I am especially pleased to introduce this debate before the United Nations social summit in Geneva later this week, the G7 Finance Ministers' meeting and the G7 Okinawa summit in Japan next month.

Many hon. Members and thousands of our constituents, while congratulating the Government on the lead that they have taken internationally in reducing debt and poverty in the world's poorest countries, are urging the Government to do even more. The millennium announcement that Britain was cancelling 100 per cent. of the debt owed by the poorest countries made many of us feel good, but we are increasingly aware that those who should have been the main beneficiaries of that decision are still largely unaware of any change. I hope that this debate will clarify the reasons for that and what can now be done.

This time last year, hard work and commitment on all sides—from voluntary groups, churches, Ministers and officials at the Department for International Development and the Treasury, nationally and internationally, and especially from Jubilee 2000—culminated in the Cologne summit. There, the world's seven richest countries—the G7 —promised to write off $100 billion of the $260 billion owed to the west by the most indebted countries. The G7 promised that 25 of the 40 countries identified by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund as the most indebted would receive help by the end of the year, provided that the lenders were satisfied that the borrowers had policies to ensure that funds were used to reduce poverty.

I understand that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated that 11 countries would get through the programme's hurdles by Easter. I use the word "hurdle" advisedly, because it illustrates one of the several blocks that prevent implementation of the G7 promises.

By mid-June, just five countries—Bolivia, Uganda, Mauritania, Mozambique and Tanzania—had received a reduction in debt repayments. Only Uganda is anywhere near having its debt cancelled. The average reduction in the group is 35 per cent., but Tanzania's reduction is as low as 7 per cent., which means that it still needs to spend ․150 million a year servicing its debt and can afford to spend only ․87 million on health. About one third of children in Tanzania are malnourished, and less than half the children of primary school age are actually in school. The Tanzanian Government's budget is distorted by that ․150 million debt repayment.

I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that the World Bank has agreed another loan to Tanzania of £3 billion, even though it is struggling to pay off its existing debts. Does she have a view about the responsibility of the World Bank in taking that action at this stage?

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I will show my concern about the World Bank later in my speech and I hope that she will contribute again.

A similar situation exists in each of the highly indebted countries. One third of Bolivia's population has no access to safe water. Adult illiteracy in Mauritania is 62 per cent. Mozambique faces the daunting task of reconstruction following the worst flooding in living memory, yet it is still expected to repay ․45 million every year.

Despite all the promises of ․100 billion-worth of debt cancellation, only ․13 billion has been cancelled so far, ․11 billion of which had been agreed to before the Cologne summit. A community worker in Bristol recently shared with me two of the most often heard phrases among young people, mostly black, in his area. They were "Keep it real" and "We're not going to believe the promise". I was reminded of that as I reflected on the debt crisis. The reality for children, especially those in the most indebted countries, has not changed. Why should they believe the promise?

Often, the reality in areas of deprivation is that even more exploitation takes place. A Christian Aid photograph in my office at home shows a simple cross and a Nestle dried milk tin containing a few dead flowers marking the grave of a baby, somewhere in Latin America. Did the mother know that, without pure water, the contents of that tin would cause her child's death? The most poignant aspect of that photograph is the picture, on the side of the tin, of a European mother and child smiling, full of good health.

A Christian Aid report published last December shows that a baby's birthplace determines a millennium lottery. For example, Grace, born in Africa, has a one in 10 chance of dying before her first birthday, but for Sarah, born in the United Kingdom, the chance is one in 166. Grace has only a 54 per cent. chance of being immunised against measles. For Sarah, the figure is 95 per cent. Grace has only a 50 per cent. chance of access to clean water, but Sarah has a 100 per cent. chance. Grace will have only a 60 per cent. chance of going to primary school. Sarah's chance is 100 per cent.

Consistently, charities have responded and individuals have given generously. I congratulate the Government on giving tax relief on all charitable donations, which enhances their value. However, such giving is still not enough. Many years ago—when a first class stamp cost 5½ old pence—Frank Judd, who was a Minister responsible for overseas development and a director of Oxfam, urged everyone at a third world conference to invest in a stamp and urge the Government to raise the level of overseas aid, as it was the best form of investment for the third world. His message was that individual giving was great, but Governments could do more.

The Government are committed to doing a great deal more. I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development on leading the world on debt repayment and poverty reduction strategies. That initiative helped to persuade the other members of the G7, and countries outside it, such as Norway and Sweden, to promise 100 per cent. cancellation of bilateral debt. Given that promise, why has so little changed? The process by which the heavily indebted poor countries gain entitlement to bilateral debt relief is the first hurdle. Of course, strategies for poverty reduction and plans for future sustainable development must be in place, but how much of that can be achieved while debt repayment is draining HIPCs?

In response to a debate led by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who I am delighted to see will respond to the debate, said:

The UK argues that a country need not have a full poverty reduction strategy in place when a decision is made. —[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 12 April 2000; Vol. 348, c. 101WH.]

I trust that others are persuaded by that approach.

Another hurdle is the fact that the HIPC initiative is administered by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, both of which have their own complex agendas. The Government's initiative in suggesting that the fund and the bank set up a HIPC initiative implementation unit to oversee the HIPC timetable was welcome. The acceptance of the proposal was even more welcome. Can my hon. Friend tell us what effect that has had on the timetable? Has it led to an improvement and a shortening of the time that we can expect for the debt to be cancelled? The financial contribution of the United States is another major hurdle. Congress has still failed to honour the commitment of the US Administration. Has there been any further reassurance on that crucial issue?

Does my hon. Friend agree that the refusal of Congress to support the initiative makes a mockery of the US's claim to lead the free world in modern democratic values, and that we should urge our colleagues in Congress to move forward on this?

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Jubilee 2000, which now has a worldwide remit, is urging its members to write to members of Congress. Indeed, the last information pack that I saw had a letter in Japanese to send to Japan. I respect the point that my hon. Friend makes. if Congress is not committed to cancelling debt, the rest of the western world has an uphill struggle to improve the position for HIPCs. It reflects increasingly well on our Government that they have taken such a strong lead and have taken all the other western countries with them.

Even if the HIPCs overcome all the hurdles that I have described, the multilateral debt still remains. For some of them it is as much as 35 per cent. of gross domestic product. It is owed for the most part to the IMF and the World Bank and in some cases to commercial transnational banks. While both the IMF and the World bank discuss debt relief and world poverty and, thanks to the British Government, accept that success should be determined more by the number of people lifted out of poverty than how much debt is cancelled, neither is considering cancelling the debt owed to them. That is strange as the same G7 countries are the most influential in those two bodies.

There is a special concern about the IMF. It seems to have policies affecting countries, especially in southern Africa, that result in deep cuts in health, education and employment which are completely contrary to the poverty reduction policies necessary to qualify for the HIPC bilateral debt relief. It is almost incredible that we should find ourselves in this position. It is to the credit of the leading members of Christian Aid, Jubilee 2000 and other non-governmental organisations and voluntary sector groups that they have highlighted that discrepancy.

The IMF and the World Bank seem remote and unaccountable. The poorest and the most indebted countries have the weakest voice there. How high on the agenda is the reform of both those institutions, as that is necessary before further progress can be made to support the poorest countries? It has not been on the agenda and although Jubilee 2000 in Okinawa is concentrating on the work that the G7 countries can do to cancel bilateral debt, the issue of multilateral debt must come higher on their agenda, and on ours.

That leaves the debt owed to the commercial banks. In east Asia and Latin America new debt problems are emerging, as debt owed to private creditors is destroying national development efforts. I have neither the time nor the expertise—although perhaps I should have the time—for another important debate on the need to regulate the repayment of debt to private companies so that a country's basic services, such as health and education, are not undermined.

People must come before profit. That is an obvious statement that has added significance after the tragic deaths in Dover at the weekend. There is a prophetic message; the words of the Old Testament prophets, especially Amos, ring out across nearly three millennia. Amos said that it is wrong to sell the innocent for silver and the needy for a pair of shoes, and it is wrong to grind the heads of the poor into the earth and thrust the humble out of the way. The principles of justice, respect, respect for others and the fair use of resources remain the same; what has changed is the extent of the extremes of wealth and poverty and the global nature of the causes and the remedies.

We expect great things from Okinawa; Jubilee 2000 members and others will be holding summit vigils around the world, starting in Geneva. There will be a vigil in Bristol cathedral as dawn breaks in Okinawa, but before that the letters will flow and, as I said earlier, they will flow internationally. In Parliament, Ministers will be asked three questions. First, why has so little of the ․100 billion debt cancellation promised at Cologne been achieved and why has so little reached the HIPC countries? Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that the ․100 billion debt cancellation was a step on the road to a real solution. Is that still his view? What further action has he in mind? Finally, what further reforms of the International Monetary Fund are possible to strengthen the links between debt relief and poverty reduction? Millions of people around the world want their elected representatives to take action, and we must not fail them.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on introducing the debate and express sadness and disappointment that those who joined us in the campaigns run by Jubilee 2000 last year are not present this morning.

It is unusual for me to do so, but I congratulate both the Government and the previous Tory Government on their efforts on debt relief. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) made one of the first moves when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am delighted to acknowledge the work of the present Government—particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development, who have taken great strides and raised the issue in many international contexts. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Bristol, West is right that we all share a sense of disappointment that what was supposed to happen — forgiveness on account of the jubilee and the millennium, for example—has not materialised and little debt relief has been achieved.

I shall not make a long speech because the arguments are already well rehearsed. The World Bank, however, has just issued a report called, "Can Africa claim the 21st century?" Coming from the World Bank—responsible in the past and, regarding Tanzania, in the future—it is a sick report, which highlights a great deal of irresponsible lending. It is disturbing to pose the question whether Africa can survive in the present century and I wonder how far we have managed to assist its survival. We were promised a reduction by half of the number of people living in extreme poverty by 2015, yet the World Bank estimates that there are now 70 million more people living in poverty than there were a few years ago. We are obviously going backwards in the poverty stakes.

Universal primary education in all countries by 2015 is a worthy aim that was heralded by the White Paper on development. Eliminating gender disparity in primary and secondary education by 2005 is another, yet the World Bank found that the average schooling level of African women has increased by only by 1.2 years in the past 40 years. Clearly, education is scarcely moving forward either.

People who have visited sub-Saharan African countries are often struck by the effect of AIDS there. In many African countries, as many as one in four of the population are stricken with AIDS—one in four of a population whose work is desperately needed for the economic viability of those countries. Sadly, many economically active people are dying. In the past, diseases such as gastro-enteritis and malaria devastated African countries—attacking newborn babies, young children and the elderly—but AIDS is unique as a disease in that it strikes at the young, fit, healthy and active members of the population. The health targets in the White Paper are likely to be seriously compromised by the AIDS epidemic.

In 20 of the 48 sub-Saharan African countries there are civil wars, which are fuelled by the arms trade. The Government promised to do more, especially regarding arms brokers, but they have passed no legislation. Civil wars are also fuelled by the avarice for oil, diamonds and other raw materials that are used in western countries to make money. They represent yet another factor that will prevent the proper development of African countries.

The most indebted and aid-dependent countries in the world have to pay around 17 per cent. of their gross domestic product in debt repayment—the African average is three times what the World Bank says is a sustainable level. The annual gross rate averages 3 per cent. We can only look aghast at those economic figures, which explain why we are so depressed by the lack of progress.

What is the reason for that lack of progress? We must examine the international community and point the finger—particularly at the USA and Japan. Throughout the campaign, it was made clear that those countries constantly stalled on debt relief. Their actions made it more difficult for other G8 members to do anything about the problem. As the hon. Member for Bristol, West, said, Congress is blocking the money that is needed for the HIPC fund. I suspect that Congress is brave enough to do that because it is not a big issue in America but, as part of the international community, we should be hard on the United States for taking that approach.

