Today, I shall speak about an important matter: the situation in Sierra Leone. Four weeks ago today, I was privileged to go to Sierra Leone with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). I shall refer to various matters arising from our brief visit and draw attention to wider political, economic and military issues affecting the region.

My abiding memory—I am still coming to terms with it—is of a visit to the amputee camp in the middle of Freetown, where 226 people who have had arms or legs or both hacked off by Revolutionary United Front terrorists are living with their families in a self-help community of around 1,000 people. It is financed and assisted by international development agencies and supported by a number of other organisations and Governments, including ours. I was introduced to some of the people living there. A little girl called Marie Koroma was brought to see me. She is about two and a half years old; when she was 13 months old, her left arm was chopped off by an RUF terrorist. That is the reality in Sierra Leone that we must deal with. It is essential that our commitment and that of the international community and the United Nations are maintained for as long as necessary.

Sierra Leone has an interesting history—for many years, it was a positive history. The country was founded by freed slaves, and throughout our colonial administration its people held the British in high regard. They have now had almost 40 years of independence, but ordinary Sierra Leoneans ask what they have to celebrate; they say that those years have been wasted. The country was agriculturally self-sufficient and exported agricultural products. It has a difficult climate and fosters diseases such as malaria, but, like other countries in the region such as Gambia, it has potential for economic development based on tourism. However, that has suffered enormously in recent years.

I shall not go into the history of the conflict, preferring to concentrate on the future. However, it is worth recalling that in May 2000 my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) introduced a debate in the Chamber during which he drew attention to the importance of explaining to people in this country our actions in Sierra Leone, the reasons for those actions and the fact that our commitment may not be short term. I was fortunate to speak in that debate, and I am pleased to be able to raise the issue again today after having had the opportunity, for the first time, to go to Sierra Leone and see what we and others are doing.

In 1999, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs produced an important report which, although concerned mainly with other matters, referred to the situation in Sierra Leone. It provided an important historical introduction by setting out the context and explaining how the democratically elected Government of President Ahmed Tejan Kabbah came to power in 1996. Since then, there have been several coups and attempts by different groups to overthrow democracy.

As the report makes clear, and as everyone to whom I have spoken has confirmed, Sierra Leonean society consists of many different tribal groups and is 65 per cent. Muslim and 35 per cent. Christian. However, the people live harmoniously and the conflict has nothing to do with tribalism or religion. I asked a military commander in the Sierra Leone army—judging by his name, I suppose that he was a Muslim—about this issue. He laughed and said, "My wife is a Christian, my deputy is a Christian, and his wife is a Muslim."

Despite the nature of that society, there is conflict. It is based on one factor: greed for diamonds. The 1999 report from the Foreign Affairs Committee quotes one witness saying that

"some people would argue that diamonds have been the curse of Sierra Leone."

Diamonds have financed a conflict that has throughout centred on control of the diamond mining areas and the activities of a foreign Government—the regime of Charles Taylor in Liberia—who are using the RUF as proxies in Sierra Leone to control Sierra Leonean diamonds and profit from their export and sale.

None the less, having visited Freetown and some of the surrounding areas, my message is positive, not pessimistic. I saw children smiling and waving as they went to school dressed in their pristine school uniforms. I saw the little kiosks that are being set up on the beach to sell Coca-Cola and ice cream to tourists whom the people believe will one day visit Sierra Leone. I am told that where a few months ago there was nothing, there are now signs that the people are returning to normality.

We are listening attentively to the hon. Gentleman's moving description of his visit to Sierra Leone, and I am pleased to hear that he gleaned some cause for optimism from it. Was there any evidence to suggest that British Government efforts to stem the flow of blood diamonds have been successful? I am sure that we all want progress to be made in that respect.

I saw no such evidence. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to that question when he winds up.

We visited an area known as Wilberforce, which has a major, albeit rather basic, hospital that treats a variety of people; military personnel financed by the Department for International Development are playing a key role in its medical services. Among those in the hospital beds were members of a rebel faction—the West Side Boys—who had been injured in the conflict. To judge by the history of the conflict in Sierra Leone, people from the other side are not usually taken to hospital to be treated and allowed to recover, so their presence was an interesting sign of returning normality. Another interesting aspect was the way in which community activities such as schools were coming back together.

Important work is being carried out by our people in Sierra Leone. We are making a significant contribution, working in support of the United Nations, as well as playing our own distinctive role. We are making a small contribution to the United Nations force and as observers in the UN operation, and we are the lead country in the establishment of the international military advisory team. Our most significant role is in the short-term training programme to rebuild and establish democratic, competent, accountable and efficient armed forces for Sierra Leone. The problem in recent years was that the drug-crazed, diamond-fuelled factions were able to mobilise far more people and have a much greater impact on society than the badly trained and badly equipped official forces of the state. State power in the country almost disintegrated.

In May last year, when the Secretary of State for Defence made his statement in the House, the RUF was in the suburbs of Freetown and it controlled almost the entire country. We went in initially to evacuate our civilians and other European Union civilians; we then started the process of consolidation, held the airport until the UN forces came to take it over and began to work to establish and restore the state power of the democratically elected president and his Government—all vital work.

In less than a year, 6,500 people have been trained by our armed forces. We were fortunate to visit the area in which that training is carried out by Gurkha soldiers of the British Army. A young member, aged about 20, of the Sierra Leone army who was being trained by Gurkhas said to me, "These Gurkhas are very good men—very tough. Please keep them here. Please train all Sierra Leoneans with Gurkhas." I walked around the area with Major Ashok Kumar of the Gurkhas, a namesake of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar). Children and adults shouted out, "Hello, Ashok."

British people walking down the street got the same positive reaction. We are incredibly welcome and there is great support for our actions. As we passed along the streets, people would shout out, "Hello—thank you!" In all my visits to places around the world, I have never seen a reaction like that. In certain countries, at certain times, British citizens have not been quite so popular. I emphasise the popularity of what we are doing, which is vital to the future of Sierra Leone.

The British joint taskforce under Brigadier Jonathan Riley, those who are working with the Sierra Leone army and those who are carrying out the vital training mission have an important role to play. I was pleased by the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Defence that the short-term training mission, which was due to end in the spring, is to be extended to September 2001. To take forward the programme in the long term, we intend to form with the Canadians an international mission, which we hope other countries will join.

What is the programme's future? When the Secretary of State for Defence spoke in the House on 23 May 2000, he said that we would be in Sierra Leone

"no longer than is necessary."—[Official Report, 23 May 2000; Vol. 350. c. 863.]

