary-General will take over on 1 April. Our debate could not be more timely.

It is only a couple of weeks since Commonwealth day, which falls on the second Tuesday of March. It would be interesting to take a straw poll of the number of people who knew that 13 March was Commonwealth day. [Interruption.] I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) knew that. Although the Commonwealth has been part of our lives for more than 50 years, few of us knew that 13 March was Commonwealth day.

The Commonwealth is widely known and respected and it is regarded with great affection, but its history and purpose are not as well known as they should be. I spent several years as a governor of Archbishop Tenison's school, which is located just over the river opposite the Oval cricket ground. Although 90 per cent. of its boys had west African or West Indian backgrounds, I wonder how much of their curriculum was devoted to the Commonwealth's history. Are we bringing up a generation who do not share our knowledge of the way in which, uniquely, the United Kingdom gave up its empire relatively peacefully and created the Commonwealth? If so, we should fear for its future as an organisation that serves anyone other than Heads of Government.

I welcome the fact that last November's Heads of Government meeting agreed to set up a working party to review the Commonwealth's future. Although our country is a member of that review team, it is sad that our Prime Minister left the Heads of Government meeting early. I hope that that does not reveal the importance that the Government place on the Commonweatlth. One of its strengths is its sheer variety—the number of countries that belong to it means that in world councils it punches above its weight.

Is it not encouraging for the Commonwealth—and, therefore, for the world—that a former Portuguese and a former French colony have seen fit to join what had been a gathering of ex-British colonies? That is reassuring for the cohesion of the world and for the success of the existing Commonwealth.

Indeed. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is good that countries from different traditions of empire feel strongly enough to join the Commonwealth.

The strength of the Commonwealth, and the subtle relationships between the countries concerned, were probably helpful during the recent floods in Mozambique. Those countries were able quickly to help a nation in deep distress that was, hearteningly, returning to democracy and improving its economic structure. That development has been affected by the floods, and we hope that the people of Mozambique will not lose heart in relation to that regeneration. The Commonwealth has a role to play in ensuring that Mozambique recovers as quickly as possible, both democractically and economically.

The Commonwealth is not an economic grouping. However, the Commonwealth Business Council has a major role to play in developing its lobbying to help developing countries to benefit from global trading. I understand that the council was actively lobbying at the World Trade Organisation conference in Seattle. Perhaps if it had been allowed to get on with that, undisturbed by people who thought that they had a greater interest in the economic development of developing countries, something more postitive might have emerged from Seattle. We hope that the business council will build its lobbying power to improve global trading to a greater extent than it has done so far.

The Commonwealth is, if anything, a political grouping of countries held together by the experience of empire. It is impressive that those countries still wish to work together. However, if the Commonwealth is to increase in strength and power over the years, it must ensure that it has the internal strength to do so. I shall outline some of the problems that it has faced, and continues to face. It would be helpful if the review group were to take them into account when considering the future development of the Commonwealth.

In the early 1990s, I chaired the Conservative west Africa committee, in which people with an interest in Nigeria played a substantial part. At meeting after meeting, we watched Nigeria descend into endemic corruption. Despite the elections, we are only now witnessing some control over foreign bank accounts being taken back, and some of the knock-on effects of the corruption being remedied. The Commonwealth was active at that time: Nigeria was excluded from the councils of the Commonwealth for some time. However, it could have been more proactive in trying to get Nigeria back on the straight and narrow earlier.

Zimbabwe is a current case that represents the need for the Commonwealth to be much more proactive in trying to impose common discipline on its members. Those of us who have watched the development of Africa since many of its countries have become independent recognise that what is happening in Zimbabwe is similar to what has happened in many other African states—that is, the emergence of a tyrant or dictator and the impoverishment of the people. Africa often provides wonderful examples of the positive force that democracy can represent in the world, but unfortunately Zimbabwe appears to be experiencing the last throes of the African dictators.

However, Zimbabwe is still part of the Commonwealth. Given the arguments—which I shall not go into today—about the role of the white farmers, the evidence that Mugabe is raping the country of most of its income and the general poverty to which the country has been reduced, the Commonwealth has been very slow in taking positive action to try to enforce the rule of law and democracy in Zimbabwe. I hope that it will soon consider explusion. After all, it acted quickly on Pakistan.

Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that, despite Zimbabwe's serious difficulties—

Order. The convention is to address the Chair, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, as a senior Chairman, is well aware.

I am aware of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I apologise. On the other hand, I do not like to turn my back on a lady, and shall therefore have to stand half way between the two positions.

I was asking my hon. Friend to consider the point that, despite the fact that Zimbabwe has serious difficulties because of the leadership of President Mugabe, an organised Opposition is acting democratically to try to bring to the attention of Zimbabweans—and the world—the need for proper, accountable democracy to be established once more.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have no objections to looking at his back; it is a very attractive back. I accept his point about the Opposition in Zimbabwe, and we must hope that it wins the forthcoming election. My point was that it has been clear for some time that President Mugabe is debasing Zimbabwe's democracy, and the Commonwealth has not been as proactive as it could have been in imposing collective discipline.

I am afraid that I have no compunctions about my back.

Does my hon. Friend agree that some disturbing developments have taken place since the court's judgment on Friday about the eviction of squatters from farms that have been occupied? There is every indication that the authorities in Zimbabwe are ignoring the judgment, and that the number of properties that are being invaded is increasing as we speak.

I entirely agree. The sooner that the election takes place, the better. Without wishing to interfere in Zimbabwe's internal affairs, we must hope that the Opposition win. The Commonwealth should have been much more proactive at a much earlier stage in trying to ensure that President Mugabe could not behave as he has.

Before my hon. Friends kindly gave me more information, I was about to move on to the speed with which the Commonwealth reacted to the military takeover in Pakistan. Many of us would not wish to see a military dictatorship in that or any other country, and instant action—in so far as any international action can be instant—was taken. I wonder whether, in excluding Pakistan, we may have undermined influence that we might otherwise have had over the current conflict in Kashmir between India and Pakistan. By expelling Pakistan, the Commonwealth's good offices may have been lessened. Can the Minister give some reassurance on that?

Events in Kashmir may well reflect what was known in Victorian times as the great game, although the players may no longer be Britain and Russia, as they were in Kipling's day, but America and China. As I understand it, the stated intention of President Clinton, who is currently visiting India, is to try to improve the situation in Kashmir. India and Pakistan were both members of the Commonwealth, but now only one is, and the Commonwealth could perhaps have played a more helpful role had Pakistan not been excluded. I am grateful that Pakistan appears to want to rejoin as soon as possible.

I am also concerned about the Commonwealth's potential role in the fight against drugs, as, I expect, are all hon. Members. Unfortunately, many farmers in a number of Commonwealth countries are involved in the drugs trade. One of the bases of reducing the worldwide supply of addictive drugs such as heroin and cocaine is the replacement of the poppy and coca plant with a more productive crop. The Commonwealth Development Corporation appears now to be managed properly and will be under the discipline of a decent capital return. Various attempts have been made throughout the world to find such a crop, and it is perhaps fanciful to say that the CDC should become involved in finding alternative crops for farmers.

However, fair trade goods have proved successful and are increasingly to be found in shops. Indeed, a constitutent of mine lobbied me, saying, "Why can't we have fair trade coffee and tea in the House of Commons?" I was initially informed that those brands did not have the same back-up as their more commercial counterparts, but was subsequently told that the House does indeed now stock fair trade coffee and tea. In the light of the increasingly commerciality of fair trade goods, the Commonwealth could do a great deal more to promote replacing the very profitable crops of poppies and coca—I do not blame the farmers, who must make a living—with crops that are profitable but considerably less damaging to health.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should investigate the use of pyrethrum, which grows in similar conditions and is much in demand as a natural herbal pesticide? It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether pyrethrum could replace the poppy.

Indeed. However, although I accept my hon. Friend's point, I do not want to divert hon. Members down the horticultural route; one could speculate on the use of willow and yew in cancer drugs, and so on.

In summing up this brief overview, I should say that the evolution of the British empire into a Commonwealth that is attractive to countries with different heritages is a huge achievement. I am sure that there is no desire for the Commonwealth to break up and I recommend that the review group works more towards developing links and becoming more effective in world councils, so that the basic philsophy behind the Commonwealth becomes more deeply entrenched throughout the world.

The high-level group that has been set up to examine the Commonwealth should set out long-term objectives, one of which must be that the Commonwealth's own back yard is fully open to the scrutiny and standards demanded of others. Whether I believe in the Government's foreign policy philosophy is immaterial, but if the Government believe in it, they should participate wholeheartedly in discussions on the development of the Commonwealth's future role. The Prime Minister should be as deeply involved in those discussions as befits our role in the Commonwealth and I hope that he will not again leave them early, as he did a few months ago.

It is a great joy to be able to participate in this debate on the future of the Commonwealth. I have enjoyed and am proud of my links with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

The Commonwealth is a gathering of friends and many believe that it is not politically effective, but it is successful because it is not primarily a political or economic alliance. It is a gathering of friends from many different cultures throughout the world. They speak many different tongues, some of which are spoken in only one country, but, to Britain's advantage, it is still essentially an English-speaking union. English is the language of government in many Commonwealth countries without a common national language.

There is much for Britain to be proud of in the concept of the Commonwealth and other members can take great pride in the fact that all of them have shaped the Commonwealth as we know it today. It is a very different animal from the one that was created when it was based on what were known as the white dominions. It has been changed into a multicultural, multinational organisation. Countries such as Cameroon and Mozambique, which, tragically, has been much in the news recently, can be proud of their part in the development of the Commonwealth because they introduced a new dimension that is a key to its future. It is, yet again, going through a transitional stage. It may become a more effective group of friends, crossing even more cultural barriers, and may even become more effective than the United Nations often is.

The United Nations is based on great ideals, but, tragically—hopefully, only for the time being—is not always as effective as we all want it to be. Mozambique has benefited during its tragic current circumstances from its links and friendship with the Commonwealth. It is a genuine friendship because Mozambique has a different historical tradition. I am proud, and I am sure that the Commonwealth is proud, that such a country should wish to be among our number. It shows that the Commonwealth has a great future.

On the future direction of the Commonwealth, we need to consider the standards employed within it. In almost every case, its members are either fully fledged democracies or, in Africa and other parts of the world, struggling towards a more open and democratic society. Many are not perfect, but which democracy is? Although our democracy is long-standing—of which we are most proud—none of us would claim that it is perfect. No democratic system can be perfect, as it relies on human beings, who, as we all know, are far from perfect. Democracy is imperfect by nature. Many countries in the Commonwealth are slowly developing towards the kind of democracy that is understood in this country and throughout western Europe. We must tolerate countries whose circumstances sometimes do not permit them, for practical reasons, to base their system of democratic parliamentary government on exactly the model that we understand. That is part of the strength of the Commonwealth, and I hope that it will continue.

However, certain Commonwealth members do not in any way live up to the expectations of fellow members, at whatever stage they have reached in the development of their democracy. The Commonwealth was right to take action against Pakistan at the time of the military coup. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that, in the case of Pakistan, the Commonwealth was able to take action because of the military nature of the takeover. Zimbabwe has suffered massively from the misrule of Mr. Mugabe, who has milked the country for his and his cronies' benefit. The people of that country have suffered hugely at the hands of a former terrorist, who is essentially still a terrorist in government. The Commonwealth should be able to take action in such cases. The Government of Zimbabwe should not be allowed to behave in such a manner, especially when its own people, whom they are supposed to protect and succour, are the victims. I hope that the British Government will take a lead within the Commonwealth on that.

Britain has a strong connection with many African countries and Commonwealth members, which still regard Britain with great affection. I have had the privilege of visiting a number of African Commonwealth countries. It is out duty to take action. We hear a great deal about the moral dimension of Government policy; I would like to see it in relation to Zimbabwe.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) on securing the debate, and join her in welcoming the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) back to this Chamber. I believe that this will be his first debate since he returned, and it is good to see him back.

I also welcome the Minister, although I am disappointed that once again he has been lumbered with a debate that is not strictly in his area. His hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who describes himself as a son of Africa and who should be fielding this debate, is out of the country. It is sad to see that there is not one Labour Member in this Chamber to support the Minister. It is a crying shame that, in a debate on the Commonwealth, only one Liberal Democrat Member is present, but at least a good group of Conservative Members is present.

I should like to put it on the record that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, whose responsibilities cover Africa, is at an international conference in Geneva working on human rights. He is representing the Government and ensuring that our voice is heard on the matters that the hon. Lady and her colleagues are raising.