The search for the perfect poverty strategy has been much delayed. All campaigners and G8 Governments agreed last year that the structural adjustment programmes were doing more harm than good. Health and education projects in some countries were suffering because of their efforts to bring their economies into line with the programmes that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund insisted on if they were to qualify for debt relief. Last year's approach was positive. We understood that poverty reduction targets were going to be more prominent and that health and education projects were going to be insisted on as part of the structural adjustment.

As the Secretary of State for International Development said, there is no perfect scheme to ensure that money is spent in the right way. We could spend the rest of the 21st century looking for the perfect scheme, but we must get on with that process and allow for the fact that there will be defaulters and mistakes. I understand from her response to the report on debt relief by the Select Committee on International Development that the British Government have established a HIPC implementation group within the IMF and the World Bank. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what progress has been made.

What is the European Union doing about the unspent money in its aid budget? Some countries that were earmarked to receive money from the EU budget for aid projects do not have the capacity to take on those projects. As it is so difficult to raise money for the HIPC trust fund, why cannot the aid money be used for the HIPC debt relief fund? It is pointless to have that money sitting there doing nothing. Can we put pressure on the EU to get its act together?

Last but not least, recommendation 14 in the Government's response to the Select Committee report on debt relief states:

We welcome the commitment by the UK Government to go beyond what is required by the terms of the HIPC Initiative and to write off all aid debt, and up to 100 per cent. of export credit guarantee debt.

That worthy and much heralded pledge followed a similar announcement by the United States. It was welcomed by everyone. However, the Government's response raises some questions. It states:

The Government strongly supports the strengthening of the HIPC framework at the G8 Cologne Summit and is grateful to the Committee for its endorsement of the UK's policy on bilateral debt relief. The Government has already cancelled all aid debts to HIPC countries.

What other debts are we owed that are not aid debts? They go on to say that they are providing

100 per cent relief on export credit debt, owed to it by individual HIPC countries, from the time they reach Decision Point under the HIPC Initiative,

which means that we have not relieved 100 per cent. of those countries' export credit guarantee debt. We have relieved only Uganda, which is the only country to have reached decision point. We need an answer. I question the much-heralded announcement that Britain had cancelled all bilateral debts including export credit guarantees. If only Uganda has reached decision point, only Uganda has so far received 100 per cent relief.

On a point of correction, Mauritania and Bolivia have also reached decision point.

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. She is right. However, an awful lot of countries need debt relief and it was claimed that the Government had given them 100 per cent. bilateral debt relief although they had not. The process is extremely slow.

I would like to question another claim made by the Government. We were told early on that tied aid was finished and that we would not continue with it. However, although they were not established under this Government, tied aid projects are still running. Many projects set up under tied aid involved countries paying inflated and uneconomic prices to British companies for the services that they received. The hon. Member for Bristol, West highlighted the iniquities of the payments of debts to private companies. I should like to be assured that highly indebted poor countries are not paying inflated debts to private companies in this country as a result of past tied aid projects.

It is important to clarify the matter. I want the Government to be squeaky clean. They have every reason to be proud of what they have done on the debt issue, as have the previous Government who started the process, and I am prepared to commend them. However, I do not want there to be loopholes, as there are in so many parts of Government policy, whereby what we hear is not what is happening on the ground. I seek the Minister's reassurance.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on initiating the debate. It is important that we have an opportunity to press the Government on a vital topic. The debate is timely, with the G7 summit coming up next month.

In recent weeks, I have been inundated with cards and letters from constituents who are calling for further action on debt cancellation in poor countries. The momentum and profile of the excellent campaign continues to make a big impact on all MPs and politicians in the United Kingdom and in other countries, creating more pressure for radical action. My constituents share the views of many in the UK and across the world. They welcome the progress that has been made and recognise the leading role that the Government have taken on debt relief. However, serious concerns remain about the pace and depth of change.

More delay will cost lives. My constituents do not want us to get bogged down in the mechanisms, processes, rules, diplomacy, frameworks or strategies. They want us to get through those matters and produce real results—the provision of better health care, better education, clean water, food and decent housing to the poorest people in the poorest countries.

The heavily indebted poor countries initiative was supposed to achieve good results and the alleviation of poverty through debt relief. When I think about the process, I picture a golden road. Countries that are sufficiently poor and indebted and are judged by the west to have unsustainable debts are allowed on to that road, which should glide them smoothly and simply to debt relief. However, the process is not like that in practice. Millions of people are still waiting to get to the end of that golden road, but there are obstacles in their way.

I should like to consider the impact of debt and of the HIPC process on three poor countries: Mauritania and Guyana, which are involved in that process, and Nigeria, which is not. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West gave some background information on Mauritania, which is one of the few countries on the golden road of the HIPC initiative. It has reached the first major obstacle, which is known as the decision point, when western Governments judge whether a country has reformed its economy to a sufficient extent to deserve debt relief. It is only at that stage that debt relief is given. Mauritania has reached that point, but it has not been a smooth road. As my hon. Friend said, its debt has been reduced by less than a third. It is still spending more money on debt relief than on health and education combined, even though its literacy level is low and few of its children go to school.

The United Kingdom deserves congratulation, as we write off the bilateral debts that are owed when the decision point is reached. However, countries such as Japan and America do not write off debts at that stage. Instead, they wait for the next obstacle, or until the very end of the golden road is reached. That is outrageous. The United States and Japan are much wealthier than us. If we can afford to do it, so can they, and if our economies are sufficient, so are theirs. I urge the Ministers to get that message across at every opportunity, whether it arises during the coffee breaks or on the main conference floor. If the UK can take such action, so can the United States and Japan.

Guyana is also in the HIPC process, but it is failing to help its poorest people. Ministerial pressure is needed for results to be achieved. Guyana illustrates the problems of the HIPC process and it was one of the first countries to participate. Indeed, it also came through the earlier process, so we expected that by now it would be getting all the help that it needs. However, it was pushed off that road because the IMF said that the Guyanan Government had missed their budgetary spending target. The reasons why that happened are extraordinary, and originate in a public-sector pay dispute in Guyana. Although the Government wanted the public sector to keep working, they knew that they had to keep on track with the IMF and their budget targets in order to obtain debt relief and also to achieve their poverty alleviation objectives. They explained their problem to the IMF and asked what they should do. They pointed out that the independent arbiters that had considered the pay dispute had advised them to pay, but had told them that if they did pay, the IMF would consider that they had overspent their budget. The IMF said, "Go ahead. You should settle this pay dispute. Go along with the independent arbiters and pay your public-sector workers." The Government did that, but then what happened? The IMF turned around and said, "You are off track. You are off the road and you have not achieved your targets." It appeared to take no responsibility for its actions and no proper account of the issues that countries face. Who suffered? It was the poorest people in Guyana.

That is why we are having this debate; we want to tell Ministers that that is not good enough. If Guyana goes to the IMF to explain its problems and follows the IMF's advice, it should receive its debt relief and receive it sooner, in recognition of its acute problems. I have given examples of two countries in which poverty eradication is being stopped or held up by IMF processes and procedures and by engagement in ridiculous debate rather than in getting on and doing what needs to be done.

The third country to which I shall refer is Nigeria, which is not even included in the HIPC process. It was dropped in 1998 for technical reasons, but they were spurious, because the country far exceeds the HIPC eligibility thresholds. Nigeria is the largest country in west Africa and it is still recovering from decades of misrule and a corrupt military dictatorship that left behind enormous unpayable foreign debt. All but a tiny minority of Nigerians live in poverty. This is an especially important time to help Nigeria because the country is trying to establish itself on a course of economic and social reform.

In Nigeria, life expectancy is 53 years and falling as a result of AIDS. Some 36 per cent. of children under five are underweight, and 51 per cent. of the population do not have access to safe water. The problem is massive. Jubilee 2000 has calculated that even if Nigeria's debt were written off entirely, it would still need additional aid of more than ․1 billion a year in order to reach the internationally agreed poverty reduction targets for 2015. Conversations about debt are only the first stage of the process; we must consider how those poverty reduction targets can be achieved.

We must remember that most of the debt results from money lent to corrupt military dictators, and people in the west did not press sufficiently hard to get that money back. Nigeria is now trying to introduce economic and social reform, and is bearing the pressure in trying to alleviate poverty. Our Government deserve congratulations because they have been at the forefront of helping to support Nigeria, but we must ask them to do more. We must take responsibility for the bad loans that have been advanced in the past and we must argue for Nigeria and other countries to be included in the HIPC initiative. If we press for that, I hope that other countries will become involved, including Germany, Japan and the World Bank, who are the major creditors.

The situations in those three countries illustrate some of the problems that need to be tackled and on which the Government must take action at the Okinawa summit. I welcome the progress that has been made, but my constituents have made it clear to me that more must be done urgently because lives depend on it. Therefore, I ask Ministers, in July, to deliver the ․100 billion that was offered at Cologne and to consider the inclusion of many more countries within the HIPC initiative, or, preferably, within a replacement system, because many impoverished and indebted countries are not covered by the HIPC initiative. We need determination to get rid of the obstacles along what should be a golden road to debt reduction and poverty alleviation. Instead it is more like an obstacle course that is being tackled in the dark, and in which the obstacles move every time that one believes that they have been surmounted. The poorest people suffer as a result.

We need to do some straight talking, like the straight talking for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is well known, and we need the determination to tackle all those problems and save the lives that depend on us doing that. I ask the Government to consider a new process of dealing with debt, which was called for by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan. We need a system that is transparent and fair and brings real benefits to the poorest people in the world. Will the Minister say whether the Government support that initiative? We have come a long way, but we need to do more, and it would be tragic to falter at this stage. We must do all we can to ensure that the phrase "debt cancellation", which is firmly imprinted on the consciousness of so many people in developed countries, has real meaning for people in less developed countries; in Mauritania, Guyana, Nigeria and other impoverished countries. Those people must be able to feel for themselves the enormous benefits that debt relief can bring, so that the elimination of poverty can be addressed in their countries.

I am delighted to be able to participate in the morning's debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on raising it.

The Jubilee 2000 campaign has taken off because of the support of many ordinary people. I received more than 1,500 letters asking me to press my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and others not only to take action to write off debt, but to adopt a strategy to help the world's poorest. Last Saturday, I had the privilege and the pleasure of starting a five-mile bike ride from St. Michael's church in my constituency, organised by Paul McGinlay. Fifty young people aged between four and 14 were involved. Before the event we showed the Jubilee 2000 video and explained simply that education and health were very important to young people in other countries. The important point was made that in an age of great advances in medical technology more than 12 million children die every year from easily preventable diseases. That is a scandal and collectively we must do something about it. Great advances have also been made in computer technology, but more than 800 million adults cannot read or write. Those challenges are not just in far-off lands. The economic and environmental effects of globalisation mean that our future is tied up with that of the world. We have a moral and a pragmatic obligation to convey that message.

Initiatives in the heavily indebted poorer countries have been mentioned and I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development on what has been undertaken. I remember a speech by the Chancellor to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland two years ago, the kernel of which was that we needed to do something on the international stage to alleviate poverty. He was congratulated and I join in that response. However, we now have the problem of encouraging other countries to ensure that debt is written off. It is symbolic that next month's summit will be in Okinawa. Japan has a long way to go in the process of writing off bilateral debts.

For too long, we have tied international debt and loans to trade. We must get away from that. As the Government have said, we need a poverty reduction strategy and it is important that it should be separated from trade. The five heavily indebted poorer countries mentioned have not yet jumped over that barrier. The progress that has been made on a global scale is pretty much a minimum. We must push on that issue.