However, in the Select Committee on Defence on 7 February 2001, in reply to a question that I asked, he said:

"We will stay for w long as we are needed."

I welcome that change of tone and emphasis, because our impact on Sierra Leone is proportionately greater than our impact on any other country.

We have for many years had long-term commitments in Cyprus, we have a long-term commitment—albeit unintentional—in Bosnia, it appears that we are developing a long-term commitment in Kosovo, and British forces have other long-term commitments in other parts of the world. However, our commitment to Sierra Leone is more important than any of those in terms of its impact, its long-term potential and the gratitude of the people, which is something that we have not always received. That is not to decry the work we do elsewhere, but emphasises the vital difference that we are making in Sierra Leone.

I am proud that we are considering staying for as long as we are needed, but we need to tell the British people why that is necessary and to demonstrate the benefits of our involvement. I am concerned about several difficulties. Until I went to Sierra Leone—now I speak as the chairman of the all-party United Nations group—I had not fully appreciated why British forces in Sierra Leone were not flying the UN flag. Following my visit, I have a better understanding of the situation and believe that our relationship with the UN is correct. The development of the UN peacekeeping operation was not optimal—indeed, there was well-documented tension between the Nigerians and the Indians; the latter have now left Sierra Leone. There have also been problems, which I shall discuss later, with the deployment of the UN force and its future role.

I have received a letter from Oxfam that raises several other concerns. Despite the ceasefire agreement worked out in Abuja last November, it appears that UN forces are unwilling to move into areas previously or currently controlled by RUF rebels, even though the agreement states that they should. The Sierra Leone Government are keen for that to happen, but it is not happening and there are serious questions to be asked about when it will happen. Until it does happen, significant areas—perhaps one third of the country—will remain outside the ambit of the legally elected Government of the country, and it will be impossible to reintegrate the country as a whole.

In a similar vein, at what point will the Abuja process lead to the demobilisation and disarming of the rebels? To that difficulty, which is inevitable in all conflicts, two approaches can be taken: try to negotiate the solution, or try to win a victory. At this stage, the Sierra Leone forces are probably not strong enough on their own to be able to win or hold the territory, but the problem must be resolved at some point. We know from experience that the RUF did not abide by previous agreements. There is enormous resistance to loss of control of the basis on which such organisations are run and financed—diamonds.

The situation in the neighbouring countries is also a cause of concern. One of the consequences of the effectiveness of our operation and the deployment to Sierra Leone of 10,000 UN troops, which number is supposed to increase, is that the RUF rebels have switched their focus. There is now a bitter conflict across the border in Guinea, and the Government of Guinea are fighting hard against the RUF. As a result, refugees who previously fled from Sierra Leone into Guinea are now trapped in a very small area between Guinean forces and RUF forces. It has been stated in the press that as many as 400,000 people are in danger of starvation because they are not receiving necessary food supplies. This week, some convoys reached part of the area with food for between 1,300 and 10,000 people, but it has been reported that hundreds of thousands of people are trapped between the conflicting forces. A corridor must be opened to allow those people to return to Sierra Leone, away from the conflict.

It is vital that more work is done for those people internally displaced in Sierra Leone, not refugees across the border. There are reports of large movements of people away from the areas in the north-west towards Freetown and Lungi, where there is an airport. That is inevitable because of the British presence and the deployment of UN forces in Freetown and beyond. Such areas and those within the ambit of the Sierra Leone Government offer security and the potential for a good life whereby people live without the threat of suffering. A great effort must now be made to help refugees in Guinea and internally displaced people in Sierra Leone. They must be fed, provided with transport and safe routes and moved into liberated areas. Such areas are growing all the time—indeed, we visited a place that had only just become open as a result of recent changes. However, such matters are taking time: as the liberated area spreads in one direction, conflict arises with the other side and the population is squeezed in between those areas.

It is essential that the international community, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, international aid agencies and non-governmental organisations can undertake their work securely and get through necessary resources to those who need them. Recently, some NGOs expressed anxiety about the security of their personnel in some areas. I would welcome a response on that matter, as it is clearly vital that they are able to do their job. We are making a great contribution to the security of Sierra Leone and NGO personnel do important work, often funded by the Department for International Development or other Governments in the European Union and elsewhere.

I should also like to mention public opinion in Sierra Leone. This week, I read a report of a seminar that was organised by representatives of what they call civil society in Sierra Leone. That report is strongly critical of the UN's role and calls urgently for more robust action to meet threats and deal with such problems. A cause of wider anxiety is the question of what effective action will be taken against the sponsor and host of the RUF, Charles Taylor's regime in Liberia. I understand that sanctions were supposed to be implemented against Liberia; the Governments of Guinea and of Sierra Leone strongly pressed for that, but not all other Governments in the region supported it. Can the Minister confirm the decision reported in the press this week to defer by two months the implementation of those sanctions? What is the current position and what is our Government's attitude? What steps are being taken to stop the blood diamond trade and introduce economic and other sanctions on Liberia, whose sponsorship, funding and organisation have lain behind the problems in Guinea and Sierra Leone in recent years.

I should like to ask about our future role and commitment to Sierra Leone. During our visit, I met President Kabbah. One of the interesting questions raised in our discussion was how we, as a functioning democratic society with civil control over the military, could contribute to the development of pluralistic multi-party democracy in Sierra Leone. In 1996, Sierra Leone had a democratic election in which lots of different parties stood. On the second ballot, the president was elected with nearly 60 per cent. of the vote, having received about 37 per cent. in the first ballot. However, Sierra Leone's political system is obviously undeveloped and political campaigning is impossible in large parts of the country.

The decision to postpone the next presidential elections was absolutely correct, as a free and fair election would be impossible in the current circumstances of conflict. That postponement gives us a great opportunity. I hope that our Government, through their support for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and other measures, will send resources, training missions and teams to help to build a pluralistic democratic political culture in Sierra Leone. Civil control of the military is a vital issue not only for Sierra Leone but for Africa generally. I remember the book by Ruth First, "The Barrel of a Gun", in which she explained the role of the military in African societies. We must develop a political culture in west Africa and elsewhere based on democratic control of the armed forces. The recent changes in Nigeria are welcome, but such changes can be transient or temporary. We must make sure that we achieve a functioning democratic civil society in Sierra Leone in the long term.