I am delighted to hear that robust response but, nevertheless, the poor Minister is lumbered again, for which he has my sympathy. I hope that he will convey the Opposition's strong message to his hon. Friend.

In the early 1960s, Sundays were special days in my house. My family regularly entertained a group of guests who would bring to our home in Norfolk a wealth of tradition, experience and friendship. Sunday was the day that we were visited by members of the Victoria League who, as citizens of Commonwealth countries, were in this country to help it. They included many of the nurses who put their efforts into our health service. That was my first experience of the Commonwealth. There was always a riot of colourful costumes and a true wealth of talent and friendship. It created a special impression, and the bond between this country and other countries has left its mark on me. Those early days formed my deep affection and respect for the Commonwealth.

When I came into the House, I was proud to be a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and I am delighted to have the opportunity to serve on its executive. I want to put on record my thanks, and those of other Opposition Members, to the staff who serve in our branch offices and the CPA headquarters, which is based in London. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham in paying tribute to the outgoing Commonwealth Secretary-General, his excellency Chief Anyaoku. I am looking forward to attending Madam Speaker's special reception for him this evening. He has served the Commonwealth in that role for 10 years, following 34 years of sterling Commonwealth service.

Don McKinnon will take office on 1 April. As New Zealand's Foreign Minister, he will make a fine Secretary-General. I am sure that he will draw on his undoubted skills to guide the Commonwealth through an increasingly challenging period. I have seen Don in action, and we all look forward to working with him, not least at the annual CPA conference, which this year will take place in London and Edinburgh. We will welcome to this country representatives of more than 50 countries to take part in our proceedings in Westminster and Scotland.

When I first became a Member of Parliament, I turned to the CPA for education on foreign affairs and contact with other countries. Those people who argue that the Commonwealth is on the downturn should consider the countries that are interested in joining it. They include countries that one would not connect with the Commonwealth, such as Yemen, Jordan and Rwanda, which have occasionally murmured an interest, although they have not made a formal approach.

The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association offers practical help to democracies. Unlike many organisations, its training and seminars are low on ideology and high on good sense, which should not be underestimated. Also, it is exceedingly cheap to run. If the UK branch received the same money as the dome, it would be funded for 1,000 years. The CPA creates good will. It helps members to learn about colleague countries and allows politicians to network.

Although I would like to speak about many Commonwealth issues, such as the tensions between India and Pakistan and Her Majesty the Queen's visit to Australia, time is short and I shall confine myself to two matters. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide decent answers if his mind is concentrated on a small rather than large set of issues. He has often called himself a master of joined-up thinking; I hope that he will do us the credit of giving us some joined-up answering instead.

The British Council is a key player in the Commonwealth. I am sure that the Minister is more than grateful for its expertise and for the high regard in which it is held. That strengthens his Department's efforts in advance of Commonwealth events. However, the Government's policy is hampering and frustrating the British Council. What will the Minister do about that? He will know that, in the developing countries that are Commonwealth members, the British Council has suffered from the decision taken by the Department for International Development to stop using its services and to concentrate on bilateral giving to other Governments. As a result, in Africa alone, overall British Council programme funds are down by more than 50 per cent. The Government boast of their funding of the British Council, but the Minister should note that for each year of the current comprehensive spending review, its funding will be lower than in any year of the previous Parliament. He will know that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has found that the British Council is severely underfunded. What assurances can he offer, particularly on Commonwealth needs that can be met by the British Council?

The second issue concerns ethical and moral foreign policy and the situation in Zimbabwe, to which other Conservative Members referred. Pakistan has been suspended from the Commonwealth councils as a direct and clear-cut response to the violation of the Harare principles. How can we then sit back and ignore what is going on in Zimbabwe? The argument may be that there is no mechanism for suspending Zimbabwe, but I think that that should be altered.

The Commonwealth principles contain some simple statements, including

We believe in the liberty of the individual … We recognise prejudice as a dangerous sickness,

and

We oppose all forms of colonial domination.

When the Harare declaration was established, we set up a group to examine the way in which Commonwealth members met those principles. Zimbabwe was represented on the Commonwealth Ministers Action Group—the body that was to sit in judgment on the way in which countries adhered to the principles. Indeed, Zimbabwe was in the chair and was only replaced in that role in November. However, the country was transferred on to the high-level group of countries that is also considering the Commonwealth's future and the way in which Commonwealth countries adhere to the principles. I have called for the Ministers to suspend Zimbabwe from the high-level group, but there has been no reply. I have called for a suspension of EU aid to the Zimbabwe Government, which is required not least after the Court of Auditors report showed that aid was being diverted to other ends and was not reaching the people most in need. The Government have not responded.

Zimbabwe is not even observing the basics of the Harare declaration. It is sending money and support to a war in the Congo rather than feeding its own citizens; it prevented opposition parties from gaining access to the media during the referendum; it is about to give presidential consent to a Bill allowing interception of electronic mail and other communications; it arrests journalists because they write the truth—the reports of the torture of journalists last year are horrific—instead of Government propaganda; it condones the illegal grabbing of farms and instructs squatters to stay put; it raids diplomatic bags and gets away with it.

My hon. Friend is giving us an impressive list of the horrors of the Mugabe regime. Is she aware that last Friday, Mugabe threatened that his political opponents would face death?

Nothing that comes out of that regime surprises me after the catalogue of misery that I am recounting.

This morning I received an e-mail that I think will interest hon. Members. It stated:

Here in Kwekwe there had been considerable land invasion of productive commercial farms with the use of city council police and Government transport. Drunken unemployed crowds are rented for the occasion. There is evidence that they have been armed. They have been predominantly arriving at night, ramming down security gates with heavy vehicles, breaking entry to property, taking over homes with contents and expelling the occupants into the night with abuse and beatings. Farmers, in the interests of protecting their families and their lives, have had no alternatives than to be passive. The police are rendering no assistance whatsoever.

I shall make the e-mail available to the Minister afterwards. It ends:

Mrs. Gillan, please do all you can. There are a lot of people depending on the likes of you to do something. Please make a fuss in the House of Commons. It has to be known.

I am making a fuss in the House of Commons. I called for EU aid to the Zimbabwean Government to be suspended when it became obvious that it was not being used to help the poor. I called for Zimbabwe's suspension from the high-level group, because it has lost the right to sit in judgment on others until it sorts out its own affairs. I now call on the United Kingdom Government to call for Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth. The Government cannot operate an ethical and moral foreign policy only when it suits them. It is about time that the Government stood up and were counted. They should show backbone and set an example by saying no to what is going on in Zimbabwe.

The Commonwealth is a proud association with much to offer the world and an opportunity to continue to set a great example in democracy and human rights. Let us ensure that the Government do not let the Commonwealth down. Nothing less than the Minister's full suport for my requests will do.

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), for Cheadle (Mr. Day) and for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). I heartily congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham on landing this important debate. Given the number of Labour Members, it is lamentable that the only Labour Members who have found time to come are the Minister and his Parliamentary Private Secretary. That is pathetic and shows how important the Commonwealth is in the scale of Labour priorities.

The Commonwealth faces a crisis today with problems in Zimbabwe. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle spoke eloquently about the success of the Commonwealth. Britain can be congratulated on the peaceful way in which we slipped away from our empire and handed power and responsibility to a kaleidoscopic variety of peoples. Some would say that that might have been precipitate. When the original plans for Indian independence were discussed it was suggested that African states should take independence as late as the 1980s. Decisions were made by the Macmillan Government and I still feel that we have responsibility for many of the countries from which we stood back.

We have been much less directly involved than the French and there have been successes on both sides, but I fear that we cannot stand back any further from Zimbabwe. What is happening there is appalling and is down to one man who is, in simple terms, a thief. Zimbabwe faced prosperity. My brother worked in racing stables there for some years and commented on how much better the race relations between its small white minority and the various black populations were than in, for example, neighbouring South Africa. It is an extraordinarily rich country with wonderful potential for prosperity across the board at every level.

What Mugabe has managed to do is tragic. With 60 per cent. inflation he has achieved what the Beira patrols never did. He has created extraordinary fuel shortages, mostly because he is an ex-communist and does not understand sums. The devaluation of the Zimbabwe dollar meant that fuel had to go up, but the national oil company, Noczim, held the price of fuel. It now has a $9 million deficit. The state-owned power company Zesa has run up a debt of $20 billion. The shortage of hard currency is so chronic that the Zimbabwe Standard reported on 30 January that the Cambridge examination board had refused to clear examination results because it was owed £2.6 million by the Zimbabwean Government. That is the level to which this wonderful and potentially prosperous country has been reduced.

It is obvious to anyone who takes an interest in Zimbabwe where the money has gone. As a kleptocrat who has visited 150 countries since he took power, Mugabe's foreign travel bill has been a staggering $260 million. On 23 January, the Panafrican News Agency reported that he takes $50,000 in cash with him on each trip and that the first lady takes $10,000. It was also reported that Mugabe

does not have to account for the use of that money. Who would have the gall to ask him for the change?

Those around him also are on the gravy train. Government officials are paid an average of $250 a day on foreign trips. Ministers take an average of $15,000 and senior Government officials are paid $12,500 a day. Compare that disgusting behaviour with the state of the average Zimbabwe citizen. One in four adults between the ages of 19 and 49 has HIV or AIDS, and 2,500 people a week die of the disease. Mugabe is a truly revolting dictator.

The result of the referendum was a potential breakthrough; 55 per cent. of the population voted against giving Mugabe unacceptable powers. However, the country now faces rigging during the next general election campaign; it will be rigged with straightforward violence. A strong case can be made for postponing the general election. Indeed, that was proposed by the Justice Minister, Emmerson Mnangagwa, as a result of an independent survey, which showed that a quarter of those on the electoral roll were dead or fictitious or had multiple entries. Mugabe has ignored that, and insisted that the election go ahead.

The circumstances are not propitious. The attempt to blame the 4,500 white farmers for all Zimbabwe's ills is nothing less than a disgrace. Critically, those farmers dominate the tobacco industry. Some 40 per cent. of Zimbabwe's export earnings have been hit and, on 11 March, The Economist estimated that the total loss was about 400 million Zimbabwe dollars. It is nothing less than ethnic cleansing. We went to war last year to stop ethnic cleansing in a country with which we have no cultural or historical links, virtually no commercial links and a questionable strategic link. In Zimbabwe, we have links going back to days when British settlers first arrived and the capital was named after a British Prime Minister. We have a real responsibility to look into what is happening there.

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the forthcoming election? The register of voters is hopelessly obsolete, there is no independent electoral commission and the President appoints one fifth of the Members of Parliament. Does my hon. Friend agree that that bodes badly for a fair and free election?

My hon. Friend is correct. We have a critical role, and the Government and the Commonwealth could take beneficial action to try to ensure that the election is as fair as possible. The electoral roll is totally distorted and Commonwealth observers are needed now.

Is my hon. Friend aware that observers have overseen no elections in Zimbabwe since the early 1990s, and perhaps even before then? Does he share my concern that Commonwealth observers have not been invited to Zimbabwe during the past decade?

My hon. Friend is right. I was not aware that no observers had been in. Given the circumstances, it was remarkable that the referendum result went the way of sensible, right people. There are good people in Zimbabwe, if only we could support them. The new Movement for Democratic Change, led by Morgan Tsvangirai, and the Zimbabwe Union of Democrats, led by Margaret Dongo, could win 75 seats if encouraged and if the election went fairly.

Our first problem is the horrific persecution of the press. In an appalling case last year, Mark Chavunduka, the editor of the independent Standard, and his reporter, Ray Choto, were arrested after publishing a report on an alleged military coup in which 23 members of the Zimbabwe national army had been detained for plotting to overthrow the Government. The authorities failed to comply with the several high court orders calling for the immediate release of Chavunduka. The military stated:

The judge cannot direct us…anyone who meddles with military matters is subject to military matters.

When the two were released, they had hideous signs of torture on their bodies—of cigarette burns, of electric shocks and of having been submersed in drums of water.

Those who perpetrated that torture are also involved in the extraordinary and outrageous invasion of white farms. Those who turn up are not just squatters and poor peasants looking for land, as the Government describe them. They turn up in Government-registered vehicles, have food and supplies and are directed by men in flashy suits and sunglasses who spend most of their time on mobile phones to Harare asking for instructions for what to do next. Mugabe is clearly driving the operation.