Great initiatives are being pursued. A couple of years ago in Zimbabwe I came across something called the Blair toilet—there is nothing domestic about it—promoted by Oxfam, to bring sanitary conditions to villages and thus improve health. I am proud to say that the Oxfam shop in Helensburgh in my constituency, which has been going for 25 years, has contributed directly to that. Christine Thorburn, the manager, and another 40 volunteers keep that shop open for six days a week, reminding people about the bigger outside world.

I congratulate the Government on what has been done, but we cannot rest there. We must have an efficient poverty strategy. We owe it to those young people who now die so needlessly. Morally, we owe it also to ourselves. We should take a lead from those ordinary people who have encouraged us and our constituents so that, by 2015, our target of halving the number of people living in extreme poverty will have been achieved. That is a noble aspiration, and people of every party and none should sign up to it. I am proud that we are embarking on that road, and I wish everyone well, particularly the Government in Okinawa.

I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) for winning this debate and for the way in which she spoke. She rightly asked why so little has been done to provide for international debt relief. Many hon. Members have touched on that theme, which I shall develop in a moment.

We shall think of the hon. Member for Bristol, West on the day of the Okinawa summit, when she undertakes her vigil in Bristol cathedral. I am not sure whether it will be dawn in Bristol or dawn in Okinawa when she starts, but as someone who has attended many services in Bristol cathedral—I was brought up in the city—I have a vision of what it will be like.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) spoke incisively. She is no stranger to the subject, and takes a keen interest in it. I shall turn to what she said later in my speech. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) said that many people sought to travel down what she described as a golden road, but tellingly said that it was not like that in practice, which is the truth of the matter.

The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) made me feel rather unfit; he went on a sponsored run at the weekend, but I confess that I was sitting in a boat. I congratulate him on his efforts. He rightly said that we cannot rest, and that an all-party approach is needed.

With population growth in the third world easily outstripping economic development, it is no surprise that the crisis continues. If a country's population is growing faster than its economy, it is effectively going backwards, particularly in respect of economic growth per capita. That is why the Conservative party has taken a close interest in the subject for many years. It should come as no surprise that we welcome any steps taken to reduce debt for those countries for which it is an intolerable burden.

The Conservative party has a proud track record on debt relief. The previous Conservative Government wrote off £1.2 billion of debt—the single largest contribution to solving the debt problem. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Richmond Park acknowledge the steps that were taken by the previous Government, who initiated the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was the principle architect of its forerunner, the Trinidad terms, which reduced by two thirds the debt owed by the poorest and most indebted countries. Again, it was my right hon. Friend who pressed for full implementation at the Naples summit of the Paris Club of creditor nations. As Prime Minister, at the 1994 G7 summit in Tokyo, my right hon. Friend gave much momentum to the Cairo conference on population and development—a not unrelated subject.

In opposition, the Conservative party continues to support debt relief as an effective tool in development policy, and has proposed new ways to take the issue forward. Hon. Members have spoken about the excellent work carried out by Jubilee 2000 to which we pay tribute. We support its campaign to cut debt in those countries for which it is an intolerable burden.

We welcome the Government's initiatives in the reduction of bilateral debt. We said in September 1999 that the Government should cancel 100 per cent. of bilateral debt and we welcomed and supported the subsequent announcement of the cancellation of bilateral debts for the world's poorest countries, subject to a rigorous audit, with the money saved to be spent on health and education. Those are important caveats.

We support the Government when they act with organisations such as the World Bank and the IMF to promote well-thought-out multilateral debt reduction programmes that offer the prospect of sustainable economic growth in the long term. We support the main features of the Cologne debt initiative.

It is essential that debt relief is delivered quickly, to benefit the poorest members of society. However, if the Government are taking credit for the success of the campaign, they must take responsibility for the unsatisfactory progress in the reduction of multilateral debt. As I said earlier, the HIPC initiative was originally agreed by the previous Government in September 1996. According to the World Bank, the 40 most heavily indebted poor countries have external debts totalling some £194 billion. Last year, at the G7 summit in Cologne, the total debt relief was increased from £52 billion to £100 billion and the Prime Minister told the House that:

it is an issue whose time had come—[Official Report, 21 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 763.]

Sadly, the reality is lagging behind the rhetoric. A year later, only five countries have received debt relief and only about 15 will have qualified by the end of 2000, instead of the hoped-for 24 or 25. Only two extra countries, Bolivia and Mozambique, will reach completion point in 2000. As the hon. Members for Bristol, West and for Richmond Park said, in the five countries that are beginning to receive debt relief the debt service payments have fallen by an average of only 40 per cent. Reference was made to Uganda; the United Nations website yesterday said that relief to Uganda has currently been suspended because of the military activities there.

Progress is slow and bureaucracy is one of the culprits. The hon. Member for South Swindon mentioned Guyana, which was expected to be one of the first beneficiaries. As the h Lady said, the Guyanan Government sought IMF advice last year to reach agreement in a pay dispute with public sector workers. They took the IMF's advice to settle on the basis of independent arbitration, which resulted in the Government exceeding their budgetary targets. The IMF is now using that overspending as a reason to delay debt relief. I agree with the hon. Member for South Swindon that that is not an acceptable way for the IMF to behave. I also agree with her that countries such as Nigeria and Haiti, which are among the poorest in the world, are not even being considered.

There are many other reasons why the initiative is faltering; much has been made of the United States Congress proving obstructive. The World Bank argues that its credit rating could be damaged; the Inter-American Development bank has so far refused to provide its own funding and the European Union is refusing to release funds until the United States provides its "fair share" of debt relief. The introduction of poverty-reduction strategy papers is being used as an excuse to delay relief still further. Japan is pressuring some countries not to apply for relief.

In short, we are witnessing political wrangling, conflicting agendas, lack of consensus, rather than the delivery of the modest debt relief on offer to those most in need. We recognise that the Government are trying to cut through that and have set up a joint World Bank/ IMF committee to oversee the implementation process. I am sure that the Economic Secretary will give us an update on what is happening in that committee.

There is an important point here, however, that has bedevilled the Government since the day they got elected: the delivery lags behind the spin that has been put on the initiative, not just by President Clinton or the Prime Minister, but by the Chancellor of the Exchequer who said in September last year that:

if we are successful it will be a matter not of years or months but weeks before the first country will benefit from debt relief.

The firm belief was that others would follow thereafter. It comes as no surprise that the UN Secretary-General said in March this year that:

the deeper, faster and broader relief promised last year has yet to materialise.

My strong advice to the Government is not to raise expectations to a level where they cannot deliver and, indeed, it is not within their gift to deliver. They face a big challenge. We are behind them in their efforts, but they should get on with it quietly and not let their spin doctors anywhere near the subject. Otherwise, perish the thought, they might be accused of being all mouth and no delivery. We need a more disciplined approach to international borrowing and lending. We have a new century and a new era in global finance. Let us make sure that it succeeds.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on securing this Adjournment debate on an important subject. I welcome the recognition that hon. Members have given to the Government's role and the progress that has been made. We always want progress to be faster, but we are achieving a great deal. I shall argue that case and try to answer the key points that have been made this morning.

This is clearly an important issue and one to which the Government remain deeply committed. Our track record demonstrates our commitment. We called for and got a review of the original heavily indebted poor countries initiative. We pressed our G7 and international colleagues to adopt challenging targets on debt reduction and the numbers of countries receiving debt, relief and we have made a commitment to give 100 per cent. debt relief to every country that qualifies under the HIPC initiative.

I obviously recognise the contribution of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) in starting the process off, but when the Government came into office in 1997, not one country was receiving debt relief under the HIPC initiative that had been agreed in 1996. I therefore take exception to the tone and one or two of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). The previous Government had not made progress and the vicious cycle of debt, poverty and economic decline was trapping more and more people.

The scale of human tragedy that is involved is difficult to accept. More than 130,000 children die in Africa each week. That is a terrible statistic, and it moved a number of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) to contribute to the debate. It has also moved huge numbers of the population of the UK to send us cards and to put pressure on both us and, I am glad to hear, other Governments. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West told us about letters being sent in Japanese.

Under the historic agreement secured in Cologne, the HIPC initiative was enhanced to provide more debt relief to more countries. Five countries are already receiving enhanced debt relief and another 15 are expected to do so before the end of the year. Today, the board of the World Bank will discuss the issue and we hope that a decision will be reached soon thereafter. We are still on course to meet our G7 target of helping three quarters of eligible countries through to decision point by the end of the year.

So far the HIPC initiative has given out ․14 billion in debt relief—representing an average stock-of-debt reduction of about 45 per cent. for each of the countries—on top of debt relief mechanisms such as the Paris Club reschedulings, which reduced debt stock by a further 67 per cent. At its decision point, Tanzania received commitments from its creditors to provide debt service relief of more than ․3 billion, which will translate into an overall halving of its debt service obligations over the next three years.

Several points about Tanzania were raised in the debate, so I shall try to answer them in greater detail. The World Bank loan agreed with Tanzania is on highly concessional terms. It is preferable for the country to receive such concessional lending rather than borrow from the private sector at competitive rates. We do not want to starve countries of new lending for productive projects. We cannot prevent a country from borrowing: it needs to take on new debt to support projects and spending that contribute to poverty reduction. Such debt is not inherently bad if the money is being put to productive use, so we must ensure that all new lending is productive lending.

Tanzania's poverty reduction strategy paper, which provides the basis for all new lending and support from donors such as the UK, is constructed around actions that will benefit the whole population. The Government are committed to setting the poverty reduction targets in each of the priority sectors—agriculture, education, health, rural roads and water. The interim poverty reduction paper highlighted the need to increase school enrolment rates, to improve the quality of primary education and to raise the coverage of immunisation against diphtheria, polio and tetanus. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development was recently in Tanzania and was impressed by the progress that the country was making on all those fronts.

I should like to press the Minister a little further. To what extent can the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund monitor how the funds are spent? A great deal of debt was incurred during the 1980s and much money went into the pockets of dictators: it never benefited the people of those countries. Has anything changed? Are the institutions monitoring more carefully what happens or can we expect exactly the same story 10 years hence?

We constantly try to improve performance in those regards. We have made progress, but more remains to be done. I can tell the hon. Lady that the Government are not complacent about these problems. I shall return to her points about the World Bank in a few moments.

Earlier this year, the UK Government were concerned about slippages in the timetable of countries coming forward. We have continually pressed for the revised HIPC initiative to be implemented quickly, so those in need feel the effects of debt relief quickly. That is why my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development wrote to the acting managing director of the IMF and the chairman of the World Bank, urging them to set up a HIPC implementation group to oversee progress. We were delighted when those organisations announced at their spring meeting that they were setting up a joint implementation committee on HIPC. That group is charged with overseeing the implementation of the initiative and has already had its first meeting, the outcome of which was a timetable which should result in at least 20 countries reaching the decision point by the end of the year. The group will manage the implementation of the timetable and we hope that as a result there will be greater progress in those countries.

Many of us are sceptical about committees, which are sometimes set up and then kicked into touch. Can my hon. Friend tell us more about the nature of this important committee? Why are expectations for the future so rosy? The two important bodies needed to be brought together, but given our anxiety about them individually, what is to be gained from the committee unless there is a new impetus, or, indeed, new members of the committee?

The first meeting was encouraging because it produced the timetable. I agree that there is a danger that meetings are not as productive as they might be, but the committee brings together the two institutions, sets timetables and reports directly to the boards. Progress is made only by battling to move forward; we are pushing as hard as we can to make progress, and receiving support from others in that respect.