During my visit to Sierra Leone, I was incredibly impressed by the commitment of our people there. I witnessed our efforts to defend a democratic Government, establish security and provide the foundations of future prosperity and democratic society. A lot has been done, but there is still a lot to do that will require a long-term commitment on our part. We must remember that Sierra Leone is a Commonwealth country with which we have long been associated. It is good that Canada, another Commonwealth country, is making a contribution, but the commitment to help will also require support from our EU partners and others, including, of course, the UN.

In the UN forces there are Kenyan troops; there is a potential for a deployment of Pakistani forces; and Nepalese forces have recently carried out an inspection mission to decide whether to deploy troops, which would be welcome, as Gurkhas are already in the area with the British Army. In addition, many other countries, including Jordan and India, have made significant contributions in the past. We must not forget the major contribution made by Nigeria, whose forces have suffered huge casualties during the many years of the conflict in Sierra Leone. International commitment and effort is required, and I am proud that the United Kingdom is playing a vital role. I hope that that will continue for as long as we are needed.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) on his initiative in applying for this debate, on his success in securing it and, above all, on the sincerity and comprehensiveness of his presentation. I also thank the Secretary of State for Defence, who kindly invited members of the Select Committee on Defence to accompany him on what was essentially his second trip to Sierra Leone since Britain became so heavily involved. Not only that, but when we were there, the Secretary of State took every opportunity to keep us fully involved in all that was happening in some of the more sensitive briefings, and, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, gave us the opportunity to meet President Kabbah. We were both grateful for that.

President Kabbah made a good impression on us all. He struck us as a man of great calmness, thoughtfulness and, in so far as it is possible to make judgments on a short acquaintance, integrity. I could not help reflecting on the tragedy in which his country finds itself. It is one example—there are so many in international affairs—of the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

As the hon. Gentleman said, every time that we were seen in parts of Freetown, there would be shouts of welcome such as, "You are welcome here. Thank you for being here. Thank you for coming." It is strange that if there were to be a referendum in Sierra Leone today on whether the people would be better off as a colony under British rule, or in their present state of oppressed independence—

indicated assent.

I see a wry look of agreement on the hon. Gentleman's face. There can be no doubt that they would wish that they were still a part of the supposedly exploitative British empire of the past. That empire would not have stood for the sort of terrorism and banditry that has had such terrible effects on the people of Sierra Leone in recent years.

When I visited the amputee camp with the hon. Member for Ilford, South, I was reminded of why the early evidence of Nazi atrocities in the second world war was not believed. The disbelief was a reaction against what was seen in retrospect to have been baseless atrocity propaganda from the first world war, which centred most memorably on the story of the Belgian babies' hands. When the Germans invaded Belgium in 1914 and violated Belgian neutrality, there was a story that they cut off the hands of Belgian babies so that they would not be able to hold weapons when they grew up. Subsequently, it was thought that no such injury would be survivable by such a young child. The Gentleman and I know that such injuries are survivable. As he pointed out, they are survivable even by a child as young as Marie Koroma, who was 13 months old when her left hand was chopped off in that bestial way.

We were told that the purpose of such atrocities was to terrorise the population—to show them that that was the sort of treatment that they could expect if they dared to support the legitimate Government of their country. It was intended to deny support to the Government force, and, undoubtedly, to encourage chaos and force people to flee from their homes. It is believed that about half of the 4.5 million inhabitants of Sierra Leone fled from their homes within the country, and that about half a million fled beyond the borders of the country.

The Gentleman stated clearly that the motivations are diamonds and exploitation. As far as can be seen, the activity is being fuelled by the interference of a country outside the diamond area—Liberia. Its leader, Charles Taylor, seems to be playing a strange game. Apparently he has a habit of ringing up President Kabbah every so often and making friendly inquiries about whether he can assist on minor matters. He professes to be in favour of steps towards a peaceful settlement and expresses concern about the degradation, terror and misfortune being inflicted on the Sierra Leonean people.

I would like to join the hon. Member for Ilford, South in pressing the Minister to spell out clearly, for the benefit of all hon. Members, the Government's assessment of the role and activities of President Taylor and Liberia in the troubles in Sierra Leone. If they believe that President Taylor and his agents are responsible for what is happening in Sierra Leone, what steps are they taking—and what steps do they propose to take—to put pressure on Liberia to cease its malign interference in Sierra Leone?

When we were in Sierra Leone, we were told that 600 British military personnel were taking part in the training mission. If it is possible for 600 British military personnel to achieve a genuine and—to use a vogue word—sustainable change in the circumstances of the people of that unfortunate country, that is a good investment of time, effort, money and British personnel. We have an historical connection with Sierra Leone; we arguably have a continuing moral responsibility for the country, even though with the ending of its colonial status we sadly—one might say—no longer have a legal responsibility. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends worry about the overall effect of undertaking individual commitments that are in themselves worthy but which may cumulatively lead to an enfeebling of our capabilities to intervene militarily in other theatres, should other crises arise. Therefore, we must keep in mind the intended end game for this intervention.

What scenario does the Minister envisage for liquidating this commitment by the end of the autumn? If the Sierra Leone army is by then perfectly capable of re-establishing and maintaining control over the country, I shall be pleased to hear it. However, that is an optimistic prediction; there is a long way to go, although much progress has been made. The briefings that we received when we were in the country suggested that, as a result of the international presence in general and the British presence in particular in training the Sierra Leone army, between 40 and 50 per cent. of the land area had been brought back under Government control, pacified and stabilised. That would be a great achievement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) asked the hon. Member for Ilford, South what progress had been made in cutting off the flow of blood diamonds—as she put it—from Sierra Leone. Given that the diamond areas are the ones most heavily infested with RUT forces and are relatively close to the border of Sierra Leone, the likelihood is small of impeding that flow for any considerable time. We are certainly unlikely physically to have stopped the flow. Will the Minister tell us whether that can be achieved successfully? Is it being attempted through international arrangements controlling what happens to the diamonds after they leave the country?

The people behind the horror in Sierra Leone have a sense that the writing is on the wall. The reports that filter back into Freetown from the diamond mining areas inform us that the rate of diamond extraction is being accelerated dramatically. That suggests that the people involved are aware that their opportunities for exploiting the mines may not last indefinitely.

We need to be reassured that the Government, in undertaking a worthy mission, can be certain that a stable situation will be the result at the end of their intervention. Those who have disturbed the peace, terrorised the population and sought to exploit the country's potential wealth to their own sectional advantage must be sure that, not only have they failed in their endeavour, but that they will never be allowed to do something of that sort again. If it is the case that the RUF's campaign would have been unsustainable without the external support of Liberia and its president, the only hope of arriving at the situation that I have just described is to show the people who are fundamentally and ultimately responsible for what happens inside Sierra Leone that outside that country they cannot escape retribution for what they have done.