An appalling case featured in one of the broadsheets yesterday concerning an attack on some people whose family had been farmers since 1820. Mr. Smith of Nyarenda farm in Mashonaland was knocked to the ground with an axe; one of the mob shouted:

You white dog. Our President, our God Mugabe, has ordered us to kill you.

The Government must begin to address the situation or there will be no hope of prosperity in the Zimbabwean economy. No one will invest further and there might be a wholesale exodus of the highly skilled farmers who provide 40 per cent. of foreign earnings through tobacco exports.

A high court order taken out last week compelling the squatters to leave was put through by Judge Paddington Garwe. However, the police commissioner, Mr. Augustine Chihuri, ignored the directions—the police have done nothing and the 72 hours have elapsed. He was under clear instructions from the Government. Up to 650 farms have been invaded.

Some think that there might be justice in the matter. They argue that the white farmers constitute only 1 per cent. of the population and that it would be fairer if there were even land distribution. I cannot endorse that view. Of the 2,000 farms that have been acquired by the state since 1980, 462 have been distributed among Mugabe's cronies.

Death threats were announced last week on opponents of the Mugabe regime. African News Online reported calls to clamp down on the broadcasting of songs critical to the Government. Officials cannot speak in public under clause 20 of the public service regulations.

I shall end with a most sinister quotation from police commissioner Augustine Chihuri. He said:

The police force will not hesitate to arrest members of the opposition for fear of being labelled brutal.

The Commonwealth has a real moment of truth. I call on the Government to ensure that Commonwealth monitors go in this week, before the election campaign descends into total chaos, and that Zimbabwe is suspended from the high-level group. Further, I call on them to make it clear that Zimbabwe will be suspended from the Commonwealth and that all aid will be ceased if the policy of ethnic cleansing is continued.

I regard myself as a Commonwealth man because I have found the Commonwealth to be a great teacher and a great friend. My first association with the Commonwealth was in 1955, when I had the misfortune to experience an aircraft breakdown in Karachi, Pakistan. There, for the first time in my life, I witnessed the most abject poverty, and Pakistan is still among the poorest countries in the world. People were living in cardboard boxes alongside the Sindhu river, which runs through Karachi, and had been living in that condition since the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947. That poverty was created by human beings and by badly administered government. The enmity between people within the Indian subcontinent engraved itself on my mind, and we can all do something to eradicate it. Much is being achieved through the efforts of the Commonwealth, both in the sub-continent and throughout the Commonwealth, and that sets an example to the rest of the world.

I have had the good fortune to be close friends with two Commonwealth Secretary-Generals, one of whom is Sir Shridath Subindrinath Rhamphal of Guyana, where I served for seven years. He led the way in considering the political aspects of the Commonwealth and in enhancing the pursuit of democracy, fairness and the rule of law, because he is a lawyer. Above all people, he values the Commonwealth and has enhanced its ability to provide help. My other friend is the retiring Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, Chief Emeka Anyaoku of Obosi, Nigeria. He and I have something in common in that we both joined the Commonwealth Development Corporation as management trainees—he in Nigeria a few years before I joined the corporation in London. Throughout the time that he has led the Commonwealth as Secretary-General, he has been true to the Commonwealth Development Corporation's concept of economic development. One of his enduring marks will be his promotion of the Commonwealth private investment initiative, which is administered by the Commonwealth Development Corporation in three regions of the Commonwealth. Through the gathering of private sector money to invest in small and medium businesses in Africa, the Caribbean, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, economic development in those countries is being encouraged. The project has been very successful.

Although I had not realised it, the chief and I came to a similar conclusion about the effect of democracy in Africa. I was asked to give a speech to an African conference last year, in which I put it to the assembled Africans that democracy was a natural form of government for Africa. The speech came to the attention of the chief, who sent me a copy of the speech that he made when he was asked to address the newly opened South African Parliament following the first election after the end of the apartheid regime. He spoke on exactly the same theme as I did, and I want to quote two passages from his speech. He mentioned the Harare declaration in October 1991 and said:

it was agreed that whatever the national variations, a true democracy would be judged by the resence of a number of essential universal ingredients. These included the right of a people to choose freely the men and women who would govern them and to cashier them; the primacy of the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary; freedom of expression and association; and the continuing transparency and accountability of government.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) explained that, sadly, those factors are absent in Zimbabwe. I have not doubt that the situation would bring about the disapprobation of the chief, because the rule of law is not being respected or complied with. In fact, it is being undermined by President Mugabe. I remind the Chamber that Zimbabwe has a tradition, through the Commonwealth, of democracy and, if supported by the British Government, it will triumph.

Chief Emeka Anyaoku continued:

What Commonwealth leaders identified as the essential ingredients defining every genuine democracy hold good for Africa.

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I greatly respect his comments, given his record and interest in such matters over many years. I assume that he believes that we are strong enough to support Zimbabwe and that he does not align himself with the comments of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who was asking for a full blockade and boycott.

The Government must consider carefully what action to take in Zimbabwe, so that they support those who support democracy and are interested in re-establishing the rule of law and enabling the people of Zimbabwe to decide freely who should govern them and how they should be governed. I hope that the Government will support that. I am sure that they disapprove of the illegal invasion of other people's property. There are 20,000 acres of land in Zimbabwe in the ownership of the Government that could easily be used to satisfy the legitimate desires of the people of Zimbabwe to own and farm more of their land.

I have called for Government to Government aid and for EU to Zimbabwean Government aid to be blocked. Does my hon. Friend agree that that would be the way forward? Aid to non-governmental organisations and aid that can reach the people directly should, of course, continue to go into Zimbabwe. I must make it clear that we have called for a block on Government to Government aid to Zimbabwe and I do not want the Minister to misinterpret that objective.

My hon. Friend is right. We should be careful what aid to Zimbabwe we block. In the light of current events, it would clearly be inappropriate to continue dealing with those who support the Government. Much of the aid budget in Zimbabwe is going to the people of that country for the fight against AIDS, for the education of women and the health of the children and their mothers. I hope that that assistance will not be stopped.

What the chief said in his speech makes good sense in relation to Zimbabwe. He said:

What Commonwealth leaders identified as the essential ingredients defining every genuine democracy hold good for Africa. Democracy in Africa will differ in its detailed arrangements from country to country, but if it is a genuine democracy, it will have to incorporate these essential ingredients.

Why these particular features? At the heart of any genuine democracy lies accountability…And accountability can only be enforced if the governed have the power to make or unmake governments.

It is essential for the Commonwealth to recognise that such elements must be in place, but they are sadly lacking in Zimbabwe, as they are in Pakistan and were in Nigeria. However, Nigeria should be welcomed back because it has returned to democracy after a series of military dictatorships. The instinct of the African people is to go back to a form of government that rests on the consent of the people of that country to be governed.

Why am I referring to a particularly African form of government? As Chief Ameka said in his speech,

A study of traditional government in any part of Africa would disclose one fact—a healthy hostility against the concentration of power without accompanying checks and balances to control it, beginning with the position of the Chief.

No chief was a chief except by the will of his people. In many African societies this maxim was impressed upon the chief in the process of his installation and was in addition to the various mechanisms in place to ensure that the chief marched in step with the wishes of his people.

That cannot be said of President Mugabe in Zimbabwe at present.

Democracy lies at the heart of how Africa and other parts of the world have traditionally been ruled. We now have to build a modern society based on those traditions. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is fostering and helping democracies emerge and take their rightful place for all the peoples of Africa, the Caribbean, the Indian sub-continent, Malaysia and even Australia and New Zealand. We are speaking in this Chamber today partly because the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons visited Australia and thought that this ancient House could experiment with an equivalent to that country's alternative Chamber.

The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association allows us to learn from each other, possibly to advance democracy, to make it more accountable and to fulfil the amibtions of chief Emeka Anyaoku, who has led the Commonwealth so well. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham said, London will host the association's conference in August and September. The conference will be a great opportunity to enhance the association and the concept of the Commonwealth, which is based fundamentally on democracy. The conference embraces the ambitions that we all cherish of seeing the economic as well as the political development of the Commonwealth enhanced through talking to each other.

In the same speech, the chief said:

Sir Winston Churchill once said that the best way of governing states is by talking. Indeed, government by talking is one of the many definintions of democracy on offer. So it was in traditional Africa.

I hope that the people of Zimbabwe, whether they oppose or support Mugabe, will honour that African tradition, with the help of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. It has held post-electoral seminars to improve the knowledge of parties in government or opposition in the legislature of Zimbabwe, so that they know what to do in a traditional constitutional manner.

As we pointed out in the March 1996 report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Britain hugely benefits from its membership of the Commonwealth. Countries throughout the world are jealous of the relationships of Britain, Australia and Canada with the Commonwealth. Our common language, traditions of law and forms of government, and our deep understanding of the Commonwealth are huge bonds to very different countries with different cultures and religions. In international forums such as the World Bank, the United Nations and the World Trade Organisation, the British can talk with and receive support from many Commonwealth countries because of those bonds. Britain must value and cherish those traditions even more than it has done before. It is through those friendships and traditions that we learn from each other, and that real peace, economic development, justice and the rule of law can be obtained. Britain should enhance the Commonwealth in every way that it can.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) on securing the debate. I thank her for her kind words to me, and I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), an old—I should say not old, but former—pupil of Cheltenham ladies college. It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who is the chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, on which I have the privilege of sitting. He and I share a strong interest in the Commonwealth, which I believe is a great force for good in the world. It enables big and small countries to meet as equals in an atmosphere of mutual respect and generosity and in which countries whose economies are not major can be noticed.

I shall talk about countries where the population lives on an average of less than a dollar a day, particularly countries in sub-Saharan Africa. I have a great interest in Africa. Last year, through the wonderful job that we do, I had the privilege of visiting three Commonwealth countries in Africa: South Africa, as a UN observer of fair elections during its second election; Botswana, as a member of a CPA delegation; and Mozambique, as an Inter-Parliamentary Union observer of its second democratic election, where I had the privilege of meeting former United States President, Jimmy Carter. One thing that the Commonwealth does well and needs to do more of—with which the Government should perhaps help—is the monitoring of elections that bring democracy to Commonwealth countries. I am not sure what we do about Zimbabwe; I certainly do not volunteer as an observer of its elections, but I am sure that one or two hon. Members would be prepared to do so.

The Commonwealth can act as a powerful unit in a crisis, as we saw in the recent disaster in Mozambique. I visited Mozambique last December and was shown some of the damage that the el Nino rains caused a couple of years ago. People said that it could happen again and, sure enough, it did. They had the most appalling floods, as well all saw on our television screens. The Commonwealth responded extremely well to that crisis. South Africa stepped in and gave enormous help, and the UK also did a huge amount. Having sat on the International Development Committee, I believe that the Department for International Development did its best to get resources there as fast as it could, from wherever it could find them. Last week, we grilled the Secretaries of State for International Development and for Defence, and they did their best. There is a debate on whether we need regional emergency centres; we should think about that within the Commonwealth, and, more broadly, the United Nations.

The Government of Malawi have only two helicopters but sent one to help during the floods. I had the privilege of meeting the President of Malawi, Dr. Bakili Muluzi, two or three years ago. Malawi, formerly Nyasaland, is one of the poorest countries in the world and we need to give it more help. I was pleased that the Government doubled assistance to Malawi in the comprehensive spending review, but the country has severe problems: it has half a million AIDS orphans, out of a population of 12 million, and more than 60 per cent. of the population is malnourished. As a Commonwealth friend, we need to work to help it, particularly with the products that it exports. Its biggest foreign currency earner is tobacco, not the best product on which to base an economy. The lake, which provides much protein for the people, is over-fished. We also support health clinics there. Health is a real problem for the whole of Africa, particularly with the scourge of AIDS.

In Kenya, which has 30 million people, the infrastructure is crumbling, roads are deteriorating, and health is also a problem. Tanzania, which has continuing internal tensions between the mainland and Zanzibar, also has health care problems. I do not understand why it moved its capital from Dar-es-Salaam to Dodoma; for one of the poorest countries in the world to move its capital, at great expense, was perhaps not the best use of money—particularly a country as heavily indebted as Tanzania.

I met John Cheyo, a Tanzanian politician, who explained that the local hospital in his constituency was closing because the roof was falling in. With pain in his eyes, he told me that women were dying in childbirth.