We hope that 20 countries will reach decision point by the end of the year. Of the 41 HIPC countries, 16—the number varies—are at present suffering from the disruption or the aftermath of conflict. Therefore, most have not begun to draw up poverty-reduction strategies to show how debt relief can release resources to reduce poverty. Five further countries are likely to be deemed to have sustainable levels of debt, which means that they will not require further debt relief under HIPC once they have received such relief under the Naples terms from the Paris Club. We expect the remaining 20 countries to reach the decision point under the HIPC initiative and to start receiving debt relief this year. The United Kingdom is at the forefront of international efforts to assist poor countries and we encourage others to match our efforts.

Hon. Members asked about conditionality, poverty reduction strategy papers and other matters, and I shall answer one or two questions now. I confirm what I said in a previous Adjournment debate: it is not necessary to have a full poverty reduction strategy paper in place at decision point. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West that that continues to be our view. An interim paper is needed, but we are prepared to be flexible about it and we have encouraged others to be flexible, too. We want good poverty reduction strategy papers in place by completion point, and we want countries to take as long as they need to achieve a good strategy that has broad support. However, we argued for being reasonable in considering how progress can be made so that a country is not held up.

Uganda's debt relief was mentioned; it will be used to reduce pupil-teacher ratios from 100 to one to 50 to one—that is good progress, although we hope that the ratio will be reduced even further—and to build new schools to allow the Ugandan Government to meet their goal of universal primary education. Good progress will be made in Uganda as a result of that.

The Minister may not be able to answer my question, so I shall ask it in the hope of receiving a written reply. When we were in Uganda, we found that, as a result of qualifying for debt relief, the structural adjustment programme had imposed the need to charge a small fee for primary education. In our view, that was a step backwards. Can Uganda now drop those fees and make education free?

I understand that such action is not possible at the moment. The hon. Lady invited me to write to her, and I am happy to do so and to copy my letter to other hon. Members present. In any case, the World Bank is leading in Uganda on social spending, on which it has expertise. As I said, progress is being made.

Others have been persuaded by our approach to the interim poverty reduction strategy papers, and that has been adopted in the HIPC modalities, so we have made an impact on the processes and on some countries.

The language of the debate is often about assisting developing countries. How much does the debate focus on not only the moral argument, but the economic argument? We have suggested that some countries may be lagging behind Britain. Would that situation change if the economic argument were pushed forward? If the economies of all the countries that had debt lifted from their shoulders really grew, new markets would open up for the US, Japan and the European Community. Would such arguments help to bring more countries on board?

The economic issues must always be considered, but some of them are the primary responsibility of other Departments, so my hon. Friend will understand if I do not comment in detail on the issues that she raised.

I will follow the question from the hon. Member for Richmond Park about the structural adjustment programmes. My experience of some of the African countries in the 1980s was that programmes focused on only one part of the economy and brought the rest of the economy down. A refined structural adjustment programme is needed. I mentioned earlier that I had visited Zimbabwe, where the structural adjustment programme had a negative effect many years ago. Will the Minister examine that aspect of those programmes and perhaps write to hon. Members? Our constituents are keen to advance that important issue.

I am happy to add some remarks about that issue to the letter that I promised earlier, if it will help hon. Members contributing to this useful debate.

Our policy has been of bilateral 100 per cent. debt forgiveness, which has underlined our commitment to debt relief. Since we made that announcement, we have encouraged other creditor nations to adopt the same view. Our initiative is generating results. All the G7 countries have now announced 100 per cent. debt relief policies. Some hon. Members asked about the 100 per cent. level and the relationship between debt and aid debt. Perhaps it will help to remind hon. Members that we are committed to 100 per cent. relief for all countries qualifying under the HIPC initiative. That includes 100 per cent. relief on debts owed to the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

The Minister is being generous in giving way. Does that mean that countries receive 100 per cent. relief when they reach decision point? There are many difficulties in reaching decision point, because of the structural adjustment programmes and other requirements. Is not the problem the fact that the countries will not get 100 per cent. relief because of delays in reaching decision point?

We are trying to make progress on those issues. The countries will receive 100 per cent. debt relief when they reach decision point, but we want to be sure that the cancellation of debt will go towards the reduction of poverty. All five countries that have reached decision point are benefiting from it.

Let me give the overall figures. Some ․100 billion was pledged in the Cologne agreements. That was broken down into ․50 billion through the initiative HIPC on multilateral relief, ․30 billion on overseas development assistance relief and ․20 billion on Paris Club bilateral relief. Of the ․50 billion multilateral relief, ․12 billion has been delivered. I am afraid that I do not have information on the other sums.

Progress is being made. The focus is now on next month's G7 Okinawa summit. The Government will continue to keep up the momentum in the run up to the summit and beyond. The G7, international financial institutions and debtor countries together must ensure not only that debt relief is delivered, but that the released resources are used to eradicate poverty in HIPC countries. The UK is reassured that the United States Administration remains committed to securing funds for HIPC. Larry Summers, the United States Secretary of the Treasury, recently made a strong speech urging Congress to approve the necessary funding. The lobbying efforts of non-governmental organisations such as Jubilee 2000 are important in getting the message across to Congress. I welcome their activities in that regard. Indeed, the Chancellor will meet one of the Senators with responsibility for that matter next month to discuss the issue of HIPC, so additional work is taking place.

We continue to push Japan to be more generous and to deliver its relief from decision point. At the moment, it delivers relief from completion point and looks only at pre-cut off date debt. There are issues to address, but pressure is being exerted and discussions are taking place.

As for Nigeria, the Government have been at the forefront of offering it support so that it helps itself. It has a troubled recent history. We have expressed our determination to harness its resources for economic reform and poverty eradication. We have offered help in all areas, including debt management, privatisation and asset recovery. Contact between the UK and Nigeria has taken place at every conceivable level of government. We have worked hard to persuade other countries to take a similarly supportive attitude towards Nigeria. Larry Summers made a positive statement last week on debt cancellation for Nigeria, which shows that our approach is paying off.

The most effective way to help Nigeria is to work collaboratively within the multilateral framework. We believe in a two-stage approach: first, to implement a generous rescheduling of debt during the IMF programme which is under negotiation, and, secondly, to ensure that Nigeria's debt receives a new treatment in 12 months' time. That will allow Nigeria to build up a track record of reform and re-establish relations with the international community. In light of its recent history, that is an important part of the economic setting, and one on which we have been working positively.

Questions were raised about the reform of the IMF and the World Bank. The G7 Finance Ministers will discuss the topic again at their meeting next month. The new poverty reduction and growth facility signals a new chapter in joint working between the bank and the fund. We want the IMF to remain involved in developing countries and working with the bank. Academic debate acknowledges that stable economic growth is a necessary precondition for development. The countries need a stable macro-economic framework as well as the others measures that we have discussed. Africa is estimated to need to achieve growth rates of 6 to 7 per cent. if it is to reach international development targets. Between 1990 and 1997, growth rates in Africa averaged no more than about 1 per cent. Considerable progress must be made in terms of the economic setting.

A question was raised about the position of Guyana. Briefly, the objective remains to work for an enhanced HIPC decision point in September. We hope to be able to convert the interim poverty reduction strategy paper into a full paper. Work continues on several fronts and progress continues to be made.

A question was raised about EU money. As hon. Members know, the EU agreed more than 1 billion euro to go to HIPC from the European development fund underspends of last year. Of that sum, 680 million euro will go to the HIPC trust fund. The first tranche of the money will be delivered at the beginning of next month and will be vital for giving debt relief to the first countries coming through the process. The Government agree that underspends of European development fund resources can be used well by being put towards HIPC. That has been the thrust of much of our argument.

I will continue to assure hon. Members that progress on all fronts is important. It is obviously important that the subject is on the agenda at the Okinawa summit. I assure hon. Members that debt relief will be discussed in the context both of progress on the HIPC initiative and of the wider development agenda. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have informed the Japanese presidency of the G8 that we would like to use the opportunity of the summit and of the meetings of G7 Finance Ministers running up to the summit to review and to encourage progress on debt relief initiatives.

We must remember that debt relief is only the first link in the chain that can help countries to establish a virtuous circle of debt relief, poverty reduction and economic development. We have touched on all those subjects this morning. There is still much to do. We want to see developing countries playing their full role in the world economy and to see aid targeted and used to its maximum effect. We want developing countries to play their part in the world trade system.

We have an ambitious agenda but we must achieve it. The Government will continue to press our international colleagues for action on the issue. As several hon. Members have said, we have reasons to be proud, but we are by no means complacent about the challenges that face us. I assure all those who have contributed to the valuable debate that progress is being made. I hope that they will understand that we are doing as much as we can to see that even greater progress is achieved in future.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to debate road safety in Derbyshire, a matter which causes me serious concern. My constituency covers 350 square miles of Derbyshire and has in it some of the most attractive countryside in the United Kingdom. The number of tourists attracted to the county and especially to the peak district is an associated problem. It is no exaggeration to say that some 50 per cent. of the United Kingdom's population live within an hour's drive of Derbyshire.

Over the years, successive Governments have concentrated on giving road safety top priority. I know that the present Government do, as did the previous Government. For some years, I was a junior Minister at the Department of Transport, and we launched a campaign—I am glad to see that it is still running—with the slogan, "Kill your speed, not a child." Although speed is not necessarily a factor in every accident, it is often a significant factor.

The previous Government presided over the safest roads in the European Union. Between 1979 and 1997, dramatic improvements took place in road safety. The number of deaths and serious casualties fell by 43 per cent.; drink-related road deaths decreased by about 68 per cent.; and the number of fatal accidents involving motor cyclists was 62 per cent. lower. I remember being fascinated and puzzled by the fact that the number of road deaths was fewer in 1995 than in any year since records began in 1926, despite there being 14 times as many vehicles on the roads. A number of measures were taken to try to improve road safety, one of which was to lift its profile. In an effort to make the roads safe, we wanted people to think about how they drive.

I am disturbed by the dramatic increase in the number of fatalities on Derbyshire roads this year. I am grateful for the help that Chief Superintendent Bateman of the Derbyshire constabulary has given me during the past few weeks in preparing for today's debate. He confirmed that in the first six months of last year, until 19 June 1999, there were 20 deaths on Derbyshire roads. I was disturbed to hear that in the same six months this year, there have been some 40 deaths. I was aware that the number of deaths had increased greatly, and we must carefully consider the reasons for that increase.

The last year for which the county's casualty report is available is 1998. One of the problems is that casualty reports are, by their very nature, complex and detailed documents. They are often not published until a long time after the year's end. The 1999 report is not likely to be available for another eight to 10 weeks. In 1998, 66 people were killed on Derbyshire roads and 716 people were seriously injured. The estimated cost of those accidents was more than £250 million. That is a huge sum of money for the community. That year showed a slight improvement over 1997, casualties being about 2 per cent. lower.

I am concerned by the dramatic rise in the figures this year. It is disturbing to see such regularity in the numbers. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that what we see in Derbyshire is not happening in the rest of the country and that, for whatever reason, it is happening only in the one county. If those sorts of increases were happening everywhere, the Government would be heading in the wrong direction to meet the targets that they have set themselves.

The other issue that I want to raise this morning is the devastation that such fatalities have on the families. During my time as Minister, I met the families of those killed in the Pan Am 103 bombing and in the Marchioness disaster. Those were the most difficult meetings that I ever had. The Minister should be aware that the same devastation is suffered by the families of those killed in road accidents, but the families do not always receive the same publicity and help.

Kevin Delaney, a spokesman for the RAC Foundation, said:

The trouble is that we have a rail crash and 20 or 30 people are killed, whereas there may be as many as 10 road deaths a day but they don't happen in the same place at the same time and they happen for a variety of reasons, which, more often than not, are related to human error.

In 1999, David Skinner, a road traffic management officer for Derbyshire police, said:

If the same number of people who die in these accidents were murder or manslaughter victims in Derbyshire then there would be a public outcry. But, because they are road accidents it seems to be accepted.