The Government favour the setting up of an international criminal court. I have always supported them in that endeavour. My final request to the Minister is therefore that when all this is over and an international criminal court is set up, those who did what they did to little girls like Marie Koroma—a myth in 1914, but reality in the 21st century—will be brought to justice before the bar of world public opinion.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate and to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) for initiating it. I apologise that I was not here to hear the start of his speech; I had a constituency meeting that had to take place this morning. However, as he and others will know, I have sought to maintain an interest in this subject during my time in the House, especially recently, and so wanted to add a word or two, in support of his speech. Let me make it clear that mine is very much a Hughes Back-Bench speech and that it in no way trespasses on the greater authority that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) will have if he catches your eye, Mr. Cook.

My links are in many ways far less credible than those of either of the hon. Gentlemen who have already spoken, for the simple reason that, despite my best efforts, I have not yet paid my first visit to Sierra Leone. Having hoped to go there in January, I now have a firm resolve to go in May—other things permitting—and very much look forward to that visit. Many Sierra Leonean nationals live in my constituency—the number has been hugely swelled by the civil war, during which people have felt obliged to leave for the United Kingdom. One reason that I feel that I understand something of what has occurred is that among those people are two party colleagues of mine who are councillors in Southwark: a Sierra Leonean national, Councillor Columba Blango, who with his family is obviously involved with the community; and Councillor Derek Partridge, who is the former high commissioner to Sierra Leone. With such expertise at one's fingertips, one will not go too far wrong. Many other active members of my community are in direct and regular contact with Sierra Leone.

Britain has the pivotal external role in Sierra Leone. I do not understate the huge contribution of Nigeria, of which it is rightly said that it gave voluntarily and to great sacrifice, but, as has been said, Britain is the country to which Sierra Leone looks for help in its hour of need. Sierra Leone is probably more loyal than almost any other Commonwealth country. I agree with the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis): were there to be a referendum on whether Sierra Leone should remain independent, its people would probably vote to become part of the United Kingdom again. That means that we must, as the Government have attempted to do, respond to the request for us to play a key role—not one that restrains the development of democracy and peacebuilding among the nationals and those who will stay in Sierra Leone, but as a means of securing and strengthening the democratic process. People must not feel that they will not have our support when they need us. The military peacekeeping process and the civilian peacebuilding process are equally important.

As the comments of the hon. Member for New Forest, East made clear, peace and reconstruction in Sierra Leone cannot happen if it is destabilised by pressures from outside its borders. Liberia acts as a hugely destabilising force. Secure frontiers are essential to prevent the growth of rebel forces and the exploitation of politics and economics. Without them, a rich, fertile and successful country will be pillaged and ravaged by others for their own interests. The Commonwealth and the United Nations should endeavour to achieve secure frontiers, so that other countries cannot exercise malign and oppressive influences.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of reports that Burkina Faso has been involved? Can he shed any further light on that? Will he join me in asking the Minister to outline the destabilising factors that continue to exert influence within Sierra Leone?

The hon. Lady is right. Several countries in west Africa have exerted influence. A key question—I would be grateful for an early ministerial response—is whether the Government are making clear to the new American Administration the importance of supporting and upholding democracy in Sierra Leone and of providing no permissive encouragement to other regimes to behave in ways seen in Guinea, Burkina Faso and Liberia.

My next point was central to the comments of the hon. Member for Ilford, South. Everyone accepts that the postponement of the presidential election that was due this year is understandable under the constitution of Sierra Leone. Another factor that unites Sierra Leone and the United Kingdom is that we both confront the prospect of elections in the near future, and both may be postponed for a while. As I understand the position in Sierra Leone, there is constitutional provision for a six-month postponement. There is no desire to evade democratic procedure, but there is an urgent need to ensure that free and fair elections are possible. They are not possible when so much territory is not safe for travel.

Many people—not only colleagues in Southwark, but charities such as Christian Aid—believe that it is essential to build up democratic processes and especially the next generation of leaders in Sierra Leone. Multi-party democracy is new, but unstable because of its newness: it must be given the chance to flourish. The people of Sierra Leone may need to renegotiate the constitution: theirs is not a constituency-based system, nor one in which the Executive is accountable to the legislature. Those are serious weaknesses. Building a multi-party democracy depends on the ability of people and structures to overcome those weaknesses. Bodies such as the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and the British Council—both of which are supported by the Government—the voluntary sector, charities and others have a key role to play. Hon. Members can contribute through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and other agencies.

I have two questions for the Minister. First, is there, to echo the words used by the hon. Member for Ilford, South, a continuing commitment to the normalisation of affairs in Sierra Leone and to building peace, even though it may be a long and hard road? The commitment must be secure; if it is not, much good work will be undermined. Secondly, will the Government continue to search for more and better ways of supporting, both directly and indirectly, people who can build up the democratic process? There is a danger of a democratic deficit in the next generation of leaders. People need to be encouraged and enabled to be strong leaders in difficult territory. Sierra Leoneans in this country are grateful for the Government's interest. It must continue. Britain has the key role to play.

I start by joining other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) on raising an important subject this morning. His knowledge and his stories were moving. It was invaluable for all of us to hear him and the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) report back on what they saw during their visits. Liberal Democrats are strongly committed to supporting the Government initiatives in Sierra Leone, which have provided an example of our troops at their best and the role that we can play internationally. Many people are proud of that.

Sierra Leone represents a crucial test for our policy in this region of Africa. If we can get it right in Sierra Leone, lessons can be learned for other parts of Africa. It is therefore critical that we reinvigorate our efforts in west Africa in the next few months. The hon. Member for Ilford, South touched on the increasing problems in Guinea, which are a reason why today's debate is so important: there is a need to step up our activities in the area. In a complex situation, we have reached the difficult and critical point at which we must decide whether we are satisfied with our achievements, or whether we should step up our involvement to tackle some of the humanitarian issues to which I shall refer later.

Liberal Democrats support 100 per cent. the Foreign Secretary's statement that

"Britain will not abandon the people of Sierra Leone to the mercy of murderous thugs".

It is good that the Government made that clear so quickly. There are two clear objectives. The first is to sustain the legitimate Government of a Commonwealth country; hon. Members have mentioned our historic connections with the area. The second objective is to protect innocent civilians from the brutality of the rebels in the area, try to restore law and order and ensure that human rights are not violated. We strongly support that twin policy.