Africa has some bright spots: Botswana, which we visited last summer, was a real surprise. I expected it to be another poor African Commonwealth country, up to its ears in debt, but it is not like that at all. It is more than twice as big as the UK, and as big as France, with fewer than 1.5 million people. It has been an extraordinary success. I understand that a previous Government decided in 1965 that there was no strategic reason to keep Bechuanaland, as it used to be called, so it became independent—as Botswana—in 1966, and discovered diamonds in 1967. We jokingly suggested to the President, Mr. Festus Mogae, that we had come to renegotiate the independence settlement, and he told us that we could not.

We visited the Jwaneng diamond fields, an extraordinary, huge hole in the ground with incredibly large digging equipment, and we met the manager, who told us that he had just received a report on a saliva test of his staff, whose participation was voluntary and anonymous. The company had discovered that 30 per cent. of its staff were HIV positive, right across the pay grades. I simply cannot understand how to build into a business plan the replacement of those staff, many of whom have many years of experience and training. The Commonwealth needs to put pressure on the United Nations and medical researchers to try to find a cheap solution to the AIDS problem, because countries in sub-Saharan Africa cannot afford the enormous cost of drugs, such as those used in this country to cope with AIDS.

The same is true in the north of the country, which has the most wonderful wildlife, as do many countries in the Commonwealth. I do not suggest that she is wildlife, but we had the privilege of meeting Miss Universe, Miss Botswana, who is not only extraordinarily beautiful, but is making AIDS awareness here campaign during her year as Miss Universe.

Sierra Leone is another country with which I have links, as a patron of the Kambia hospital appeal. Kambia is a town north-east of the capital, Freetown, and my local hospital, Cheltenham general hospital, has a link with Kambia. Last year, during the civil war, the rebels looted, set fire to and destroyed part of the hospital, and as a result, the area had no health care. In a debate on Sierra Leone last year, when I told the Foreign Secretary about that, he confirmed that the hospital had been badly damaged and promised that the United Kingdom would provide some cash for reconstruction, although not specifically for that hospital. I am not pressing for an answer today, but perhaps the Minister would consider whether funding might be provided to enable that hospital to be rebuilt so that the people of Kambia have health care.

There are tensions in the Commonwealth. A fifth—indeed, perhaps almost a quarter—of the world's population lives in the Commonwealth, especially in the Indian subcontinent, and there are big tensions between India and Pakistan. The CPA, which several hon. Members mentioned, is a force for good. To have Members of Parliament from Pakistan and India in the same room, talking one-to-one, can only be beneficial. We shall have to think long and hard about allowing countries such as Rwanda to join, but it might be the solution for that war-torn country. I pay tribute to the staff of the CPA—of which I am an executive member—in London and in other countries. On CPA visits, staff have been magnificent in organising sometimes difficult and strenuous tours.

The CPA is an extraordinary organisation and it is cheap to run. We must ensure that it continues. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the CPA will indeed continue and that some funding will be provided for my hospital in Sierra Leone.

In the remaining 10 minutes, I shall attempt to answer questions relating to two debates. The first is about the future of the Commonwealth, and I thank the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) for the tone in which she introduced it. Within that wide-ranging debate, we have had another on the crisis in Zimbabwe, which we all take seriously. I shall do my best to blend my answers to those two debates. I, too, welcome the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones): we are glad to see him back with his customary style, courtesy and consideration. We hope that recent events are behind him and will never be repeated—for any of us, I am tempted to say.

The Commonwealth celebrated its 50th birthday in 1999. It has come a long way in those 50 years. It is now in a process of transformation. It is a dynamic, loose association, originally of half a dozen countries, but now with 54 members. I agree with the hon. Member for Beckenham that it is important that its history and purpose should be spelt out often and in public. She is right that it is not as well known as it should be.

A week after we took office, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spelt out our commitment as a Government—

to strengthen the Commonwealth and to improve the prosperity of its members.

That has been the basis of our approach in our many dealings with the Commonwealth secretariat and with individual members of the Commonwealth.

I shall not rehearse at length—I do not have the time—the characteristics that set the Commonwealth apart from other international organisations, but it is important to remember that it is a different sort of organisation. It is not the United Nations, the World Bank or the World Trade Organisation. It operates through consensus at all levels, so majorities can never overrule minorities. As one member, we are equal with the other 53 nations that comprise the organisation. It is not treaty-based, but developed for itself a set of guiding principles—most famously, the Harare declaration of 1991—to which member states are expected to adhere. It is an informal, genuine family of nations that have much in common.

The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), who has apologised for leaving, pointed out that Mozambique had benefited from a relationship of friendship, which is why the Commonwealth is different from other organisations. As I said, it is a genuine family with much in common, such as the English language, and legal, judicial and parliamentary systems. Some Members of Parliament are also members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. They know from experience about the Commonwealth's administration systems, contacts, education and so forth, which go back through many years of history.

At the heart of the Commonwealth are commitments to good governance, the rule of law and the protection of human rights. The Commonwealth has invented a mechanism to ensure that those principles are translated into practice—the Commonwealth ministerial action group of eight Foreign Ministers whose responsibility is to investigate serious and persistent violations of the principles enshrined in the Harare declaration. It is relevant to the issues that were raised about Zimbabwe.

The Commonwealth ministerial action group was established in 1995 by Heads of Government at the Auckland Commonwealth Heads of Government conference as part of the Millbrook Commonwealth action programme. The eight Ministers were given a mandate to deal with

serious or persistent violations of the principles contained in the declaration.

They are about promoting democracy and good governance, respect for human rights and the rule of law, and sustainable economic and social development. It was established to ensure that those principles were implemented. The UK plays an active part in the Commonwealth ministerial action group, but the other seven members do not, as some Members thought, include Zimbabwe. They are Australia, Bangladesh, Barbados, Botswana, Canada, Malaysia and Nigeria. Zimbabwe is no longer a member of CMAG.

In November, Zimbabwe left CMAG, but it is still on the high-level group that is considering the future of the Commonwealth and what we might call the CMAG-ing of countries such as Pakistan. Will the Minister join me in calling for Zimbabwe to be suspended from the Commonwealth?

No we will not, because it is not our role to do so. We have led action in response to the situation in Zimbabwe. I should be grateful to receive the hon. Lady's e-mail—I assure her that we shall take its contents seriously. However, she must accept that we led EU action and raised concerns directly with the Zimbabwean Government, bilaterally and multilaterally. We also moved the resolution that was passed by the EU to toughen up our approach and to spell out the situation in public, and we let the Zimbabwean Government know in no uncertain terms that the international community was not happy with the situation.

The Minister has clearly spoken out, but the Government have done nothing. Has 1p of EU aid that goes directly to the Zimbabwean Government, or 1 p of Government-to-Government aid from this country to Zimbabwe, been stopped?

I am more than happy to discuss Zimbabwe, rather than the wider issues that are associated with the Commonwealth. The hon. Lady has changed her ground. Did we take action? Yes. The Government initiated discussions with our EU partners, which led to the EU demarche and the declaration, and we have continued to put diplomatic pressure on Zimbabwe in an attempt to resolve the situation peacefully. I hope that the hon. Lady will not go down the road that was suggested by a Conservative Member, who appeared to argue that we should resolve the situation by going in with a pair of jackboots. That position was not adopted by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, who has for many years taken a great interest in the Commonwealth. I agree with him—we seek to ensure that aid programmes focus on reducing poverty and that they benefit the people who need them rather than the Government. That is our programme's purpose. Funding is going to AIDS and women's projects on the ground, and to health and education programmes. Our aim is not to cut off aid or block resources, which would hit the poorest.

I do not know which Conservative Member the Minister accuses of advocating the use of jackboots, but I regard that as a pejorative term. I asked for Commonwealth monitors to be sent in immediately to ensure, in an atmosphere of intimidation and violence that is getting worse every day, that the general election is fair. I also called for aid to be suspended and for Zimbabwe to be suspended from the high-level group and from the Commonwealth if ethnic cleansing continues.

I thought that I had spelled out the situation. The hon. Gentleman is a superb unilateralist—he thinks that he runs the world, let alone the Commonwealth. How would he implement his policy in relation to an organisation that operates through consensus? We have to achieve consensus before taking action. That is why we believe that it is important to engage in conversations when seeking to introduce change.

The land issue is important. The commissioner of police was ordered by a court to remove squatters from farms and to tolerate no governmental interference. Despite the fact that the court's deadline had passed, no action was taken. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), said that that was another twist in the sad spiral of bad governance that grips Zimbabwe. We made it clear that one of the few redeeming features of Zimbabwe's current crisis was the existence of an independent judiciary. Our aims are to ensure that the President and Ministers do not put themselves above the law and that we support the rule of law in Zimbabwe where we can.

In the minute that remains, I must respond to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham that we were not serious about British Council funding. Under this Government, the grant in aid for the British Council increased by 2 per cent. in real terms, which is in line with the settlement of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Our increase in commitments is above the rate of inflation. I visited the British Council, which does a superb job establishing bilateral educational links between countries—it encourages people from overseas to visit this country and vice versa. We support its works in the Commonwealth and in the rest of the world.

I shall respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham. It was agreed at the Heads of Government conference in 1999 that the scourge of HIV and AIDS is a global emergency, and that that issue would be a high priority. We committed more than £22 million at that conference to fight the HIV-AIDS challenge. We are devoting resources to it, and will continue to do so.

I call Mr. Nigel Evans on the next debate.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I first say what a tremendous fan I am of yours? That is always a good note on which to start.

However, I am not a great fan of this Chamber, and I hope that what I have to say here will not be sidelined. It is vital to my constituents: the parents, pupils and teaching staff in the Ribble valley, and will, no doubt, also have implications for the rest of the country. I am delighted to have this opportunity to express my concerns about the Government's impact on education in the Ribble valley. I am also delighted to be able to do so on the day after the Budget—"Gordon's grim and tonic"—which headlines the good news while leaving the grim news to creep up on an unsuspecting public.

I shall divide my comments into four sections: nursery, primary, secondary and school sports—one aspect of school sports in particular. On nursery education, when Lancashire county council believed that it was to be part of a pilot scheme for nursery centres, it decided to embark on a wholesale review of nursery provision in the county. Nursery schools which stood apart from primary schools were told not to confirm any places until after the review. That led to a great deal of uncertainty for parents and for the staff in those schools.

I visted Ribblesdale nursery school in Clitheroe, where the headmistress—the excellent Mrs. Dewhurst—and the teaching staff were extremely concerned that the review would prejudge the merit of having stand-alone schools such as Ribblesdale, and that they would be amalgamated into other primary schools. I toured the school and met many parents who treasured the excellent nursery provision available. Will the Minister ensure that, when reviews take place in future, excellence is the determining factor, and not simply the fact that stand-alone schools may cost more than integrated provision? We need a period of stability for parents and youngsters in Ribble valley. The fact that a wide variety of nursery provision is available gives parents a greater choice.

The reason why I put such emphasis on assurances for stand-alone schools is that the local authority states in its review document that it intends to give more money to deprived areas. I have no problem with giving money to those areas where it is most needed. However, the document states:

those nursery schools not required for enhanced provision should be amalgamated with adjacent primary schools.

That would extend the age range of the primary school to include nursery-age children, and I have a problem with that. It is a clear example of socialism hitting hard. Nursery school children aged four are to be given their first lesson in the brave new world of politics, and of redistribution from the haves to the have-nots. Good quality nursery provision in Clitheroe could be sacrificed to pay for a more comprehensive nursery provision in a poorer area. It is a plan to soak the rich, starting with the children of those deemed well-to-do. I ask the Minister to come to Clitheroe and to see for herself that the children come from all kinds of backgrounds, and that excellence in education should never be sacrificed on the alter of political dogma.

Hear, hear.

I am delighted to hear the Minister assenting, and I look forward to her response, which I am sure will not be coloured by any political dogma whatever.

The children attending primary schools in Ribble valley have also suffered from vicious cuts in education. I have raised the issue of cuts in the provision of swimming lessons for youngsters over a period of several months, in oral questions and letters. The Minister for Sport wrote to me on 12 October 1999, stating:

All primary schools in England are required to teach swimming, including the principles and skills of water safety and survival, as part of the National Curriculum for physical education.

She went on to say:

In a recent meeting with OFSTED I raised the question on monitoring of the swimming requirement as I feel there are still many youngsters leaving school without achieving this standard.

I applaud those aims. However, when an education authority halves the amount of money that is available for swimming, the provision of swimming is also halved. It also means that parents have to dig deeper into their pockets to pay for the "swimming tax". Primary schools in my area have to bus their pupils to swimming pools, some of which are miles away, which involves extra cost. The Minister clearly recognises the extra burden on parents, especially if they have more than one child in the school.