On occasions when I have had to visit the families or relatives of people who are involved in fatal accidents, as I am sure other hon. Members have, I am often asked why the accident occurred, what happened and what measures can be taken to improve overall road safety. The Government have set themselves some tough targets on road safety and on accident reduction figures. I welcome that, but I have to tell them that they have not put their money where their targets are. They said at the time of the accident reduction announcements that an extra £100 million would be invested, but they did not say that that was new money. In fact, they were granting to authorities their approval to borrow. One can sometimes speak about the figures in too much detail, but they clearly show overall a decline in the amount of money spent by the Government on road maintenance, which is an important part of the old question of how road safety should be dealt with.

The last three years under the previous Government saw an average annual investment of more than £2 billion. That does not compare well with the investment made by the current Government, who have spent an average of £1.5 billion a year during their first three years in office, which is a substantial reduction in road spending. One of the ways in which the previous Government made progress was by building major new bypasses. We built 160 such roads, as well as many smaller ones. Bypasses have made a major contribution to the reduction of fatal road accidents in this country. More than £26 billion—at 1995–96 prices—was invested in motorways and trunk roads. Our investment achieved the completion of more than 400 major road improvement schemes and the building and upgrading of about 1,300 miles of trunk road, which is 13 per cent. of the motorway trunk road network.

We understand from press reports that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is to change its overall view on the building of new roads. Such roads are often bypasses, which can make our towns and villages safer places and better environments for the people who live and work in them. I hope that the Minister will give me some reassurance on that point.

One of my most serious concerns about west Derbyshire is deaths involving motorcyclists. Last year, 16 motorcyclists died there, and, by 1 June this year, a further eight had lost their lives. Motorcyclists are extremely vulnerable, and I do not want to give the impression that they are always at fault in accidents. In any collision that involves a car and motorcyclist, it is usually the latter who sustains the worst injuries, irrespective of who is blameworthy. Matlock Bath has a great attraction for motorcyclists, and on some Sundays, 300 to 400 of them might visit the location. Anybody who goes there on a Sunday will see that that is not an overestimate. Motorcyclists tend to congregate on Sundays, but they also congregate at other times of the week.

I want to mention a few roads in particular. I was immensely pleased when the A50 was finally upgraded. Perhaps naively, I used to call it the Doveridge bypass because people in Doveridge wanted that road to be upgraded. However, it was a mistake to call it the Doveridge bypass because it is basically a link road between the Ml and the M6. It is a major road, all of which is a dual carriageway, and it has made a tremendous difference to the road structure of the east and west midlands. Certainly, I know of many colleagues who no longer drive up the M6, but take the M1 and cut across on the A50 to pick up the M6 further up the network.

Much of the road goes through open countryside and has a whisper concrete surface. However, concrete has been used on a small section of the road, which goes through Doveridge, and the noise increase in that area is amazing. As soon as one hits the concrete surface, the noise level rises. It seems unbelievable to me that Connect, who built the road, was allowed to lay a noisy road surface on the most populated stretch of the A50. I want the Minister to send a strong message to Connect that the current road surface is unacceptable for environmental reasons and because of the noise, which is now constantly heard in Doveridge, as well as in places like Marston Montgomery and Somersal Herbert, which never used to be affected by any noise from the A50. Connect should be told to resurface that section of road. Construction companies have been instructed to resurface other stretches of road on which concrete has been laid.

As a result of the A50 being built, several people now use the A515 from Sudbury to Ashbourne. However, on certain sections of the A515, it is virtually impossible for two lorries to pass, and the number of accidents on that road has increased. An investigation needs to be carried out because the A50 upgrade has led to a substantial increase of traffic on the A515.

I want to revert to the A50 and to mention the Sudbury-Aston roundabout. A few people live on one side of that link road between the M1 and M6. However, during construction, no provision was made for people to cross to the other side of the road to catch buses. That is a problem because pedestrians must dodge traffic on an especially busy dual carriageway. I have asked Connect to make the necessary changes, but such matters seem to take an inordinate amount of time and reports have only just been prepared.

I also want to make a plea for the completion of the Ashbourne bypass. The Ashbourne bypass, on the A52, which is a trunk road, was completed some years ago. Unfortunately, at that stage, the county council did not include the completion of the Ashbourne bypass in the plans that it submitted to Government. Therefore no money was made available. If the scheme had been included, it would, I was reliably informed, probably have fallen within the Government's plans to improve the bypass network. Now, given the Government's new approach to bypasses, I hope that the A515 Ashbourne bypass can be included. It will make a tremendous difference to the town.

Several measures have been taken to improve the safety of the A6 and I welcome them overall. One stretch has been changed from dual carriageway to single carriageway on both sides of the road. That was the only stretch between Matlock and Bakewell where it was possible to overtake safely and the change was a mistake. I hope that the agencies that now manage the A6 can examine the issue. One of the problems arising in connection with the measures taken to improve road safety on the A6 is traffic leaving it to use minor roads. The need that that creates for policing of those roads as well as the A6, with its high risk of accidents, has resource implications for the Derbyshire constabulary.

Pressure has been put on the county council to consider road safety and calming measures on the A623, which goes through Calver. I hope for a sympathetic reaction from the county council, and perhaps the Minister will encourage that. A great deal of traffic uses the road on its way through the peak district.

I have raised road safety because I am very concerned about the number of fatalities in Derbyshire in the first part of the year. I hope that that rate will not continue, because those fatalities cause devastation and ruin to families.

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) on securing this important debate and I thank him for his help in advising my office of the key issues that he intended to raise.

I was saddened to hear of the recent fatal accidents in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It is a real tragedy that three lives were lost last month in a single accident in Matlock and that two of those killed were only 18 years of age. My sympathy goes to the families and friends of those involved, whose lives will have been devastated.

Each year more than 3,400 people die on British roads and more than 40,000 are seriously injured. In Derbyshire alone on average 85 people are injured on roads each week—11 of them seriously—and one is killed. That is an enormous toll of human suffering that we can and must reduce. That is why we have developed a new 10-year road safety strategy, entitled "Tomorrow's roads: safer for everyone", which was launched by the Prime Minister on 1 March. The strategy includes tough new casualty reduction targets.

In the first four months of the year there were 22 fatal accidents in Derbyshire compared with 10 for the same period in 1999. The hon. Gentleman's latest information shows that the accident rate continues at twice that of last year. That is an extremely alarming increase. There is no simple explanation for it, but the authorities in the area are responding vigorously to that most serious challenge. Derbyshire, as the hon. Gentleman said, is an extremely attractive county to visitors—particularly the Peak park and rural areas. There is clear evidence of increasing car-borne visitor traffic. The area around Matlock in particular is enjoyed by hundreds of motorcyclists each year, but that adds to the county's safety and environmental problems.

The authorities responsible for the roads in Derbyshire—the county council, which looks after the local roads, the Highways Agency, in respect of the trunk roads, and the police—place enormous importance on road safety and road casualty reduction. This year, the county council is spending approximately £1.6 million on schemes to improve safety. We are giving local authorities more freedom than ever to develop their transport priorities through the new local transport plan process. That enables them, for the first time, to plan over a five-year period, working with local people, businesses and other agencies to ensure that their policies meet local needs. Road safety is, of course, very high among them.

Derbyshire county council has been proactive in improving safety. Road safety implications are considered at every stage of the council's transport planning. Its proposals are set out in the local transport plan and aim to reduce the number and scale of accidents by tackling areas with accident problems and by reducing vehicle speeds, which are a major contributory factor in many accidents and affect the severity of injuries.

There will be more resources. In addition to the £5.8 million transport settlement for Derbyshire for 2000–01, which represented a 25 per cent. increase on the previous year, we were able to allocate an extra £302,000. That money has been targeted at schemes to improve child safety and safe routes to school, as part of the transport fund announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget. Over the past two years, resources for Derbyshire have increased by some 90 per cent.

However, we are going even further. The total amount of money available to local authorities will rise again from about £755 million in 2000–01 to well over £1 billion in 2001–02. That money will be allocated to local authorities on the basis of the priorities set out in their local transport plans. The new funding takes the form of credit approvals, because that is the method of funding that local authorities prefer. I emphasise that that is real money. It represents real increases in funding by central Government for local transport and road safety improvements.

The hon. Member for West Derbyshire raised detailed concerns. I can assure him that the Highways Agency also attaches the highest priority to road safety. For instance, the A6 and A52 trunk roads in Derbyshire have been subject to accident reduction trials. Those projects are aimed at reducing the number of accidents that occur on the A6 between Derby and Stockport, and on the A52 and A523 between Derby and Leek.

Blanket 50 mph speed limits have been introduced along those roads, with sections of 30 mph or 40 mph through towns and villages. Gateways with coloured surfacings and carriageway roundals have been introduced. Additional pedestrian facilities have been provided, together with visibility improvements at certain junctions and improved signing and road markings throughout. The implementation of those measures was completed as recently as April, so it is too early to say how successful the schemes have been, but early signs are positive. Indeed, some evidence suggests that the schemes have contributed to a reduction in traffic flows on the A6 and the A52.

The A515 between the A50 Derby southern bypass and Ashbourne is narrow in parts, with similarly narrow or non-existent verges, which means that there is no simple means of widening the road. The county council estimates that traffic has increased on the road by 29 per cent. since the opening of that bypass in 1996. The council plans to resurface the worst sections of the road and undertake a signing and aligning review, which will improve safety. However, it is fair to say that that will not address the safety issues fully, so a topographical survey is also being undertaken with a view to including an improvement scheme within the 2001–02 programme. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman and his constituents.

I am aware of the situation in Calver, which is on the A623. I understand that the county council has reviewed the current 40 mph speed limit in the village and does not consider that a lower speed limit is warranted. However, it has agreed to extend the 40 mph limit towards Baslow to ensure that the speed limit signs are visible to drivers coming into the village. The council is currently processing the necessary traffic regulation orders. In addition, the county council is investigating the A623 as a whole. A capital allocation has been made for route enhancement measures to improve signing and carriageway delineation. The A623 has also been identified as a route that may benefit from mobile speed cameras.

I come now to the problem of noise on the A50 at Doveridge. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Highways Agency has a programme to quieten particularly noisy stretches of road. The A50 Doveridge bypass was not included in the list of most pressing cases, but in view of local concerns, there is no reason why it should not be assessed retrospectively in line with the original criteria. The Highways Agency is considering whether the circumstances at Doveridge warrant further noise analysis as a precursor to early maintenance work, which in turn could reduce the levels of noise from the road. The hon. Gentleman has made a strong case and, in view of his close interest in the issue, I will ensure that the Highways Agency continues to keep him fully aware of developments.

As can be seen, much work is being done at the local level to improve road safety, but what of national road safety policy? We are fortunate to be building on a relatively good track record in casualty reduction since the targets set by the previous Government in 1987. I am happy to acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's role in that as a Transport Minister in that Administration. The target was to reduce casualties by one third by 2000. By 1998, we had achieved a 39 per cent. reduction in the number of fatalities and a 45 per cent. reduction in the number of serious injuries. That must be set against a significant rise in traffic over the same period. Moreover, Britain's road safety record is relatively good compared with that of other countries in Europe.

The new road safety strategy and targets for the next 10 years are even more challenging. By 2010, compared with the average for 1994–98, we want to see a 40 per cent. overall reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads, a 50 per cent. reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured and a 10 per cent. reduction in the rate of slight injuries.

To achieve the radical improvement in road safety that we wish to see during the next 10 years the Government must, through Government offices, the Highways Agency and others, work in close partnership with other bodies. We will work in partnership with local authorities that are developing local road safety strategies and targets as part of their local transport plans. We will also work with the police who make a substantial contribution to road safety by enforcing road traffic law. In addition, we will work with road safety organisations, such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety and road user groups. Most importantly, we will need to work with individual road users themselves.