The Government were right to become involved in providing advice and training in the region, and we have heard how welcome that advice is. The 600 individuals who are out there training show that we punch above our weight, and their work has obviously had an enormous impact on Sierra Leone's army, which, it is reported, has become much more effective. I also welcome the Government's recent announcement that they are happy to make that commitment run through to September, by which time the international military advisory and training team, supported by the Canadians, will be able to carry on that effective work. None the less, I should like an assurance from the Minister that September is not a fixed date and that we will withdraw that support only when we are absolutely confident that the IMATT can perform to the same standard as our personnel. Frankly, I have my doubts about that. We have heard about the role of the Gurkhas, and I would be extremely anxious if the Department wanted to stick to the September deadline regardless of the circumstances.

Liberal Democrats differ from the Government on involvement on the ground: we should like British troops to be part of a United Nations force. I know that the Government have rejected that and I understand the concerns voiced by the hon. Member for Ilford, South, but we are worried about current UN capability in the area. About 2,000 troops left recently when the Indians and the Jordanians decided to withdraw. Those countries that remain part of the UN force do not have the skills and the abilities that we could bring to it. We have heard about our training role, and it seems a great pity that that skill is not to be transferred to the UN forces so that we could play a critical role on the ground, especially as failure could prolong the difficulties in the region. Although I entirely understand the Government's anxieties about our troops being involved in a prolonged campaign, matters might be brought to a head quicker if our troops were involved in the UN force rather than confined to their current limited, albeit welcome, role.

On the subject of back-up for the troops, the Minister will be aware that 112 military personnel serving in Sierra Leone are suffering from malaria and that 15 claims for compensation have been made. The Government have set up a tri-service board to investigate and report on the matter, but I ask the Minister to offer a few words of comfort and to give an absolute assurance that our troops will be protected from malaria, although I know that it is difficult because of the time scale involved and because troops are moved around. Furthermore, will the Minister publish the full text of the tri-service board's report? Press releases and background papers have been issued, but we would have more confidence if the full text were made available to reassure us that everything possible was being done to protect troops from malaria.

Other hon. Members mentioned the difficult situation in Guinea. It is comforting that in the southern part of Sierra Leone, to which the hon. Member for New Forest, East referred, the Government seem to be in control; and we played our part in making that happen. However, as a consequence, trouble has moved northwards and into Guinea. The Independent this week carried alarming reports of the humanitarian difficulties affecting refugees who left Sierra Leone for Guinea. The United Nations has described that crisis as the largest in the world at present.

I am especially anxious about the region known as the "parrot's beak" and I would welcome the Minister's views. It is flanked by rebels on both sides and hemmed in by hostile Guineans to the north There are several refugee camps in the region, each with a population of several thousand—the biggest, in Kolomba, has 30,000—all of whom are in extreme danger and face hunger because of lack of supplies. Fighting is intensifying as the rainy season approaches, and there is grave concern about what will happen when it kicks in. Food envoys to the camps have been attacked by rebels and one camp was without food supplies for four months. The refugees, who face attacks as rebels move into the area, are not welcomed by some in Guinea, who say that they are bringing the war from Sierra Leone. President Conte of Guinea has not used the most helpful phrases about those individuals, who are trapped between two forces.

What discussions has the Minister had with his colleagues at the Department for International Development about humanitarian aid and the role of the United Nations in that difficult territory? United Nations staff have been kidnapped and killed in the region, which is highly volatile. Although much has been achieved in the south, and despite the humanitarian concerns, there is a reluctance to move into an area in which hostilities are occurring.

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in urging that consideration be given to our long -term exit strategy. What is the Minister's view about Britain's involvement in setting up democratic structures? My hon. Friend made a helpful suggestion about the role of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and the British Council. Liberal Democrats support the Government's stance, but we are anxious that we have reached a critical point. Are we happy to let matters rest, or are we prepared to make a commitment to continue the training beyond September if we believe that others cannot train as well as we can?

We urge on the Government our belief that the situation will most effectively and speedily be resolved by UN troops playing a full role. That would send a strong message and put skills on the ground to deal with the problems in the region. Will the Minister also comment on what humanitarian aid we can give to help to address the difficulties emerging in Guinea?

I echo the congratulations to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) on securing the debate, which is long overdue. Sierra Leone seems to have slipped off the Government's agenda over recent months. I pay tribute to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who showed personal courage in visiting an area in which our troops are deployed, no doubt bringing them succour, and seeing the situation at first hand. Nothing—certainly not reliance on reports—replaces witnessing events on the ground. My first question to the Minister, whom I welcome to his new post, is what plans he has to follow in their footsteps by visiting Sierra Leone. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who has continuously shown great interest in the matter. I endorse his remarks about the British Council and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. I am worried about the fact that the British Council is being greatly run down in Africa; many of our posts there have closed because of the Government's changes.

We all share the desire for peace, security and the return of harmony to Sierra Leone—that is a given. We all endorse what the hon. Member for Ilford, South said about his visit to the amputee camp and Sierra Leone's potential. This weekend, I went to Zimbabwe and saw the situation there. I spent a similar amount of time in Zimbabwe as the hon. Gentleman spent in Sierra Leone, and witnessed the destruction of another African country with great potential. As in Sierra Leone, many of the problems of Zimbabwe reflect the desire for wealth and power, particularly through the diamond trade.

The Gurkhas, who have been tremendously praised in the debate, are a phenomenal division of our armed services. They have contributed greatly to our deployments throughout the world, not least in Kosovo where, during my previous visit, I saw them building shelters for our troops, who are doing a first-class job there. The Opposition give our troops who are deployed abroad every support and praise.

Sierra Leone is indeed a sad country. Until the 1990s it was reasonably stable, but then occurred the disastrous series of coups that led to the recent troubles. It is incredible that until the end of the 19th century the level of education in Sierra Leone was higher than it was in this country. Today, however, despite its phenomenal mineral wealth and the potential about which we have all heard, it is one of the poorest countries in the world with a derisory gross domestic product and a male life expectancy of merely 37 years.

I do not have much time to speak—I want to hear the Minister's response to the questions that other hon. Members have asked—but I wish to raise one issue that has not been mentioned: the progress of the Lomé peace agreement. I hope that the Minister will put some flesh on the bones of that agreement and tell us what progress is being made. Specifically, I should like to know what efforts have been made to transform the RUF into a political party, as was part of the agreement, and whether that transformation is happening. The disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of former combatants is a key part of reconstruction, so perhaps the Minister could let us know what progress is being made on that front. Furthermore, the release of prisoners of war was due to take place; has that happened? I hope that the Minister will also tell us about humanitarian assistance throughout Sierra Leone, which was another objective of the Lomé peace agreement.