The local newspaper, the Lancashire Evening Telegraph, quoted Sandra Dundon, who is head of Sabden county primary school. She said:

We have had two separate 10 week swimming sessions, with 20 children a session. Under the old system we would have taken 60 children swimming during the whole school year. We now also have to share transport with children from Altham and Simonstone CE schools to get to and from Padiham pool. This could mean some youngsters being unable to swim when they leave primary school.

The article also states:

Headteachers told the Lancashire Evening Telegraph that swimming lessons—which have been a crucial part of the curriculum for more than 30 years—have been cut since County Hall and Blackburn with Darwen Council were forced to devolve swimming budgets to individual primary schools.

Mrs. Blackwell, who is campaigning for more school swimming for primary school youngsters, sends one of her children to Bolton by Bowland primary school. She explained how parents are having to contribute to pay for the swimming coaches, and her child still gets only a third of the previous provision. She has two other children. I am sure that the Minister understands the enormous extra stealth costs that are placed on those parents if they are merely to maintain any semblance of normal swimming lessons. We are talking about lifesaving skills, and youngsters in my area have suffered because of the cuts.

I understand, because of representations to county hall, not only from me but from Labour Members, that extra money for swimming lessons will be made available later this year. However, the figures for Sabden primary school reveal that it still has to make up a shortfall of £1,305. After all the fuss about the Chancellor's announcements yesterday, that represents taking with one hand and giving back with the other. I hope that the Minister will have some good news for the parents of the Ribble valley and the rest of Lancashire about getting the swimming lessons that their children deserve.

As we all know, small rural schools have suffered from the average cost of teachers' salaries being met by the county council, while actual costs—especially with regard to mature, experienced teachers—are sometimes higher. I understand that the county council is now considering phasing in actual cost refunding. That will be welcome to all the small schools in the Ribble valley and the rest of Lancashire. However, I do not understand why it has to be phased in—surely actual costs could be met immediately.

Mrs. Milne-Redhead is head teacher of Slaidburn primary school, which is one of the smaller schools in my constituency. She has explained that the amount of paperwork that she receives from the Minister's Department is "dreadful". The school has only a small number of pupils, but the amount of paperwork must make her feel as though it is one of the larger comprehensives. The school governors recently suggested having an additional meeting solely to concentrate on sifting through all the directives and red tape emanating from the Department. That is worrying, and I should like the Minister to tell me whether she believes that it is acceptable. Small rural schools are the lifeblood of many of our villages, and any threat to them must be resisted.

That brings me to Tosside school in my constituency. Its future is under review. It is a small rural primary school on the borders of Lancashire and north Yorkshire, and is very much out on its own, with 5.3 miles of unclassified roads between it and the next school. During the winter, there are often treacherous conditions and poor gritting in the area. It has only nine pupils at the moment, but had as many as 30 during the 1970s. The threat of closure has dogged the school and its prospects for many years. That has led some parents in marginal areas to send their children to schools elsewhere instead of to Tosside school where there is a possibility of closure and of children being uprooted and moved to another school. There has been little encouragement to fill the school. It needs continuity and stability. It has two full-time and two part-time teaching staff.

As the Minister will realise, Tosside is a rural school surrounded by farms. Farming is facing its deepest crisis for 60 years and villages such as Tosside need life support. We do not want to kick away its only chance of survival. The local pub recently closed for several months and an application was made to turn it into residential accommodation. That was resisted by the local authority and I congratulate it. The pub is now under new management and has reopened, which is good news for the village. The village has one local shop, which is not far from the school. If the school closed, the shop might be under threat, and jobs involving maintenance and cleaning at the school would also be lost.

Because of the considerable number of complaints about the possible closure, the matter has been referred to Ofsted for advice and a possible visit. If the Government believe in small, rural schools, they must ensure that the school if given another chance to grow. It needs a good number of years of life so that the teaching staff can sell the school to the parents; if the parents can be confident that it will not close in the middle of their children's education, it will have the chance to prosper.

The Ribble valley is blessed with excellence and variety in its secondary education. The quality of life in the area is very good and 75 per cent. of it is an area of outstanding natural beauty. I am sure that the Minister understands that people want to live there and that that is not due solely to the quality of the Member of Parliament.

House building has increased in recent years and, bizarrely, the brownfield developments are giving cause for concern, although there have been too many greenfield developments. The 1991–2006 structure plan envisaged 2,400 homes being built in the Ribble valley and, to date, 2,250 have been built. There are 1,161 in the pipeline, including large developments on brownfield sites at Calderstones and Brockhall, which are both sites of former large Victorian asylums. The extra houses are causing demand for local schools to go through the roof. Ribblesdale school in Clitheroe, under the stewardship of the headmistress, Glyn Ward, has an excellent reputation. She has turned the school around and I congratulate here on her tremendous work.

I hope that the Minister will find an opportunity to visit Clitheroe and, while she is visiting the primary school, she can see what is happening in Ribblesdale. Last year, I was able to show my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition around Ribblesdale school and he saw the excellent technology teaching that the school now offers local people. It now has technical college status and I offer my congratulations on that. Many youngsters want to attend Ribblesdale school. Other local schools include Longridge high, St. Cecilia's, St. Augustine's Bowland high, Clitheroe royal grammar, Fulwood high, Archbishop Temple and Corpus Christi. Demand for places at all those secondary schools is going through the roof. Even in the Fullwood area, house-building is high, and a third former asylum in Whittingham is under threat of an enormous housing development, putting more pressure on local secondary schools.

I have a meeting arranged on Sunday with local Ribble valley parents and councillors Albert Atkinson and John Hill. They are furious that school provision does not match local demand. That hits all sorts of people. We are not discussing parents who do not receive their first choice of school; they are being offered schools that never even featured on their radar screens. The stress and pressure for parents and children is intense. I need not rehearse the heartbreak when groups of local youngsters who live only yards away from one another are broken up and sent in different directions. I need not repeat the horror stories of youngsters facing long bus journeys from the Ribble valley to neighbouring areas during dark winter mornings and evenings to obtain secondary education.

Extra provision has been made in some schools. Ribblesdale school is now bursting at the seams as extra provision has been made available, and parents are waiting to hear how successful their appeals have been for places at other local schools. I resent the local authority telling the local grammar school that it cannot increase its numbers to 30 to cater for the additional demand for local places. The chairman of the education committee, Hazel Harding, says that she does not believe in selection and therefore does not want to encourage greater numbers of youngsters to go to the grammar school. Try telling her that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was only joking when he said that there would be no difference in terms of policy on those schools, and that he was giving some kind of credibility to grammar schools. The Government say one thing while the county council says something completely different. I want politics to be taken out of local education provision.

Clitheroe royal grammar school, as the Minister acknowledged in a letter, is a beacon school. It has a high academic reputation; indeed, it is one of the best schools in the country. It is so good even Labour Members of Parliament would like to send their children there. There are no additional fees at Clitheroe royal grammar school, unlike at Manchester grammar school. Clitheroe royal grammar school should be allowed to provide the 30 additional places. It should be able to act like a safety valve so that additional youngsters from the vicinity can attend it. It is an indictment of the small-mindedness of some local politicians that they would prefer to see young children bussed around the county to spite the grammar school. That is a disgrace. There will be an extra building at Bowland, but its excellent new head, Maurice Graham, has told me that the new places will not be available for at least a year. There is speculation that Bowland high school will be replaced with a new school, but in five years' time. Short-term solutions are needed for the current crisis in school places.

According to the county council, extra house building means that it cannot use future projections on an area's housing to determine where a new school will be needed. Section agreements can be applied to large housing developments, whereby building is encouraged in a certain area as long as a school is also provided. In the Ribble valley, however, many such developments are small, and could not afford to pay for the building of an extra school. The local authority should be able to look at projected house building in an area, and build extra provision so that local youngsters who move into those houses can go to local schools.

I hope that the Minister will reconsider that policy. Given all the extra house building and the fact that people are moving around—she should give comfort to people moving to the Ribble valley, and to those who have lived there for many years and are now subject to a change in local government policy on where youngsters go to school. Government policy should change to ensure that local people and local children can access local provision.

I, too, am a fan of yours, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on securing the debate and expressing concerns about education in his constituency. It is a shame that he did not express the same concerns when his party was in government, and that he did not do more to secure adequate funding for education in his constituency. Under the last Budget of the previous Conservative Government, the old Lancashire county council suffered a real-terms cut in its standard spending assessment for education of £ 13.2 million. Next year, we will provide the new Lancashire county council, which is smaller than the old one, with an extra £12 million in its SSA. That does not include the money that the Chancellor announced in yesterday's Budget—a 10.5 per cent. real increase, which will go directly into schools, including those in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I would have hoped that he would applaud that record.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of nursery education. This Government's record on nursery education is second to none. We are investing £8 billion in early-years education and child care. We got rid of the divisive nursery voucher scheme immediately after we came into office. All four-year-olds now have a place in a nursery class, and we are doubling the number of free places for three-year-olds in nursery classes. In the first nine months of this financial year we have created 106,000 child care places. That is more than the established target, and more than double the number that the previous Government created in 18 years.

Next year, Lancashire county council will receive more than £2 million to provide an additional 1,871 free places for three-year-olds. That is the largest proportion of funding for three-year-olds in the north-west. In Hyndburn and the Ribble valley, 900 places for three-year-olds already exist in the statutory sector. Lancashire county council has received a child care grant of more then £1 million, enabling the creation of almost 2,500 new child care places in the first nine months of this year. Next year, it will receive a grant of £1.214 million—a 20 per cent. increase on this year—which will enable the creation of further places.

Lancashire county council is reviewing nursery education and putting excellence in education above political dogma, unlike the previous Government, who introduced a divisive nursery voucher scheme. Nursery places will be created in the location that is right for parents, so that we can overcome the travelling issue that arises in many rural areas, and to which the hon. Member for Ribble Valley referred. As I understand it, the nursery in his constituency is full, so there is no question of it being under threat. We are looking simply at the redistribution of surplus places.

As a member of the Conservative party, the hon. Gentleman ought to welcome this initiative. As Lancashire county council redistributes surplus places to areas in greatest need, the private voluntary sector will be able to play a role that it has hitherto been unable to play in the expansion of new places. That will provide real diversity and choice for parents. The hon. Gentleman ought also to welcome the proposal to change nursery schools into nursery centres, which will provide a more extensive service, spread costs and enable them to stay open for longer.

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for her commitment to keep Ribblesdale nursery school open. However, does she agree that the priority should be not cost but excellence in the provision of nursery education? We should not amalgamate Ribblesdale with other primary schools simply because it would be cheaper to do so.

Excellence is of course the priority, but the hon. Gentleman will agree that we want excellence and value. Lancashire county council's review contemplates the integration of child care and education, which will sustain excellence, increase value and extend the quality and services that nursery schools traditionally provide. Indeed, there are many examples of excellent practice in the Lancashire area. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the rural child care project, which began in September 1998, and to which I often refer in speeches. So far, it has provided nearly 250 child care places in rural areas.

The hon. Gentleman referred to swimming, which should of course be encouraged. He will know from correspondence with Ministers in my Department and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that swimming forms part of the national curriculum. By the age of 11, pupils should be able to swim unaided, competently and safety for at least 25 metres, and be aware of the principles and skills associated with water safety and survival. Of course, the distribution of available resources is a matter for the local education authority, but I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to yesterday's statement by the Chancellor. This year, an additional sum of between £3,000 and £9,000 will go directly to every primary school. The school that the hon. Gentleman cited will be able to control those resources, so it could divert them to its swimming shortfall if it so wishes.

The hon. Gentleman referred to rural schools. He will understand that I cannot comment on the individual case that he cited. He will remember that, in February 1998, we announced that, in any proposal for reorganisation, the presumption in the Department will be against the closure of rural schools and that the onus will be on the local education authority to make a strong case. From September 2000, that important policy will be supported by the small schools support fund that we have established. That fund will help small schools pilot innovative approaches to joint working, which will provide them with stability and greater assurance of a future so that they can overcome some of the difficulties that relate to their small size.

In addition, we have made funds available for this year and next to provide more administrative support staff an issue raised by the hon. Gentleman—in small schools where administrative tasks are thought to be most pressing. I hope that he will agree that our policies, such as those on smaller infant class sizes, will support rural schools.