Obviously, in the remaining time available I cannot describe the full range of measures in the strategy, but I should like to focus on two key issues. First, the strategy has child safety at its core. Although our overall record for child road safety is good, unfortunately the same cannot be said for our record on child pedestrians. We are determined to improve our record and we will need to take a multi-pronged approach. That will include more traffic-calmed 20 mph zones. We also need to make improvements in the way in which we educate our children to be safer when using the road. That is not only about drivers taking care or slower speeds, but about helping children and others to understand better the risks that they face and how to deal with them. Finally, we must aim to have more children wearing seatbelts and to have more child restraints in cars.

Speed is another priority area. It used to be socially acceptable to have a few drinks and then drive, but once people understood that drink-driving kills, it was seen as irresponsible. Currently, many people do not see it as a great sin to drive at 40 mph in a 30 mph zone, but 85 per cent. of pedestrians hit at 40 mph will die compared with 45 per cent. at 30 mph and 5 per cent. at 20 mph. Speed kills. It is dangerous and antisocial and we must get that message across. The issue is driver responsibility. We will make it a major theme in road safety during the next 10 years.

Once again, I thank the hon. Member for West Derbyshire for allowing us to discuss these important issues by means of this Adjournment debate.

I first heard of the Welsh school in London, Ysgol Gymraeg Llundain, when I arrived here as a new Member in 1997. Many right hon. and hon. Members have known and helped this Welsh school for many years. I am sorry that more of them cannot be here today because of the clash with the meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee, but I am grateful to have this opportunity to put its case. They have supported the school by lobbying and fundraising.

I first heard of the school when I jointly set up a Welsh language class here in the House of Commons for hon. Members who wanted to improve their Welsh. When we came here as new Members from Wales after the 1997 election we all felt an obligation to get to know the language of our country better. Our teacher was Glenys Roberts, who also taught at the Welsh language school in London, and she enlisted our help to keep this well established school going. Some of us visited the school in Willesden Green and children were shown around the House of Commons. It was then that I became a supporter of the school.

Ysgol Gymraeg Llundain is the only Welsh-medium school outside Wales and it has been providing a Welsh-medium education here in London for more than 40 years. It has been based nearly all that time in the vestry of Willesden Green Welsh chapel. The present crisis in the school was precipitated by the closure of the chapel last summer because of a dwindling congregation. I went to see the premises and saw how the once beautiful chapel had fallen into decline. The chapel had only five members remaining when it closed.

The chapel and the vestry have now been sold and the school must find alternative premises in four weeks' time. The new owners of the chapel allowed it to stay until the end of the summer term although the chapel has been empty for the last year. No suitable permanent premises have yet been found, although temporary premises may be available. Suitable long-term premises are the key issue for the school. It has had many funding crises in the past and has always managed to keep going. It has many supporters in Wales, including some international Welsh stars, so it has always been able to appeal to someone to enable it to keep going. During the 38 years that it was based in the chapel in Willesden Green it could always rely on the support of the chapel, but that has now gone.

I have secured this debate to seek some commitment from the Government to help in this crisis. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards is sympathetic towards us. She has been kind enough to meet me and other supporters from the Welsh group of MPs to discuss the issue. The school has 16 full-time pupils and 16 part-time pupils. The part-time pupils come on a Friday while attending schools in their local areas for the rest of the week. Some of the parents bring these children considerable distances to have the opportunity to keep up their own language. That is a fairly unusual arrangement, but it works.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The Welsh Affairs Committee is currently examining social exclusion in Wales. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if a solution to the problem is not found soon, the children whom she mentioned will indeed be socially excluded in London, which cannot be right?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to have the opportunity to learn through one's native language and that language bears heavily on social exclusion issues. The Welsh Affairs Committee showed that that applies in Wales.

In addition to full and part-time pupils, there are 12 nursery children and 12 in the mother and toddler group. The school is small and I realise that concerns are often expressed about such schools. However, anyone who visited it and saw at first hand the range of opportunities available to the children, the commitment of the parents and the community spirit in the school would be impressed and would realise that any disadvantages regarding size are easily outweighed by the advantages.

Some children return to Wales to continue their education in the Welsh medium. Some families live in London temporarily and their children will return to Wales. Others will go on to secondary schools in the London area. The school is technically an independent school because it is outside the state system, but it has a policy of never turning away a new pupil. Parents pay what they can and generally help in the running of the school, which has a tremendous community commitment.

The school receives no money from Brent education authority. It wanted to gain voluntary-aided status, but was told that one of the conditions of gaining that is that it should teach the English curriculum at key stage 1. Key stage 2 is not a problem, because the school teaches the English and Welsh curriculum at that stage. However, the school feels that it would defeat its entire purpose if key stage 1 did not follow the Welsh curriculum. The problem of teaching an English curriculum applies only to children between the ages of five and seven.

I appeal to the Government to do what they can to find a way through a technical and bureaucratic problem. My right hon. Friend the Minister wrote to me after a meeting a few months ago. She said:

As the Department sees it, the school would have difficulties in demonstrating that it could deliver the core subject of English in the infant years through the medium of Welsh.

We are, in effect, asking for the school to be treated in the same way as Welsh language schools are in Wales. English is taught at that stage of the curriculum and the children in Welsh language schools in Wales have a good knowledge of the English language and are able to progress in it.

Why is it so important that the school survives? The school in London is part of the general demand for Welsh language education in Wales. After the Education Act 1944, parents began to influence local education policies and the first bilingual school was established—largely as a result of parental pressure—in Llanelli in 1947. In the 1950s, demand for secondary education, nursery schools and play groups—Ysgolion meithrin—in the Welsh medium grew. The development of Welsh medium education has resulted from public demand and it has been a popular grass roots movement, particularly the play groups. These are not top-down, but grass roots, bottom-up developments that greatly influence the sort of education that people want in Wales.

Since I became a Member of Parliament I have opened three new nursery units in my constituency that teach in the Welsh medium. Local authorities generally cannot keep up with the demand in Wales for Welsh-medium education. My constituency contains Ysgol Glantaf, one of the largest Welsh-medium secondary schools in Wales. It is a successful school and its pupils regularly visit the House to discuss issues with me.

As in Welsh education, a similar growth has occurred in the status of the Welsh language. It has moved steadily forward since the Welsh Language Act 1967, which gave Welsh equal validity with English, albeit in a slightly grudging way. Since then, many developments have increased the status of the Welsh language in Wales.

As I said, the school in London is part of the demand for Welsh education that exists in Wales itself and it reflects the enthusiasm there for the Welsh language. The school has become a lifeline for families moving temporarily to London: the children can easily move back to Wales when they go to secondary schools or carry on with their education in London. There are half a million Welsh speakers in Wales and a proportion of them have inevitably been drawn to living in London. Despite a steady decline in the language between 1911 and 1981, by 1981 the number of Welsh speakers had stabilised and by 1991 an increase was visible, attributable, in part, to the growth of the playgroup movement and the grassroots revival of the language in Wales.

Today there is considerable enthusiasm for the Welsh language in Wales and many non-Welsh speaking Welsh people born in Wales, as well as English people who have moved to Wales, send their children to Welsh-medium schools. Parents often send their children to Welsh playgroups and nursery schools and it is common for mothers and fathers to learn the language with their children when they attend Welsh-medium playgroups.

London itself has an ancient Welsh community: the honourable Society of the Cymmrodorion is celebrating its 250th anniversary. A Welsh school was founded in Clerkenwell 300 years ago as a charity school for poor Welsh children in London. That school has developed and moved to Ashford, but its Welsh origins have been lost. It remains significant that 300 years ago, the Welsh in London were organising schools for Welsh children. Welsh people are, of course, some of the oldest communities of immigrants in London.

The establishment of the Welsh National Assembly has also increased awareness and pride in the Welsh national identity. Its proceedings are carried out bilingually. The only time that the Welsh language can be used by Members of Parliament is when the Welsh Grand Committee meets in Wales. Some of us are concerned about that restriction.

The growth of Welsh institutions and Welsh identity has been strongly supported by the different ethnic groups in Wales, who are aware of the importance of the preservation of language and culture. Many ethnic minority communities in Wales have helped to support the Welsh language and the establishment of the Welsh National Assembly. The Welsh Affairs Committee also found that it was important for young people to be given opportunities to discuss issues such as social exclusion in their own language.

I know that the Minister is sympathetic to our cause. I appeal to the various institutions to work together to bring about a funding solution. Before devolution, the Welsh Office agreed and committed support to the Welsh community in Patagonia, and the Welsh Assembly has also given a commitment to such support. If we can support the Welsh community in Patagonia, there must be a way of supporting a Welsh school in London.

The school has gone straight to the National Assembly with a funding proposal for its running costs. It awaits a reply. In the past, the Welsh language board helped the school. Surely the Government can take a lead in London to help overcome the problems with the curriculum so that the local authority can help with the building and grant voluntary-aided status to the school. It will not establish a dangerous precedent because there is only one Welsh-medium school outside Wales. The circumstances are unique. The school has kept going for so long because of the parents' and the Welsh community's commitment. Now is the ideal time to provide a lifeline and to boost the school and the commitment that it has been given for so many years. With the establishment of the National Assembly, we are all much more aware of Welsh identity and of the importance of language and cultural roots. Whatever we do, we must not sentimentalise Wales. People in other parts of the United Kingdom and abroad sometimes see Wales as a place whose residents dress up in local costume and eat Welsh cakes, and whose only industry is coal. Sadly, most of the coal mines have gone, but we have a vibrant, multicultural community of which the language is an important part. I hope that the Minister will help us in dealing with the problem and that we will succeed in establishing the Welsh school in London—Ysgol Gymraeg Llundain—on a permanent basis.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) for securing the debate. I was pleased to meet her and other colleagues to discuss the matter, and I fully accept the reasons why hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies are campaigning so hard to save the Welsh school in London. They support the school not only because it has a good tradition and an honourable history, but because it is part of their wish to ensure that everything possible is done to maintain Welsh culture, of which the Welsh language is a key part.

We explored possible avenues of support for the school at our meeting some five, six or seven weeks ago. It is fair to say that it was agreed that I might find it difficult to secure the routes that were discussed, whether they related to funding, relaxing the national curriculum rule or whatever else. Since our meeting, we have reconsidered the national curriculum and the rules for granting voluntary-aided or foundation status, and, as my hon. Friend said, approaches have been made to the Welsh Assembly. Having considered the three options, I am not optimistic that any of them will provide a way forward in the weeks that remain before the end of term. However, I should like to speak about those three options, explain any problems and comment on routes that might still be open, even at this late stage.

My hon. Friend was right to say that the school is independent in status. The two main routes of support that are open to me as a Minister are either to fund it directly as an independent school or to encourage it to seek entry into the maintained sector. I shall deal with the latter point first. It is still possible for the school to seek foundation or voluntary-aided status. The Government encourage schools to take that route from the independent sector to the maintained sector. Since the general election, we have admitted 11 schools from the independent sector to the maintained sector, many of which represent particular religious or ethnic minority groups. They range from Muslim schools in Birmingham, where my own constituency is situated, to Seventh Day Adventist schools. There has been an honourable and rigorous debate about the criteria that should be used in granting schools access to the maintained sector. Such access secures funding, ensures that the schools receive revenue funding that is based on the number of students that they have and gives them access to capital funding. I hope that my hon. Friends will accept the need for criteria against which judgments can be made on whether a school can have access to the maintained sector.