We have not heard about the truth and reconciliation commission that was to be set up; perhaps the Minister can inform us of the latest position on that. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East raised the prospect of bringing before an international criminal court the perpetrators of some of the horrendous crimes that have been committed. We would all support that aim, but part of the Lomé peace agreement was an amnesty for crimes committed before the agreement's signature. I should like to know about the progress of those amnesties, how many have been granted and to whom. Another part of the agreement related to the exploitation of natural resources in Sierra Leone. It would be helpful to have an update on what legitimate exploitation has taken place. We know of the doubts that still hang over the illegitimate use of diamonds and possible intervention and interference by neighbouring countries, but I hope that the Minister will tell us what has been happening legitimately on that front.

On the question of the military deployment, it has always appeared to Opposition Members that the Government have been making policy on the hoof on Sierra Leone. We have had constant reassurances that we would perform certain tasks and go no further, but a few months later those tasks seem to expand. Mission creep has taken a strong hold on the Government's policy in Sierra Leone. We have evidence of that in recent announcements. On 19 December last year, the Secretary of State for Defence said:

"We are making preparations for the short-term deployment of a surgical team to Sierra Leone to cover the possibility of a gap in medical cover"

because of the withdrawal of certain UN troops. He went on:

"The team will be withdrawn as soon as possible once alternative arrangements are available."—[Official Report, 19 December 2000: Vol. 360, c. 89W.]

Will the Minister update us on the team's status, what alternative arrangements have been made and the likelihood of its being withdrawn in the near future? In another written answer published Friday 26 January—not so long ago—the Secretary of State made yet another announcement that we were increasing our presence in Sierra Leone, saying:

"We plan to increase the IMATT's overall size from the 90 posts originally envisaged to 126."—[Official Report, 26 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 725W.]

That seems to follow the established pattern of the continual upgrading and reassessment of the tasks that British forces are in Sierra Leone to complete. Will the Minister enlighten the Opposition as to who is making those assessments, why they appear to be so inaccurate and why the tasks and expenditure in that area continuously expand?

Will the hon. Lady confirm whether she is for or against the increased activity?

I cannot answer that question at this stage, because of the scant information available to the Opposition. I am searching for further and better particulars because I think that it would be more helpful if, instead of adding like topsy to announcements on an ad hoc basis, a longer-term game plan were laid out for the information of both Members of Parliament and, more importantly, British armed services serving abroad. Will the Minister think longer term rather than shorter term, as seems to be the Government's major problem? I want to leave time for the Minister to respond, but I hope that he will undertake to write to Members who have contributed to this debate if he cannot respond to all the questions asked today. The reconstruction and peaceful reconciliation within Sierra Leone concerns all of us.

Finally, the memorandum of understanding signed with Sierra Leone provides for written notice of termination of three months if we are going to withdraw our troops. Will the Minister tell us whether that memorandum of understanding is still in place, or whether it has been added to or amended? We want to make sure that we contribute positively to the rebuilding of Sierra Leone, and that our service personnel are fully backed up by the House in carrying out their duties on behalf of this country. I hope that the Minister will provide the reassurances that we seek.

First, I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) for securing this debate, which has been extremely useful. It may surprise hon. Members to learn that one does not necessarily become an expert on everything just by becoming a Minister. Listening to today's debate has been an important part of my learning process about Sierra Leone. I single out my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) for their outstanding contributions, which reflect the fact that they have been to the country, experienced and seen it. There is no substitute for that and both hon. Gentlemen articulated their experiences effectively. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) asked whether I intended to visit Sierra Leone. If I am privileged to be in office long enough, I shall visit the country. I am to visit west Africa next month, but the precise itinerary has yet to be determined. If I do not visit Sierra Leone on that trip, I expect to do so on a future one.

There is a fairly broad consensus, especially on the fundamental point that it is right that we are in Sierra Leone. It is a small country, it is poor and its people have suffered appalling brutality. However, it is a democracy, it has an abundance of natural resources and it has a vibrant and energetic people. Our purpose in Sierra Leone is to reassure those people that they have not been abandoned, and to help them to achieve the peace that they need to develop their country's potential.

It is incomprehensible and deeply depressing that a country so endowed with natural riches can be described as the poorest in the world, but the figures produced by the United Nations speak for themselves: in Sierra Leone, life expectancy is 37 years; of every 1,000 live births, 316 babies die and for every 100,00 live births, 1,800 mothers die. Those bald statistics are a sad reflection of a civil war that has lasted more than a decade and anchored Sierra Leone to the bottom of the United Nations human development index. Poverty has bred poverty as the economy has collapsed, leaving a young and disaffected population clamouring for non-existent jobs. The terrible conflict has caused the needless deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and resulted in some of the most barbaric atrocities of modern times: thousands of innocent people, including babies, have had limbs hacked from their bodies, and more than half of Sierra Leone's population of 5 million has been displaced. It is difficult to imagine the suffering endured by the people of Sierra Leone.

Our presence is intended to send a powerful message to the Revolutionary United Front about our determination to bring the conflict to an end. How that happens is the choice of the combatants: the sooner they realise that they have no hope of forcing themselves on the people, the quicker we can undertake the huge task of lifting the country from its knees and restoring the people's capacity to build a better future for themselves. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State described our strategy for Sierra Leone in his statement on 6 June. That strategy has not changed: our priorities are to repel the rebels, restore the peace and rebuild the country.

Before he leaves the subject of the RUF, will the Minister tell us what progress has been made under the Lomé peace agreement and the transformation of the RUF into a political party?

Under the terms of the July 1999 Lomé accord, the RUF is entitled to form a political party, but its leader, Foday Sankoh, broke that accord in May 2000 and we believe that he has lost the right to any further involvement as a political leader. The RUF must appoint a new leadership if it wants to participate in elections, when they are eventually held.

Our priorities remain to repel the rebels, restore the peace and rebuild Sierra Leone. They are the necessary elements for sustainable long-term development and represent the essence of our commitment to the people of Sierra Leone. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South and others referred generously to our military assistance to Sierra Leone, which is fundamental to our goal of providing the Government of the country with the means to defend its people from brutal rebel attacks. Since June 2000, British forces have trained and equipped 6,500 soldiers. On 26 January, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced that the training will continue in its present form until September, by which time a total of 8,500 men will have undergone instruction. That programme has begun the development of an effective and accountable Sierra Leone army.