Lancashire county council has a surplus of places in the primary and secondary sectors, but that surplus is being addressed in its school organisation plan. I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates—as I do, given the information that I have received from officials—that the particular shortages faced in his constituency have been recognised in that school organisation plan. Therefore, Lancashire county council has plans for 214 extra places in the primary sector and 345 extra places in the secondary sector. However, I hope that he will agree that we want excellence and value, and that providing surplus places that are not required or demanded by local parents wastes resources.

It is not appropriate for me to intervene in admission arrangements in secondary schools, which is essentially a local issue. Lancashire local education authority needs to settle that matter through consultation with local people and to decide which arrangements work best in the interests of local parents and children. Such issues are always especially difficult in rural areas, where children have to travel long distances to school. However, it is appropriate and proper that such decisions should be taken locally; it is for local people to decide what works best locally. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that our new admissions framework is intended to maximise parental preference through clear, fair and objective admissions criteria. Where local agreement is not possible, the admission authority and, in some cases, parents, can object to an independent adjudicator.

Yesterday's Budget announcement brought good news for schools. If the hon. Gentleman had really not wanted to play politics with children's futures, he would have welcomed the announcement of an extra £1 billion for the coming financial year. There will be an 8.5 per cent. real-terms increase over two years, most of which will go directly to schools. The 10 per cent. increase over two years in spending on schools means that each primary school in his constituency will receive between £3,000 and £9,000. Secondary schools will receive between £30,000 and £50,000 each. Head teachers will determine how to spend that money. Special schools will receive £15,000 each.

I shall put those increases into context. The average after-inflation increase between April 1998 and April 2002 per pupil will be £300. That increase should be compared to the £50 decrease per pupil between 1995 and 1998, when the Conservative party was in government.

Does all the wonderful trumpeting of all the extra money mean that youngsters will be able to attend local Ribble valley secondary schools? Can the Minister guarantee that, if any shortage occurs, the grammar school will not be victimised by Lancashire county council and that it will be able to provide extra places for the children in my constituency?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for local decision. He should ensure that he has an influence in the local arena that truly reflects local priorities and parents' preferences, not his own political ideology. Much of what we have done in Ribble valley has benefited its pupils. We have put children first in terms of child care places, the size of classes, numeracy and literacy targets, information technology and books. We have invested in children because they are our future.

Order.

Almost two years ago, a constituent of mine, Bill Bradbrook, contacted me about what he saw as an injustice that occurred in 1943, during the second world war. He thought that now was the time to forgive, and to set the record straight. Mr. Bradbrook contacted me not on his own behalf, but on behalf of his friend, another constituent, Hugh Fraser. Mr. Bradbrook brought his friend to my surgery and I sat and listended to Hugh Fraser's story. It was the story of a young man who had proudly joined the Cameron Highlanders to fight for his country and had risen to the rank of corporal; a young man who had fought bravely with the 8th Army in the desert campaign and was of undoubted high moral integrity. It was the story of a retired man who, despite having achieved much as an inspector of police in Aberdeen, could not shake off a black stain on his character.

As I listened to the story I found myself getting caught up in the events in north Africa and Italy more than 50 years ago. Despite having been a history teacher, this was the first time that I had heard of the mutiny at Salerno, in Italy. Since that day, I have become increasingly fascinated by the events surrounding the largest war-time mutiny in British military history.

What had motivated 191 men all to make the same decision to disobey an order to fall in in a field near Salerno on 20 September 1943? Why had these men, when told that their action constituted mutiny and that mutiny was a capital offence, remained where they were? Why did so many of them do this? Not all of them could have decided that they did not want to fight any more. Surely something must have gone wrong with the line of command for so many men to refuse to obey the same order. The more I have studied the details of what happened to those men, including my constituent, Hugh Fraser, the more convinced I have become that a great injustice was done, which should now be put right. I called for this debate to highlight what happened to those men in 1943, and afterwards, and to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to give serious consideration to awarding the men, who were convicted of mutiny, a free pardon.

What went wrong at Salerno? The Highland and Tyne Tees divisions had fought bravely with Montgomery and the 8th Army in north Africa and he promised them that he needed them for only one more action. One reason Montgomery was so successful as a military commander was the loyalty that he generated among his men. As essential part of the north Africa campaign had been the esprit de corps that Montgomery had fostered. If a man was separated from his unit, he was to do everything in his power to get back to it.

When the 8th Army crossed over to Sicily, many of the men were wounded or ill, often with dysentery. After all, they had taken part in the long desert campaign. This group of men who were to become the Salerno mutineers were sent back to hospital in Tripoli. From there they were taken to transit camp 155, which was also in Libya.

During that time, Major-General Douglas Wimberley, who commanded the 51st Highland Division, of which my constituent, Hugh Fraser, was a member, visited camp 155 and said that his men should be returned to their units. There is no doubt that the men believed that they would be. This is confirmed by a number of men who were in camp 155 at the time—especially the camp duty sergeant-major, Sergeant-Major Green who gave evidence for the defence in the subsequent court martial. My constituent remembers Green telling him that he would be going back to his own unit.

In the belief that they were to rejoin their units, the men agreed to join the draft that was called on 14 September 1943. They did not know exactly where their units were; they knew only that they were somewhere in Italy. No one told them that they were going anywhere else: their true destination was kept secret.

Where were the men going? At the time, things were not going well for the American 5th Army in Salerno, so reinforcements were sent for, and three light cruisers dispatched. The American commander had expected the reinforcements to come from what was then Philippeville, in Algeria, which was the official reinforcement camp for Salerno, and also the closest.

There was some confusion over signals and a draft was called at camp 155 instead. The men from the Highland and Tyne Tees divisions readily volunteered, even though many of them were far from fully recovered from their wounds or illnesses. These were the men who had fought so bravely along with Montgomery and they believed that they were rejoining their comrades-in-arms. At no time were they told that they were rejoining the 46th division that was fighting alongside the US 5th Army at Salerno.

Montgomery did not know what was happening to his men either. He wrote on 10 April 1944 to Sir Ronald Adam, the Army's senior administrative officer, saying that, had he been consulted, he would have said no. Montgomery was angry and blamed the whole confusion on Major-General Charles Miller, the man in charge of Army administration in Africa, whom he described as

the real culprit in this case.

The first that the men knew of their true destination was off the coast of Italy when the message came over the ship's Tannoy system. Many of the men did not believe what they were hearing. They had been told that they were to join their own units. When the men disembarked, the new recruits who had accompanied them were marched away and the veterans of the 8th Army were herded into a nearby field. There they stayed for three days. The men at this time were convinced that if they only stuck together, someone, somewhere, would realise that there had been an administrative error and sort it out. They genuinely believed that right was on their side and that good sense would prevail. Unfortunately, it did not.

After another two days they were told to parade. That was on 20 September 1943. The corps commander, Lieutenant-General Richard McCreery arrived and admitted that there had been, in his words, "a cock-up" which he would sort out when the men joined the new unit. He said that there could be no compromise and that they had to obey orders. If they disobeyed it would be mutiny, which was a capital offence. The order was then given. The men were told to pick up their kit and fall in by Captain Albert Lee. The order was repeated three times. Some of the men moved off the field at that time, but 191 did not. They knew that they had disobeyed an order in wartime. They knew that that could be construed as mutiny but they did not feel that they were mutineers. They were not refusing to fight. They just wanted to fight with their own comrades.

All 191 were placed under arrest and marched to a nearby prisoner of war camp. By that time, ironically, the reinforcements were no longer needed at Salerno, as the crisis had passed, but it had not passed for the 191. The mutineers were shipped back to Africa where they were held in a prison near Constantine in Algeria for five weeks before their trial. The whole affair had been an embarrassment for the British Army and so was kept very hush hush.

On 22 October 1943, the defence team for the mutineers met at Constantine for the first time. Captain Hugh Quennell took control. They had six days to prepare a defence, which was an impossible task. They did not even have time to interview the men. Moreover, as this was at least a month after the men had been arrested, they did not know how ill many of the men had been at the time of their arrest.

The court martial opened on 29 October in the gymnasium of the local French school, the only place big enough to hold all the defendants. The men were each given a number to hang round their necks to identify them; my constituent, Hugh Fraser, was given the number 111. The transcript of the trial has only recently been released and it shows that it proved impossible for the defence team to call the witnesses that it needed, as many of the men were then on active duty. Those witnesses would have spoken up for the men and proved that they were following orders in insisting that they should return to their own units. The only witness called was Sergeant-Major Green from camp 155, who confirmed that the men had been told that they were returning to their own units; that there was an order from GHQ, which confirmed that; and that the men had not had the necessary medical to determine their fitness to return to active duty.

The trial lasted for five days, but not one of the mutineers was called to the witness stand. Even so, they were found guilty. As a corporal, Hugh Fraser was kept in solitary confinement and passed his time—when he was not breaking rocks—reading the New Testament and polishing his mess tin, which he says became the shiniest in the British Army. On 15 November he was told his sentence: 10 years' penal servitude, and to be reduced to the ranks. He could not believe what he had heard.

The next day, 16 November, the three sergeants involved in the mutiny found out their fate: they were sentenced to death. Luckily, two weeks later, that was commuted to 12 years' hard labour. However, fortunately for the mutineers, on 15 November, Adjutant-General Sir Ronald Adam, the second most senior man in the British Army, arrived in north Africa. He asked to see the papers relating to the mutiny. He was horrified by what he read and demanded that the men be released. Their sentences were therefore suspended, but the men's misery did not end there. They were released but were sent to join the units they had refused to join in September. Many were treated harshly, and 80 of them subsequently absconded. That fact has been used in the past by the Ministry of Defence to refuse the men a free pardon. John McFarlane was one of those men and he was stripped of the medal that he won before the mutiny for his bravery in the desert campaign. Unfortunately, he is now dead, but that he absconded twice has been given as the reason to his family why his medal cannot be reinstated. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) who raised John McFarlane's case with the Minister.

My constituent, Hugh Fraser, was not one of the abscondees. Even so, he still says:

What I would like more than anything is for John McFarlane's military medal to be returned to his wife. It is a sin to take back a gallantry medal after it has been awarded. It broke his heart and the hearts of his wife and family.

Most of the research into the events leading up to and after the mutiny at Salerno was conducted by the historian Saul David, and I recommend his book "Mutiny at Salerno—an injustice exposed" to anyone who is interested in the subject.

In January this year, Saul David submitted new evidence to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence from Eric Griffin, who came across two men, whom he called the Tunis mutineers, in the summer of 1944 when he was serving as a clerk to the command psychiatrist, Major O'Hanlon, based in Naples. There is no doubt that the two men were Salerno mutineers. The men's commanding officer had been told that the mutineers' original sentences had been commuted to continuous duty in the front line and, as his unit was being taken out of the line for a rest, so these men could not go with them, he sent them to the psychiatric unit. There is no such punishment in British military history; but if that unofficial vindictiveness was widespread, it is little wonder that the men absconded, as they had been left with little choice.

I shall sum up the reasons why the men who disobeyed an order on that fateful day of 20 September 1943 now deserve a free pardon. They should never have been in Salerno; they were the wrong men from the wrong transit camp. The men genuinely believed that they were lied to about their destination. It is certainly true that those officers who knew that they were going to join the 46th division did not tell the men before embarkation.

The men should not have been put in the position where they had to decide whether to obey the order to fall in or not. Sir Richard McCreery admitted that there had been an error. He should have sorted it out and not insisted that the men joined the new units, especially as, by that time, they had lost faith in the officers who were dealing with them. The men may have disobeyed one order, but they believed that they were carrying out the orders of the one commander whom they trusted, the one who had led them through the desert campaign—General Montgomery. He had told them that, come what may, they were to try to get back to their own units at all costs. The court martial was not thorough in its investigation and the defence was cursory in the extreme.

New evidence now suggests that the men were victimised subsequently in their new units and forced to stay on active front-line service, even when the new units were given leave. Perhaps that helps to explain why so many men absconded. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will carefully consider the evidence that I have presented to him and that he will reach the same conclusion as me: that the time has come to make reparation for the injustice that was done to the Salerno mutineers. I am asking for a free pardon, not to say that the men were innocent—they all admit that they disobeyed an order in wartime—but to allow them or their families to collect their campaign medals.

The men were not cowards. They did not refuse to fight. It is time for the Army to put its embarrassment at the sorry incident behind it and admit that the men were victims of a failure of command and should not have been put in such a situation. We all like to think that, when tested, we will stand up for our principles. That is what men such as my constituent, Hugh Fraser, did. I shall leave the last words to him, a man who, after the war, rose to the rank of inspector of police, a man of undoubted high moral integrity. He said:

Given the same circumstances, I would do the same again. It was purely and simply a matter of principle.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) on securing a debate on a matter that has aroused the sympathy of many hon. Members over the years. The events surrounding the Salerno mutiny of 1943 have been carefully examined by the legal authorities and the Ministry of Defence, including Ministers, on several occasions. The examinations included consideration of points raised by hon. Members as well as several researchers, particularly in the past 20 years.