Until now, the decision on whether a school should become part of the maintained sector has lain with the Secretary of State, who took the final decision on all the 11 cases in which we have so far acted. As my hon. Friend knows, that will not happen from now on. Apart from dealing with tail-end applications where the wish to enter the maintained sector was published before the change in arrangements, the decision on any future wish to become a maintained school from the independent sector will lie with the local school organisation committee, and with the schools adjudicator when there are disagreements. I want to assure my hon. Friend that, even at this late stage, it is still possible for a plan to be published to join the maintained sector. That plan would be discussed by the school organisation committee in Brent, where the school is situated, and, in the case of a disagreement, it would go to the schools adjudicator. It would be less than honest if I did not emphasise the criteria that the school organisation committee would have to consider in deciding whether the school could be admitted to the maintained sector. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North will accept that we need criteria and must be seen to administer the criteria as fairly as possible.

The school organisation committee would first need to consider whether more places were needed, although we would want to encourage the committee to embrace diversity and not to be fettered by a need for counting up places and bodies. However, we do not want to provide for too many surplus places. The committee would have to be assured that the funding currently received by Brent, both from revenue and capital, was sufficient to ensure the medium and long-term survival of the school, and that the school would teach the national curriculum.

As my hon. Friends know, most difficulties arise from the issue of teaching the national curriculum. I am delighted that the national curriculum now encourages the teaching of the Welsh language in Wales. If the national curriculum means anything, it means that there is an entitlement to a body of knowledge, skills and experiences in every school maintained by a local education authority. It is not bureaucratic to raise the objection that a school does not teach key stage 1 in English, because that goes to the heart of the national curriculum. As part of the standards agenda, the Government have shown great concern about the core subjects of English, maths and science, because we have been desperate to maintain an entitlement in relation to those core subjects, as well as flexibility in others. I emphasise that neither I nor the Secretary of State would take a long-term decision about whether English, a core subject of the national curriculum, could be taught at key stage 1 through the medium of Welsh.

Other schools that we have admitted to the maintained sector also want to teach in other languages. Many Muslim schools would like to teach in Urdu and many Jewish schools would like to teach in Hebrew. One of the sticking points has been that we have had to seek assurances that those schools would teach the national curriculum. Although a precedent would not be set, by allowing more schools to teach in Welsh, I ask hon. Members to accept that a precedent might be set that would lead other ethnic minority groups or groups of different faiths to ask why they cannot teach in other languages. Because of the entitlement for five to seven-year-olds to learn English as part of the national curriculum, I suspect that a school organisation committee might find such proposals difficult. If the London Welsh school is to persuade the local family of schools that it should join their number, it must address the issue of teaching English at key stage 1.

The second route would be for the Secretary of State to fund the school directly, because that power exists in law. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Sir J. Morris), a former Secretary of State for Wales, told me how the power to do that had been secured in previous legislation passed by a Labour Government. As hon. Members know, that element of the legislation has never been brought into force. I suspect that the present Secretary of State would be nervous about enacting that. My hon. Friend understands the politics of independent schools. Given our view of assisted places, direct funding for independent schools now comes only under the music and ballet scheme—MBS. I am not sure that I could say to the Secretary of State that the case was made for the money needed to make the school, which has 16 full-time students and 16 part-time students, the only independent school outside the MBS that we fund centrally.

The third route by which the London school could seek salvation would be if the Welsh Assembly used its powers to offer funding. The Assembly has that power—its functions for education lie within Wales but it has a power to support the promotion of Welsh outside Wales. It would legally be open to the Assembly to decide to offer funds for that purpose. That matter is clearly for the Assembly and we must observe what it wants to do.

I come to the debate with almost a sense of frustration. I understand that the school is important to the Welsh community in London, in terms not only of maintaining heritage but of ensuring an easy transition to learning in a Welsh school for children of families that move back to Wales. The Adjournment debate has focused my mind, as such debates do. The avenues considered so far have been seeking funding for an independent school or allowing a school that teaches in Welsh to join the family of schools in the London borough of Brent, which does not seem possible at this late stage.

I make this comment with trepidation because it is not for me to say—other communities in London and beyond value language and the cultural heritage of language. They want their children to learn and to do well in the education system in which they find themselves but want to ensure that there are opportunities for the children to continue to learn languages. In this case, the interest is in children learning in Welsh. I accept that there is a big difference between learning Welsh and studying the national curriculum in Welsh. If the community cannot secure the school's teaching the compulsory hours to the compulsory years, it might have to find another avenue or a different status so that the expertise in the community is preserved in the interests of the children.

I speak as someone brought up in the Welsh community in London. I did not attend the London Welsh school but did attend one of the fine Welsh Sunday schools in London, which had a tremendous influence on me. Would it be possible for a minor amendment to be considered to the legislation governing the national curriculum to get round the anomaly?

Order. Interventions must be brief.

I have never known an amendment to the national curriculum that was minor. That is a real problem. I understand what my hon. Friend says—with his point about learning at Sunday schools, he put more bluntly and concisely the point that I was trying to make. The Government would be against removing the obligation on all schools in the English system to teach the core subjects of English, maths and science. We have done so much on the standards agenda in the three years since the election to ensure that every child in a school maintained by an English local education authority is fluent in English and has mastered the basic skills. Once we start to make an exception—

rose—

I cannot give way because I must sit down shortly.

Once we start making an exception and saying that children do not need to learn English as a core subject, we open up the floodgate to other people wanting to do the same.

I understand where my hon. Friends come from and the heritage of the institution that they seek to save. I know that time is running out if the school is to continue in its present state. We will wait to see what the National Assembly decides, but if that fails, I very much hope that a different legal route can be found, other than a formal school, by which the expertise and the traditions of those Welsh schools can be preserved for the children of future generations.

I am grateful to have this opportunity to draw to the attention of the House the rather curious case of Walter Kernick of Kingskerswell and his N-registered Ford Escort car. At first sight, it may not seem to be the most weighty matter ever to have been debated in the House of Commons, but once I have described the circumstances of the case, hon. Members will appreciate that it was difficult to see how else I could bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion. I have a long and tedious tale to tell of the incompetence of Motability Finance Ltd. in its dealings with Mr. Kernick and me.

In September 1996, Mr. Kernick bought his car from Mr. and Mrs. Johnson of Newton Abbot. Last spring, almost three years after buying the car for £7,500, Mr Kernick took the car to a Ford main dealer with a view to part-exchanging it for another car. The dealer did the usual checks and discovered that the car was owned by Motability Finance. That was the first time that Mr. Kernick had any reason to think that there was anything untoward about the transaction with the Johnsons. He bought the car in 1996 in good faith; he did not know that Mrs. Johnson had obtained the car through a hire agreement with Motability Finance.

Any first-week law student would know—anyone who was old enough to vote might know—that one is not entitled to something that was bought on finance. The matter was therefore referred to the Devon and Cornwall constabulary, which wrote to me in due course to say that, although the sale of the vehicle appeared to indicate theft of the vehicle by Mrs. Johnson, the Crown Prosecution Service was of the opinion that there was insufficient evidence to show that at the time of the transaction Mrs. Johnson had carried out the sale dishonestly—a fundamental element in the prosecution of such a crime. The CPS said that Mrs. Johnson alleged that although she had signed the hire agreement document, the clause prohibiting the disposal of the vehicle had not been drawn to her attention. The burden of proof could not be satisfied, and the CPS was therefore not prepared to prosecute.

It is probably a matter for a future Adjournment debate, but it would appear that the Crown Prosecution Service's advice to the police in Devon—and, for all I know, everywhere else in the country—is that, providing a rascal is cute enough to say that he did not see that part of the contract, no prosecutions can be brought in Devon and Cornwall, or anywhere else, of those who buy cars on finance and then flog them off on the side. That is reprehensible, and I intend to return to the matter in due course.

On 27 May 1999, Mr. Kernick received a letter from Motability Finance telling him that he had 10 days in which to return the car or face court action. Motability was legally right. Mr. Kernick had fallen foul of the principle known to lawyers as "Nemo dat quod non habet", which loosely translates as "Rascals who do not have ownership cannot pass it on to others". The difficulty is that Mr. Kernick is not a lawyer and does not speak Latin. He thought that he might be given a degree of straight dealing when he dealt with Motability Finance, but that was not to be.

On 14 June, I wrote to Motability Finance saying that, although it might be legally in the right, it did not have a leg to stand on morally and that it should transfer ownership of the vehicle to Mr. Kernick without any more to do. I suggested that the firm carry out urgent inquiries to see how many other cars it had managed to lose track of over the years. I also wrote to the Secretary of State for Social Security. I was worried that it might not be an isolated case and that Motability Finance should look to its own records and procedures to find out how many more of its cars had gone missing.

On 15 July, I wrote again to the Secretary of State informing him that I had not received a reply to my letter of 14 June to Motability Finance. The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say that he would write to the chief executive of Motability Finance saying that outstanding correspondence should be dealt with urgently. On 13 August, I wrote another letter to Motability Finance expressing concern that my original letter had still not been answered.

At that stage, what might be called low farce entered. Three days later, Motability Finance wrote to me, saying:

Unfortunately, we are only in receipt of one letter from you, a copy of which is attached.

That was my letter of 14 June, asking the firm to deal with the matter. It did not deal with the points raised in my letter; it simply said that it had come to an arrangement with Mr. Kernick, which consisted of him having his car taken back.

Motability Finance wrote to me on 3 September saying that Mr. Kernick had agreed to buy the car from it. He understood that to mean the auction value of the car and hoped that a process would take place in which they would be able to arrange a settlement figure. On 2 January 2000, Mr. Kernick told me that he had agreed to buy the car but that Motability was dragging its feet on coming up with an acceptable settlement figure. He contacted me again on 14 January to say that he had heard nothing from Motability and that it still had not produced a settlement figure.

Matters went on in the same vein until 10 May when Motability Finance sprung into life, although not to the extent of answering the correspondence that I had initiated in June last year. It wrote:

Dear Mr. Kernick

Settlement in the sum of £3500.00

We have been reviewing our file and are disappointed to note that you have failed to respond to letter with reference to settlement or whether you will return the vehicle.

Under the circumstances we confirm that we will accept the sum of £3,500 in full and final settlement…Please confirm whether you are willing to pay the above amount or return the vehicle.

Please confirm your intentions by 20 May…otherwise further action will be taken.

Mr. Kernick was not surprised and he passed the letter on to me. I was exasperated and wrote to Motability Finance on 23 May explaining that I had raised specific concerns as long ago as the previous June. I said that if it would not deal with those concerns, there was no alternative but to bring the matter to the Floor of the House.

I received a reply on 5 June, just nine days short of the celebration—if that is the right word to use—of the non-answered letter, which was signed by the fleet operations director. I do not know what type of fleet he directs or how many cars are in it—I suspect that he does not know that—but he said:

I am sorry to read of your dissatisfaction and disappointment with us over this matter. I note that there have been many communications between this office and yourself—

yes, me saying to Motability Finance, "Will you please deal with the points that I raised on June 14 the previous year."

He went on to say:

The HPI—

hire purchase information—

register would indicate MFL to be the owners of the vehicle during those … years. Had Mr Kernick checked with the HPI register. he would have discovered that the vehicle was not Mrs Johnson's to offer for sale.

That is almost surreal. Here we have a fleet operations manager, who, I assume, is paid a not inconsiderable amount for such weighty responsibilities, but who allows his cars to be stolen over a three-year period. He did not know about the theft until Mr. Kernick told him, but had the gall to say that Mr. Kernick—an ordinary, straightforward chap who has probably never heard of an HPI register—should have done something about it.

The letter gets worse. It explains why it is easy not to trace vehicles and offers a reassurance. It says:

Due to changes in the Scheme, we are not in full control of the servicing, maintenance and buyback obligation of all new Motability vehicles since March 1999. This relieves suppliers of their obligations and allows us tighter control of Motability vehicles. We are confident that situations such as this would be identified and resolved much quicker.