It would be remiss of me not to place on record, even at the cost of brevity, a tribute to the dedication of the men and women of the 2nd Roy Anglian, the 1st Royal Irish, the 1st Prince of Wales Own and the 2nd Royal Gurkha Rifles. I refer to all our forces involved in providing first-class training and support to the new Sierra Leone army. Incidentally, I shall write to hon. Members about all points to which I have not referred, including the point made by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), who asked about malaria provision for our troops.

Is September a cut-off deadline, or one that will be reviewed?

I am coming to that. When the regiments have finished their work, an international military assistance and training team—IMATT—will take responsibility for longer-term training, but that does not signal the end of our involvement in the new army. Britain will continue to play a major role in IMATT. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured.

Britain will remain at the forefront in providing training and advice to the Government of Sierra Leone and in helping to build the structures necessary to ensure the democratic accountability of the new army. We shall continue to strengthen and redefine the role of Sierra Leone's Ministry of Defence, paying special attention to aspects of civilian control. Our assistance does not end there. We are also helping the United Nations mission in Sierra Leone. In addition to the 15 military observers, we have, at the request of the United Nations secretariat, provided a senior officer as chief of staff as well as another six officers to perform key tasks within the mission. In addition, our rapid reaction force is ready to come to the aid of UN peacekeeping operations anywhere in the world, including Sierra Leone.

We shall maintain an operational headquarters in Sierra Leone until the end of 2001. Through military exercises, we will continue to remind the rebels that our over-the-horizon rapid reaction forces are never far away. We hope that further bloodshed will not occur. A negotiated solution is not impossible. We welcome the Abuja ceasefire that was signed in November 2000 between the Government of Sierra Leone and the RUF, and we would all like to believe that the new agreement has reawakened the prospect of a negotiated settlement. I do not need to remind hon. Members that Sierra Leone has suffered many disappointments in the past five years. In 1996, the Abidjan accord collapsed, as did the Conarkry peace accord in 1997 and the Lomé peace accord in 2000. Although those agreements provided a realistic basis for peace, the persistent duplicity of the RUF undermined each of them. Although I am encouraged by the Abuja ceasefire, the history of false starts causes me to regard that new agreement cautiously.

A credible disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration process is urgently required to encourage combatants to disarm. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has focused particular attention on that vital component of the peace process. The United Kingdom has developed model pilot projects that will provide visible evidence of the benefits in store for combatants when they have laid down their weapons and been demobilised. We shall continue to support the Sierra Leone Government, the World Bank and others in developing incentives designed to persuade combatants to give up the fight.

I am pleased to say that Britain played a leading role in the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 1315, which paved the way for the establishment of the special court for Sierra Leone. It has been created to deal with those who bear the greatest responsibility for the heinous crimes under international and Sierra Leone law that have been committed in recent years. That court is being established at the request of the Sierra Leone Government, with the support of the international community through the United Nations. It will have a crucial role to play in demonstrating the determination of the international community to bring to justice all those who are responsible for such crimes. I hope that I have answered a point that has caused concern to hon. Members.

Will the Minister tell us how that court fits in with the amnesties for crimes committed prior to the Lomé agreement? What is the status of those amnesties?

The special court will deal with only a limited number of the most serious offenders. In parallel, we are supporting the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission, which will play an important role in establishing the facts of what has happened in Sierra Leone. It will provide a forum for those involved in the conflict on all sides to set out the truth. By definition, a special court would not deal with all matters and an amnesty is perhaps part of the overall mix.

Britain was also a key player in the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 1306, which imposed a ban on the import of all rough diamonds from Sierra Leone not controlled by its Government's certification scheme. That was a robust and imaginative response to Sierra Leone's tragedy, and sends out a powerful message about the need to end the trade in conflict diamonds. We shall continue to work to secure a worldwide certification scheme to halt the flow of illicit diamonds that fuels conflicts.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked what progress had been made in reducing that trade. I am pleased to report that the Sierra Leone Government recently reported to the United Nations sanctions committee that there has already been a small but significant increase in the number of diamonds passing through the Government's control. We shall build on that. More widely, the United Kingdom remains at the forefront of international and UN activity on the creation of an international certification regime, which will prevent conflict diamonds fuelling wars elsewhere, including in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Angola. That was a matter in which my predecessor was particularly interested and I intend to carry on that interest.

Malign external influences not only make our work in Sierra Leone much harder, but threaten the stability of the wider region. UN Security Council resolution 1306 established an independent panel of experts to examine violations of the UN arms embargo and links between the trade in diamonds and arms in Sierra Leone. It clearly identifies President Taylor of Liberia as a prime supporter of the rebels, supplying arms and equipment in return for diamonds. We are determined to ensure that measures are adopted to put pressure on President Taylor to end his connections with the rebels. Liberia's support for the RUF has been largely responsible for the conflict in Sierra Leone spreading to Guinea. I will write individually to hon. Members who have spoken in the debate to explain our policy in Guinea. Although it is important to set out our record on that matter, time does not allow me to do so today. I hope that what I have said to hon. Members and what I will add in writing will satisfy them.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to lead this important debate on shipbuilding on the south coast. Hon. Members of all parties with constituencies in that area and further afield share my concern about the potential destruction of an industry that has been a major factor in our regional economy for many years. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) has already sent his apologies for not being able to attend. I am sure that many of those present are hoping to contribute to the debate to reinforce our widespread concern, and I hope that they will not take offence should I refer to their constituencies in passing.

Shipbuilding on the south coast has a long and illustrious history. Not for nothing is Portsmouth known as the home of the Royal Navy. From the very beginning, the south coast of Hampshire has been a major centre for warship building. Centuries ago, the New Forest provided the hearts of oak for the old wooden hulls. Nelson's Victory and many other ships of the line were built in the shipyards along our coast. The tradition has lived on throughout the centuries with the naval port at Portsmouth and the commercial port of Southampton becoming the prime drivers of economic success in our region. A wealth of engineering and manufacturing industry has developed around those two great ports, ranging from building railway locomotives in my constituency of Eastleigh to manufacturing submarine and power cables in Southampton and Eastleigh and an advanced electronics industry.

As a student apprentice in the Portsmouth dockyard back in the 1960s, I was part of a work force of more than 22,000. The Vosper Thornycroft yards at Portchester and Woolston employed at least another 5,000 people. All those yards were, at that time, building ships for the Royal Navy. Together with the port of Southampton, the victualling yards, the armaments depots and the range of support services for the naval and merchant fleets, the industry in our region employed approximately 100,000 people. It is no wonder that Hampshire had, and still has, the most defence-dependent economy of any shire county.