Many misunderstandings and erroneous claims surround the Salerno mutiny. Let it be understood at the outset that there is not, and never has been, any suggestion by the authorities that the men were cowards or traitors. Nor was the value of their previous service or strong regimental and divisional loyalty ever denied or ignored by the authorities. Nevertheless, I must refer to the key point that has been overlooked in many discussions on the subject. It has long been a basic tenet of military life—it was during the second world war, and it is today—that a solider has no defence in military law that allows him to choose which lawful orders he will obey and which he will not. My hon. Friend mentioned the letter of 10 April from General Montgomery, who wrote:

The men refused to go into battle, which is of course quite inexcusable—and cannot be condoned.

In September 1943, after an opposed landing on the Italian mainland at Salerno, the allies had gained a precarious foothold. The main British element of the 5th Army force consisted of the 46th and 56th divisions that were not part of the 8th Army. However, fierce German resistance inflicted heavy casualties, primarily on the infantry and General Alexander, the senior commander, arranged for several drafts of infantry reinforcements to be moved as quickly as possibly to Salerno. Among those was a draft of 1,500 men moved on 15 September by Royal Navy warships from a transit camp at Tripoli, holding primarily 8th Army soldiers awaiting posting. Among that draft were, as my hon. Friend said, some 300 men formerly with two 8th Army formations, the 50th Northumbrian and 51st Highland divisions. Those two divisions were resting in Sicily and had been earmarked soon to return to the UK to prepare for the D-Day landings in June 1944.

The use of those men from Tripoli was not, as is often claimed, an administrative error by the staff at higher headquarters. Contemporary signals show that the relevant headquarters was made aware that those reinforcements from Tripoli would include men previously with 8th Army formations in Sicily, rather than men already earmarked for the 5th Army, who could not be moved in time.

I do not know whether my hon. Friend agrees, but there is evidence that there were conflicting signals that day. One signal was apparently sent to what was then Philippeville, and another to camp 155. That confusion resulted in the Salerno mutineers volunteering for a draft for which they should not have been asked to volunteer; there were already plenty of men at Philippeville and they, in normal circumstances, would have been called to assist the 46th division.

My hon. Friend points to evidence that, contrary to what I described, there was an order from headquarters to transfer those troops. Areas of confusion often arise in such circumstances. The key issue, to which I hope to come if there is time, is that when a matter is resolved by a legitimate order, it is not within the duties of soldiers to resist and refuse it.—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend may intervene, but I will not be able to go through the whole case.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the men of the 8th Army, of the Highland and Northumbrian divisions, need not have volunteered for that draft?

As I said, headquarters ordered the movement of troops because of an emergency in Salerno and heavy casualties taken by the infantry division; other units that might have been used were not thought to be able to get there in time, and there was therefore a legitimate order for the troops to be transported. Indeed, such cross-posting of men to new units and formations was justifiable, lawful and not at all uncommon in emergencies.

How common was it, in such cross-transfers, for men to be returned to active duty after an illness without a medical examination to determine their fitness?

I could go into the research on those areas, but we are dealing with a military emergency, an invasion of Italy, unexpected but heavy losses at Salerno and the order to send in reinforcements. My hon. Friend reiterated the usual allegation that the men were misled about their destination and did not know where they were going. I am sure that hon. Members will understand that operational security meant—and often mean—that the destination of an emergency draft was not announced so that only a handful of more senior people in the camp actually knew. That is standard security procedure. Until the destination was announced during the voyage to Salerno, some men assumed that they were returning to their units.

Much emphasis has been placed on whether the men were needed when they arrived. The mutineers' testimony shows that, even while at sea, when they had no knowledge of the situation at Salerno, there was already a conspiracy to refuse to serve there.

With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that German attacks peaked on 16 September. However, commanders had to plan for the continuing, immediate threat. A further important factor often overlooked is that such had been the casualties among the British infantry that non-infantry troops from the Royal Engineers and the beach administration companies at Salerno were already fighting at the front as infantry. Even on 16 September, a further 400 Royal Artillerymen were posted as temporary infantry reinforcements. Clearly, replacements for the non-infantrymen in the front-line were needed, and these non-infantry troops were needed to resume their normal tasks. The inevitable difficulties of operating a beachhead under attack had been exacerbated by their removal, which might explain some of the feelings of chaos among the new arrivals.

After landing at Salerno on 16 September, some 1,200 of the 1,500 reinforcements went, without any protest, to join the troops at the front. The remaining 300, largely from the 50th and 51st divisions, refused to move, saying they would serve only with their own units and divisions.

As the men's refusal became clear, the operational situation was explained to them a number of times, but to no avail. The men were personally addressed by the corps commander, who explained why they were needed. He was aware of their grievance at being cross-posted, so he promised that, provided that they complied with current necessary orders, they would be given the opportunity to re-join their previous units once the emergency was over. There is evidence that that promise was kept.

Finally, a formal parade was held at which an explanation was again given of the seriousness of the 300 men continuing on the same course, including the reading of the relevant parts of the applicable legislation. About 100 of the group obeyed the commands and joined units at Salerno. However, 192 stood fast and refused to obey the orders. They were again told of the serious nature of the crime of mutiny, and were allowed time for further reflection before the order was repeated. As my hon. Friend suggested, those who failed to comply were arrested and subsequently charged with mutiny at a court martial at the allied base in north Africa.

It shall speak about the conduct of the court martial and the actions of the defence team. Eleven extenuating circumstances were properly presented. No evidence was submitted by the defending officers to say that the men had been unfit to fight by the operational standards of the time, nor did the men choose to give evidence themselves and be cross-examined. The court subsequently found all but a few of the men guilty of mutiny.

The court heard all the defence statements of extenuating circumstances in mitigation before passing sentence; they reflected the responsibility expected according to rank. Three sergeants were initially sentenced to death, but that was subsequently commuted to 12 years' imprisonment; the corporals received sentences of 10 years and the remainder received sentences of seven years. However, all sentences were subsequently formally suspended, thus offering the men a chance to redeem themselves; the sentence would be activated only if there was later misconduct.

The conviction for mutiny led to the loss of campaign medals but no gallantry medals were forfeited automatically on conviction. Of the two military medals held, only one was forfeited later, following the subsequent conviction of the holder for another offence.

Following suspension of sentence, the men were posted to other units in the Mediterranean theatre. Retaining the men there, rather than posting them back to their own units—by then in the United Kingdom—was lawful and probably understandable. It could hardly be expected that men who had broken military law should be allowed to achieve the objective of their unlawful action, and the bonus of a return to the UK.

We fully understand the strong loyalties to former units felt by the men, but, as General Montgomery suggested, those could not override lawful orders based on operational necessities and did not give them the right to mutiny. General Montgomery was in no doubt: he could not condone their action in refusing, when called upon, to provide operationally necessary reinforcements for the battlefield. The inescapable fact remains that the men mutinied on active service in the battlefield. By any account, that is a serious offence. To grant a pardon for that offence would be a disservice to the many men, including other 8th Army veterans, who obeyed orders, whether they liked them or not, and fought on. It would be a particular slight to those who gave their lives as a result.

Many who took part in the mutiny—

Order.

I am pleased to launch the first debate on the national health service following the Budget and to draw attention to the crisis facing the NHS in Oxfordshire. The Minister will know from previous meetings and correspondence how bad the situation has become in Oxfordshire. My postbag, and those of other Members of Parliament in the county, has increased because of the gap between expectations raised by the Government and the services that the health authority has been able to deliver.

At the general election, the Government said that they had "14 days to save the NHS". There was no mention that that announcement would be repeated yesterday—nearly three years into the Labour Government's period in office. The funding announced yesterday would have been critical to preserving services in Oxfordshire during the first two years of this Parliament.

Local people, patients and elected councillors of all parties are upset to find that services that survived 18 years of Tory cuts have fallen victim to the Tory spending plans imposed on the county during the Government's first two years. The Minister will be aware of the cuts in Oxfordshire, but it would be helpful to recount some of them.

Two community hospitals—at Burford and Watlington—were closed, and 18 beds were lost at Abingdon hospital in my constituency. The trust and health authority admitted that the closures took place because there was not enough money to keep those hospitals open. The trust was in deficit and had to cut its budget. That can be disguised, using the language of "cost improvements" or "cost savings", but the fact remains that there were financial cuts. The community trust recognised that closing hospitals provided a bigger financial saving per bed than cutting beds generally, or cutting services, such as occupational therapy. However, those hospitals not only provided a local service, but helped acute hospitals by providing recuperation and rehabilitation.

The three Rs—recuperation, rehabilitation and respite care—so important to many elderly patients, have been seriously damaged by the Secretary of State for Health's decision to allow the closure of those hospitals in line with the health authority plan, and his failure to finance the health authority and, through it, general practitioner groups and the community trust, well enough to keep the hospitals open. Occupancy rates in those hospital beds were high. They served GPs, who could divert patients from acute hospitals to community hospital beds, and they enabled hospitals, such as the John Radcliffe, to discharge patients and make more cost-effective use of their beds, and to provide a more appropriate environment, especially for elderly patients who needed no longer to be in the hurly-burly of an acute hospital.

Will the Minister give an assurance that the funds announced yesterday for this financial year can and should be used to re-open those community hospital beds? The health authority and the Government have tried to disguise the closure of beds by talking about an additional hospital in Bicester and by changing the means by which patients are admitted to beds. However, that is irrelevant, and entirely separate from the number of beds closed in Oxfordshire.

We heard recently about the closure of the cardiac rehabilitation unit in Oxfordshire—a service for people who have suffered heart attacks, to enable them to recover and improve their quality of life. Sadly, that service has effectively ceased across almost all of Oxfordshire. Again that is due to a shortage of funds in the acute trust, which cannot obtain funding from other sources. We were told yesterday that money will be available from 1 April. A litmus test of the Government's commitment to the NHS would be whether such a service could be restored immediately. Many hon. Members who represent Oxfordshire constituencies have received heart-rending letters from cardiac patients who would expect to see, in line with the Government's health service policies, an improvement in rehabilitation services. They would not expect them to be cut.

The Minister will know that Oxfordshire's mental health care NHS trust has a severe financial deficit. It survived 18 years of Conservative Government, but in the third year of a Labour Government, it is facing a recovery plan that requires it to make significant cuts in clinical services for various patient groups. The trust has tried to make cuts that do not affect patient care, but the jargon of the trust recovery plan leaves me in no doubt that cuts will be made to occupational therapy, psychotherapy and psychology services. Those cuts could affect clinical and medical posts at a time when the Government say—indeed, they were elected on this platform—that we will have more doctors, nurses and caring professional staff, such as occupational therapists.

In light of the new money, will the Government confirm that the funds can, and, as mental health desperately needs additional funding, should, be used to ensure that the cuts do not occur? People in Oxfordshire will not understand the hype that surrounds a cash bonanza for the NHS if community hospitals remain closed, more community beds are closed, cardiac rehabilitation services continue to be affected and more cuts are made to mental health care services.

The John Radcliffe hospital faces a critical cash crisis. For many months, more than 100 beds have been closed because of a lack of nurses. Although it is not providing a proper service, people might think that it is saving money. But on 17 February, the Oxford Mail reported that the hospital had a predicted debt of £3.5 million by the end of the financial year, despite cuts in clinical services. On the radio this morning, prior to a health authority meeting, it was confirmed that that figure was an underestimate. The John Radcliffe hospital is in even greater financial crisis. Combined with the accumulated deficit in the ambulance trust and the mental health trust, and with continuing difficulties with waiting times at the Nuffield orthopaedic centre, Oxfordshire health authority can, at the end of the financial year, report only a deepening financial crisis.

Will some of the cash bonanza that the Government announced yesterday be available to obliterate those deficits without further cuts in clinical services or cuts in planned growth in services for the next year? Oxfordshire people will want to know whether their services match the hype surrounding the Government's comprehensive spending review and yesterday's announcement of significant extra funds for the health service.