There is then what I like to think of as a misplaced attempt at humour. The fleet operations director says:

We have a responsibility to the Scheme to ensure that losses are kept to a minimum.

Indeed, but my dealings—or, rather, non-dealings—with Motability Finance suggest that it is doing no such thing. There is no doubt about the legal or moral position, but Motability Finance seems to have no control over the vehicles that it owns. It relies on people sometimes exchanging vehicles and initiating an HPI check that reveals a vehicle as missing. That is not good enough.

The real villain is Mrs. Johnson. Motability Finance could get a qualified motor engineer to assess the car's value. It would take responsibility for the loss and sue the original converter. However, they will not do that. Why? Because poor Mr. Kernick is a much easier target. They know where his car is and they can seize it at any time.

I do not know what the car is worth. In the menacing correspondence it started at £3,500 and then went down to £2,900. I carried out some investigation in the motor trade and I am told that, once the Motability snatch squad has lifted it and flogged it at auction, it might, after auction expenses, fetch £2,000. I asked Mr. Kernick to ask a dealer what he might get in part exchange and I am told that that would be about £1,750. However, that is not the point. Motability should undertake a radical assessment of its procedures and write off the relevant sum now. I have no idea what the matter must have cost it in executive time. Its argument might be that there is no slot available in its accounts for the writing off of such sums. However, if it wanted to it could pay Mr. Kernick a consultancy fee equal to the value of the motor car and thank him for drawing to its attention the woeful state of its administration. The idea that Motability will stand by while this ordinary man's car is snatched in the way I have discussed is appalling.

When I decided to bring the matter to the House of Commons I did so quite deliberately because I realised that the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), would respond. I hope that I do not embarrass him too much by saying that I have been extremely impressed by the way in which he has dealt with my constituency correspondence. Whatever our political disagreements, it is obvious from his letters that he takes an active interest. He is not one of those Ministers who simply signs ministerial drafts. That is apparent from the quality of the response and some of the handwritten notes on the letters. I realise that, to an extent, he may, in the present instance, have to play close to his chest. However, I like to think that, if I had been a fly on the wall at the meeting that I assume took place between him and senior officials of Motability Finance Ltd., I would have heard him use the sort of language that he uses when raising a constituency case.

Most people know of Motability and know that it provides money to enable disabled people to buy cars. I do not know under what arrangement with the Government it operates—whether it is under a franchise, for example. But I know that on rare occasions morality does not follow the law. The law points in one direction and morality in quite another. It would be appalling if, in the end, Motability were to send in the snatch squad to take this man's car away. I am sorry that, because of its complete inactivity and unwillingness to explain, I have had to bring the matter before the House of Commons. However, that is the ultimate redress for any British citizen.

I start by thanking the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) for his kind remarks about me. I also thank him for bringing the matter to my attention and that of the House, both because of the issues about Motability that it raises and because of the consequences for his constituent. Of course I appreciate how distressing it must have been for Mr. Kernick to find out that he had no legal title to the vehicle and I am sorry for the delays in dealing with his queries. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me see an early draft of his speech, which helped me to prepare answers to try to end the uncertainty faced by his constituent.

The facts of the case are relatively straightforward. In February 1996 Mrs. Johnson, who lives in Newton Abbot, made an agreement to lease a Ford Escort from Motability Finance Ltd., and seven months later Mrs. Johnson disposed of the vehicle to Mr. Kernick, although she did not own it and did not have the authority to sell it. It had been supplied to Mrs. Johnson by Newton Abbot Motors, who, under the Motability rules, should have recorded the vehicle's keeper on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's V5 document, the log book, as Mrs. Johnson, care of Motability Finance Ltd. Instead, it put Mrs. Johnson's home address on the document. That error might have given Mr. Kernick false reassurance that Mrs. Johnson was selling her own car.

However, I must make it clear that there is no legal requirement for the V5 document to carry a reference to any leasing or hire purchase owner. It is always advisable for a buyer to perform a hire purchase index check to find out whether any other party has an interest in a second-hand vehicle before parting with money for it. Unfortunately, Mr. Kernick did not do that, as the hon. Member for Teignbridge said.

MFL did not find out that Mrs. Johnson had sold its car until March 1999, because she continued to pay her lease charges to MFL until then. MFL took lawful action to recover the car from Mr. Kernick. The authority for its action comes from section 21(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which says that

where the goods are sold by a person who is not their owner, and who does not sell them under the authority or with the consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had.

I have a great deal of sympathy for Mr. Kernick and, within the constraints of the law, I should like to do whatever I can to help him. The hon. Gentleman made it clear that the problem that Mr. Kernick faces was created by Mrs. Johnson, who sold him a car that she did not own. Some of the blame should also lie with Newton Abbott Motors, which failed to register the keeper's address properly as care of Motability Finance Ltd., as it was required to do as a Motability supplier. I shall shortly return to discussing what can be done to seek repayment from those responsible for the losses incurred.

First, I shall comment on the situation that faces Mr. Kernick. I understand that, in September last year, he asked MFL what he would have to pay to buy legal title to the car. MFL did not reply until last month, when it offered to accept £3,500 in full and final settlement. I am concerned about the delay in making that offer and I discussed it with MFL. It said that the delay occurred in part because of MFL's wish not to put pressure on Mr. Kernick, because it knew of his poor state of health. That is not a convincing explanation for the delay.

Mr. Kernick believes that MFL is asking too much for the residual value of the vehicle, and several lower prices have been mentioned in the debate and the correspondence that I have seen. The most recent figure is an estimate of the current auction value in the hon. Gentleman's letter to MFL dated 15 June.

It is not for me to negotiate a price. I do not own the vehicle and it would not be right to discuss that issue on the Floor of the House. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I saw the chief executive of MFL yesterday in my office. He assured me that he is willing to agree a fair price for the vehicle and that he understands the need to do so quickly. If, for example, both parties took the figure mentioned in the hon. Gentleman's letter as a guide price, the matter could be settled within the week.

At yesterday's meeting, I also asked the chief executive what action he would take to recover his losses from the parties whose actions caused them. He assured me that MFL would commence legal proceedings against Mrs. Johnson. He also explained that MFL could not seek damages from Newton Abbott Motors for failing to register the right details on the V5 document, because the company no longer exists. It went into receivership and was sold to Evans Halshaw, which took over responsibility for maintaining Motability vehicles supplied by Newton Abbott Motors. I have asked the chief executive of MFL to find out whether Evans Halshaw also took over liability for the omission by Newton Abbott Motors.

I am grateful for the Minister's response, which is everything that I expected. If Motability belatedly realises that it should take action against Mrs. Johnson and it is prepared to issue proceedings against her, surely the least that it should do—it should of course wipe out Mr. Kernick's problem—is try to recover the vehicle's present value from Mrs. Johnson and pursue Mr. Kernick only if that does not work?

I will pass that comment to Motability Finance Ltd. to consider when instructing its lawyers.

The hon. Member for Teignbridge raised some wider policy matters. He said that MFL should take a closer interest in what happens to its cars. Until March last year, the dealers who supplied MFL vehicles were responsible for maintaining them and for buying them from Motability Finance Ltd. at the end of the lease. Unfortunately, that arrangement permitted the problems to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention when the dealer fell down on its duties. However, since March 1999, MFL has taken direct responsibility for control of maintenance arrangements and the sale of lease and vehicles. That involves an in-house audit trail on the vehicle's activity throughout the life of the lease.

Motability and Motability Finance Ltd. assure me that correspondence from Members of Parliament will be handled either by Motability or by the chief executive of Motability Finance Ltd., who asked me to apologise on behalf of MFL for the way in which hon. Members' inquiries were handled. Mobility is aware of the importance of a speedy response whenever possible. It has a customer commitment to answer in full or to let the correspondent know within four days of receiving a letter what is happening to the case.

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman because my Department has been slow in answering some of his letters, and I have not yet replied to letters written immediately prior to the debate.

It is a pity that this case occurred, as the work done by Motability provides valuable help in assisting severely disabled people. At present, 380,000 cars are leased through the scheme. Motability works constantly to ensure that the service to disabled people fulfils their needs and that dealerships acting on behalf of a scheme meet Motability's high standards. It operates an accreditation scheme for dealerships to promote a first-class service to its customers and I regret that the actions, or inactions, of the dealership in the case in question should have caused the hon. Gentleman's constituent such problems.

The case brings home an important point: anyone purchasing a car should take precautions to ensure that the vendor has the right to sell the vehicle. The Office of Fair Trading produces a useful leaflet, entitled "Buying a used car", which contains information on checking whether a vehicle is subject to a financial arrangement with a party other than the vendor. It also contains details of whom to contact should a person have difficulties with the dealer from whom they bought the vehicle.

Now that the issues in the case have been brought to light and examined by MFL, I hope that everyone involved has learned lessons and that it will not be necessary for any hon. Member to bring a similar case to the House. The new procedures introduced by Motability Finance Ltd., in which it takes direct control of the management of the car during the period of the lease, will provide greater safeguards, although it will not deal with every case in which a Motability customer seeks to abuse the system. Motability and MFL are aware of that and, although their handling of this case is not a good example, their wish to counter abuse of the system is at the forefront of their objectives.

The hon. Gentleman asked how many cars that are registered to Motability Finance Ltd. are currently missing. MFL is pursuing the return of 23 cars that were sold in circumstances similar to those that we are considering today. That is a small number when compared with the total number of leased cars in the scheme—approximately one car in 15,000—and lower than is achieved by most leased schemes, but it is still too high. I have therefore asked my officials to explore with the DVLA in Swansea whether the V5 form could be changed to reduce that number.

Finally, it might be helpful if I explain the links between Motability, Motability Finance Ltd. and the Government. Motability is a charitable company, incorporated by royal charter. It was established in 1977 as a partnership between the Government, charitable and private sectors to help disabled people to obtain vehicles on favourable terms by using their disability living allowance higher rate mobility component or war pensioner's mobility supplement.

Motability Finance Ltd. is a private company, which works to meet the objectives and service levels established by Motability. It is owned by a partnership of five major clearing banks—Lloyds TSB, the Bank of Scotland, Barclays, the Royal Bank of Scotland and HSBC—which provide finance at preferential rates. The lending facility by the banks has increased over time from an initial £100 million to the current level of more than £3 billion. They provide finance to purchase the cars, which are then provided to disabled people on contract hire agreements, and are reimbursed by the diversion of disability living allowance and war pensioners' mobility supplement payments from my Department. That is a massive financing commitment, and the Motability scheme could not exist without the banks' support. I believe that it is the biggest car leasing operation in the world and accounts for 7 per cent. of new car sales in the UK.

My Department acts as a sponsor of the Motability scheme, although we are not involved in operational matters. The rules, terms of the agreement and administration of the scheme are for Motability to decide, in consultation with their service providers. However, by virtue of the diversion of customers' disability living allowance to pay Motability lease charges, we have some influence over aspects of the scheme. The fact that payments for vehicles are made from disability living allowance, and that the scheme benefits from concessions on VAT and corporation tax, means that there is a direct Government interest in the working of the scheme.

Those concessions, along with the direct negotiations between Motability, Motability Finance Ltd. and car manufacturers, mean that the scheme can provide disabled people with transport at an advantageous cost. Motability customers can obtain cars for as little as £24.99 a week. The lease provides not only access to the car, but insurance and AA or RAC assistance.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the problems in this case to my attention. I should also be grateful if he would pass on my sympathies to his constituent. As I have explained, Motability Finance Ltd. is an independent private company, and I cannot therefore issue it with an instruction. However, I hope that a satisfactory agreement between the parties concerned can be reached in the near future.