The situation is drastic for people who want to gain admission to the Oxford Radcliffe hospitals. General practitioners in my area are for ever being sent letters explaining the difficulty that the trust is in. On 25 January, the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS trust sent a letter to GPs stating:

Dear Colleague … At 8.30 this morning we had 26 patients waiting for admission in the A&E Department; all our cubicles and corridors were full—

the assumption being that today's NHS fills corridors. It went on to say:

We had in excess of 20 patients waiting for admission to a ward from our GP Referral Unit and also Edward Buzzard Ward.

Level 3 of the escalation policy was called at 5pm last night. This states that "all cubicles in A&E are full and the number of patients on trolleys in corridors is so overwhelming to the extent that patients cannot readily be taken off the ambulances.

Coming at a time in January significantly after the increased activity caused by the flu epidemic, what sort of a comment is that on the Labour Government's stewardship of an NHS, which, with all good intentions, they promised in April 1997 to save?

What always surpises me about the comments of the hon. Gentleman and other Liberal Democrats is that although one can understand their concerns, one cannot understand what solution is being proposed. Is the hon. Gentlemen suggesting that significantly more funds should have been made available earlier on, and if so, where does he think the money should have come from, beyond putting 1p on income tax?

I am grateful for that intervention because it enables me to explain what we would have done. There is no reason why the Government should have stuck to Conservative spending plans during their first two years in office; during that time, real-terms growth for the NHS was still the lowest for the past two decades, even taking into account the additional funds provided by the Government. As we made clear, we thought that the Chancellor should have opened his war chest much earlier than he did, and should have eschewed an income tax cut earlier in the Parliament in favour of putting money into public services.

The Liberal Democrats stood on a platform of putting 1p on income tax to go towards education, if it was necessary, as we believed it was. We also made it clear that, if the Government would not do that, they should not cut taxes for the better off at a time when the NHS was desperate for funding. If that money were directed into the NHS, Oxfordshire's share of the income tax cut would be about 1 per cent. of the total amount available, which would be about £26 million if all the funding was allocated on a weighted capitation allocation through the hospital and community health services budget this year. That money would have eradicated all the deficits in Oxfordshire and would have permitted some growth in services.

As a result of his departmental responsibilities, the Minister will know of the very important mix between social services and health services. Some of the cuts in the Oxfordshire health service would not be so bad if social services had not been clobbered year after year under successive Conservative Governments and then again under this Government. The Government capped Oxfordshire county council, which meant that it could not spend what it wished to spend on social services, which made the crisis in NHS provision even worse for the health authority.

I joined an all-party delegation to see the Minister at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to plead with him, in the light of the squeeze on health services, not to cap Oxfordshire county council, but to allow local people and the representatives of the four parties on the council to improve social services, as the Labour party said that it would before it was elected. Under this Government, two care homes for the elderly in my constituency have been closed. Care homes for the elderly that survived 18 years of Tory cuts were closed under this Government's stewardship. I receive more letters about the closure of Oseney court than on any other matter. Indeed, Labour councillors joined Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors to plead for Oxfordshire to be allowed to spend the money that it requires to improve services and not to cut services.

Therefore, I should be grateful if the Minister would explain why, two years into a Labour Government, we are facing cuts in all the services that I have mentioned. Will he also explain why the cash bonanza that the NHS is about to receive is coming only now? Are the Government saying to the people of Oxfordshire, "Do not be sick, ill or infirm, except in the pre-election year of a Labour Government"? The people of Oxfordshire cannot understand why, having voted for a Government who pledged to save the NHS, all they have seen is cut after cut. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will either say that the cuts will be reversed by the new funding or at least apologise for the Government's failure to deliver the improved health services in Oxfordshire that they pledged.

I am, of course, aware of the inheritance received by the Minister and his Government, and that it takes a long time to train the nurses and doctors that the health service needs. I accept that, and have not called for the staff to be conjured up overnight. However, if the funding for which most people felt that they were voting had been put in place at the beginning of the Parliament, Oxfordshire would not be in its current situation.

The Government pledged to save the NHS. They might also have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans, but we in Oxfordshire know that the two pledges were incompatible. They decided to keep their pledge to the better off and to stick to a tax-cutting agenda, rather than funding the health service to meet their pledge to the elderly, the ill and the infirm. That is sad for patients and their relatives in Oxfordshire.

I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on securing the debate on NHS provision in Oxfordshire.

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are fully committed to a high-quality national health service for all the people of the country, including those living in Oxfordshire. Our principle is that the best services should be available to everyone, no matter where they live. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have set a modernising, radical agenda for transforming the NHS that will, in time, deliver year-on-year improvements in health and social service provision.

The hon. Gentleman has chosen to highlight the problems in Oxfordshire. Although the Government fully recognise that the NHS faces considerable pressure in meeting its challenging agenda, it is only right that I take the opportunity to focus on the positive progress being made in his area. He completely failed to acknowledge such positive progress and developments.

I begin by reminding the hon. Gentleman about how much money we are investing in the NHS—investment is higher than ever. In December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced total funding of £34 billion for England's health authorities for next year. That represented an average cash increase of 6.9 per cent., which is a rise of 4.2 per cent. in real terms.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Chancellor's statement in the House yesterday that national health service spending will rise by 6.1 per cent. each year above inflation until 2004. An extra £2 billion of new money will be available to the NHS from 1 April this year. The investment is sensible and sustainable and will continue the Government's drive to modernise the NHS, and help to create the fast, fair and convenient health service that people expect.

I should say to the hon. Gentleman and to his Liberal Democrat colleagues that the significant increases in NHS funding dwarf the commitments made by his party at the election. I read his party's manifesto today; it said that it would increase health service spending by £540 million a year. That would have been a completely inadequate response to the crisis that he attempted to describe.

Will the Minister give way?

I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman had a chance to make his speech; it is now my chance to set the record straight.

The allocation for Oxfordshire health authority is £327 million this year. Next year, we shall be backing up our commitment to provide year-on-year increases for the health service by allocating the authority £357 million, which represents a cash increase of £23.6 million, or 7.09 per cent. The increase is higher than the national average.

We have not stopped there. We recognise the need to support local services if we are to expect them to keep pace with out modernisation agenda. That is why Oxfordshire health authority has received £6.3 million in special assistance funding since April 1998 to support the modernisation programme and reconfiguration of services across the county.

Oxfordshire has received not only that additional investment. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the authority received an extra £10.8 million in 1999–2000, which we provided to support our modernisation programme. To cut hospital out-patient waiting times, £300,000 was allocated. An allocation of £200,000 was made to support the booked admission scheme at Oxford's John Radcliffe hospital. Oxfordshire received £1.9 million of extra money from the Government's accident and emergency modernisation fund. A sum of £850,000 has gone to support the upgrading of that hospital's accident and emergency and intensive care departments. An extra £100,000 will be invested to improve cancer out-patient services and more than 100,000 to help to tackle lung cancer. I could continue.

The additional investment has made a real difference. For example, in-patient waiting lists have been reduced. Between March 1998 and January 2000, waiting lists in Oxfordshire went down by more than 2,000. More people in Oxfordshire are being treated by the NHS than ever before, and 5,000 more people were seen in hospitals in Oxfordshire in the second quarter of this financial year than in this quarter last year.Those are the latest statistics.

In December 1999, the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS trust met the required target on waiting times for cancer patients—a 100 per cent. success rate that should be celebrated. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman failed to do that. The upgrade of facilities at the John Radcliffe hospital will result in the expansion of treatment areas and an increase in the number of high dependency beds from 12 to 16.

With that additional investment, we shall be reducing waiting lists, modernising every casualty department that needs it and investing more money in key areas such as cancer and coronary heart disease treatment. The hon. Gentleman said that the coronary rehabilitation unit was closing. He is wrong. It is not closing; the health authority has put it on the priority list for funding in the coming financial year.

Not only are we supporting the services that patients receive, we are starting the biggest hospital-building programme in the history of the NHS. The hon. Gentleman failed to refer to it, but a £80 million redevelopment is taking place at the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS trust, which will mean patients being treated in modern, purpose-built accommodation. Services will no longer be split between sites, which will reduce the need to transfer patients, removing also the problems that that can often cause. Staff will not have to waste time travelling between sites. Access for patients and visitors will be improved.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned mental health services. In September 1999, I had the pleasure of visiting the brand new medium-secure unit on the Littlemore mental health centre site. A £9 million private finance initiative funded unit will provide 30 mental health beds, and a further 10 beds for people with learning disabilities. The establishment of that unit is good news for the NHS and for the people of Oxfordshire. It is another part of the Government's modernisation programme for the NHS, which will provide safer and more secure care for people with severe mental illness.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of Oxford's excellent reputation as a world-class centre for innovation and teaching. We want to encourage that. That is why £4.2 million will go to the brand-new Oxford centre for diabetes based at the Churchill hospital. It will be linked with the drug company Novo Nordisk and Oxford university, renowned for its academic excellence, to develop research facilities for diabetes and related problems.

Since 1998–99, the health service in Oxfordshire has benefited from more than £34 million of new and targeted Government modernising funding; that is on top of the general increase in health authority funding. That investment will continue in future years.

The hon. Gentleman referred to community hospitals in Oxfordshire. It is true that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to make some difficult decisions about the future of those hospitals, but he made the right choice. I assure the hon. Gentleman that such decisions are not taken lightly, but we need to ensure that the right balance of services is available for all hospitals in the county.

The changes are part of a modernisation programme for community services in Oxfordshire and of a coherent development programme for health services in the area. The changes provide an opportunity to redress the inequity of access to community hospital in-patient services. They will also secure the development of increased and more flexible community-based services, which will enable more patients to be treated in or near their homes. That is what patients want, and it is completely in line with the Government's thinking.

We need to make more of the link between community hospitals and intermediate care. Some services will be given in specially designated hospital wards, some in step-down facilities, and some improved care services will be given in the home. For instance, the intensive community support services scheme in Watlington and Wallingford is an innovative approach to providing support services for the local community.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the brand new 30-bed community hospital that is to be built in Bicester. He said that it was irrelevant but it is not. It is part of the modernisation of community services in the county. In an expansion of facilities, the current 12-bed unit will be replaced. There will be more beds to provide equity of services for the county's anticipated population growth. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as part of the process, the 18 beds earmarked for closure at Abingdon hospital in his constituency will remain open until the new facility at Bicester hospital has been expanded. The hon. Gentleman failed to mention that, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced his decision, he rejected proposals to close beds at Wallingford, Wantage and Witney community hospitals.

The uncertainty surrounding community services in Oxfordshire is over. The changes will help to shape local health services. The aim is to develop modern, effective, dependable services so that all patients in the county can benefit from the latest in community health care services. All parties have already begun to work closely together to manage that transition.

The hon. Gentleman referred briefly to staffing shortages and pressure on NHS beds generally, and, to be fair to him, he said that those problems would not be solved overnight. We accept that and have always made that clear. We are tackling those matters. Work is progressing on some of the historic recruitment and staff retention problems of the NHS in Oxfordshire. Some of the investments that I have outlined today will help to deal with wider pressures affecting the service in the hon. Gentleman's part of the country. However, what he described in his speech bore no resemblance to what is really happening in the county. It made no acknowledgement of the hard work of Oxfordshire NHS staff, who work tirelessly for patients. It is incumbent on Members of Parliament to try to provide an accurate picture—[Interruption.] I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. Hon. Members should attempt to give an accurate assessment of what is happening before presenting the national health service in their part of the country as being in complete collapse. That is a travesty. The hon. Gentleman did himself and his party no favours in trying to caricature the problem.

We are the first to recognise the county's problems. The hon. Gentleman has spoken about them at length today—eloquently and articulately—and on other occasions. That is his job as a constituency MP, which I know he takes seriously. However, a fuller and more balanced depiction would have served his constituents better than the hatchet job that he tried today.

Some of the historic deficit problems that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are being tackled. However, he and those like him who want, for political reasons, to portray the national health service in their constituencies as being in a state of collapse will have been slightly embarrassed by the timing of today's debate. We are beginning a record investment programme for the health service, which will substantially modernise and improve the services that the hon. Gentleman, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I expect for our respective constituents. We are embarking on a 10-year modernisation programme. The results will be clear for the hon. Gentleman's constituents and others to see.

If, as we need to do, we are to assess the national health service and analyse its problems, that must be in the context of the current change and new investment, the new doctors and nurses and the refocusing of services so that patients' needs and interests always come first. We are beginning to work through some of those changes in the national health service. I am confident that, with the continuing fantastic work of Oxfordshire NHS staff, the range and quality of services will improve year on year. We shall all be able to take confidence and pride in the fact that the national health service, about which we feel so strongly and passionately, is providing modernised health care into the new century.