Underpinning the shipbuilding industry was a large, well-trained and highly skilled work force. At any one time, some 1,000 apprentices were under articles in Portsmouth dockyard, and there were at least a further 300 at Vosper Thornycroft, providing a constant stream of new talent for the industry. It is a matter of record that shipbuilding in the United Kingdom has seen massive decline. Over the past 60 years, the tonnage of merchant ships being completed in British yards has fallen from more than a quarter of world tonnage to approximately 1 per cent. According to a paper produced by the Shipbuilding Forum, our merchant shipbuilding industry has been reduced to:

"A small industrial sector concentrating on niche markets for specialist high added value ships such as off-shore oil exploration vessels, local ferries, dredgers and tugs."

A once mighty industry has been reduced to making dredgers and tugs. An industry that employed many hundreds of thousands now employs fewer than 30,000 throughout the nation. The number employed at Portsmouth dockyard, now only a naval base, has reduced from 22,000 to approximately 2,000, and the number employed at Vosper Thornycroft has reduced from 5,000 to only 1,200, with half that number now threatened with redundancy.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government could have helped Vosper Thornycroft in Southampton by giving an assurance about the type 45 programme, which the company has desperately been seeking?

The hon. Gentleman anticipates some remarks that I hope to make strongly and lucidly later. If he will bear with me, I am sure that he will support my comments.

An industry that once boasted dozens of firms building warships throughout the United Kingdom is now reduced to two prime contractors: BAE Systems in the north and Scotland and Vosper Thornycroft in the south.

I can well understand the concerns of hon. Members with constituencies in the north of England and Scotland, where shipyard jobs have become dependent on MOD orders, but I am equally concerned about the need to retain and strengthen competition in this specialist industry, to foster innovation and to ensure that the Government and the taxpayer get the best value for money. I am sure that hon. Members will realise that that concern is shared not just by employees and employers but by trade unions, who as a matter of policy agree that competition is best for our industry.

My hon. Friend cites a number of shipyards, but I ask him to bear in mind Appledore shipyard, which is in my constituency. It is globally competitive and an excellent shipyard that provides excellent value for money at the smaller end of shipbuilding.

I well understand my hon. Friend's robust and reliable support for the excellent shipyard in his constituency. Appledore has a sound reputation throughout the world, but if he can recall, I spoke of prime contractors for shipbuilding, which is why I said that there are just two. Of course, much fine work is done at Appledore, which works closely with shipbuilders in my area, and long may it continue to do so. While I share the concerns of hon. Members whose constituencies are in the north of England and Scotland, my role today is unashamedly to put the case for shipbuilding in the south—the home of one of the two remaining warship prime contractors.

A recent book entitled "Warships for the World" states:

"Royal Naval vessels built on the South Coast made a major contribution to naval operations during the 1991 Gulf war."

Five locally built Hunt class mine counter-measure vessels

"played a vital role in clearing lanes through extensive minefields off the Kuwaiti coast, while HMS Gloucester"—

one of three type 42 destroyers built by Vosper Thornycroft—

"shot down the only Iraqi missile aimed against Allied naval vessels."

That is a matter of record, but what is perhaps more important is the export record achieved in our local yards in Woolston and Portchester by Vosper Thornycroft. It is a unique record in the British shipbuilding industry. Since the 1960s, Vosper Thornycroft has sought and won orders around the world. It has sold vessels to Malaysia, Kenya, Brunei, Singapore, Nigeria, Holland, Sweden, Panama, the Bahamas, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, Italy, Oman, Venezuela, Tunisia, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan and Brazil. That record is unsurpassed by any other shipbuilding firm in this country. The book continues:

"Shipbuilding on the South Coast has a long and highly successful record. In 1937 VT built as a private venture the very first motor torpedo boat—MTB 102—which served as a prototype for large numbers of vessels that served throughout the Second World War."

To bring us up to date, during the 1960s it developed the technology for the first glass-reinforced plastic royal naval warships. In the past few months, as the Minister will know, it has been contracted to design and construct the world's first trimaran warship demonstrator, the RV Triton. That is an unsurpassed record, not just according to the textbooks but in the perception of the South-East economic development agency.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the trimaran. Members of the public may not realise that one of the other participants involved in that programme is the United States, through the Darpa Organisation. Interestingly, the Americans placed the order for that advanced design and test vehicle in the shipyard to which he refers. That should not go unnoticed.

The hon. Gentleman must have visited the Woolston shipyard not so long ago to have such detailed information. He is absolutely right. The Americans are watching this exciting new development with great interest, and are, I understand, providing much of the instrumentation that will assess and evaluate the vessel's success.

As I have said, shipbuilding is important for our region. Our economic development agency says that defence and marine technology are major business sectors in the south-east, with high growth and high value potential. That is why SEEDA is working so hard with the industry and with key groups such as research institutions and training providers to develop a favourable economic and competitive environment, but it needs Government support to do that. In particular, competition needs to be encouraged and sustained in the defence market. That is crucial, because it keeps the pressure on improved productivity and cost control, which benefits not only taxpayers but the competitiveness of UK firms as a whole in an increasingly robust export market.

The benefits are clear. We have in Vospers the United Kingdom's leading warship exporter, with some 273 ships supplied to 34 countries in the past 30 years, and £1.5 billion worth of export orders won in the past 10 years. That statement may sound like it comes from a company brochure, but it comes from our economic development agency, which appreciates the value of the industry in the heart of our region.

Vospers is at the heart of a cluster of marine industries with world-class potential. The marine sector includes many small firms, which are often technology based with high growth potential. The presence of the company, with its direct link to the naval procurement programme, stimulates innovation among many suppliers. Severing that link would jeopardise the technological investment on which competitiveness increasingly depends. The impact will be felt not only in my constituency but among a vast catchment of firms that operate in the south coast maritime industry cluster. That is why SEEDA launched and supported the campaign for south coast shipbuilding. It brings together private companies, local authorities, Members of Parliament and members of trade unions in a partnership approach. It is an excellent example of how an economic development agency should work, and I applaud its efforts.

Vospers and the other marine engineering companies have a bright future in the south-east. They can maintain and create many business opportunities and jobs, given the right support. We want the Government to support that vision through fair competition, not preferential treatment. To use a hackneyed but vital phrase, we merely want a level playing field. We want to be able to compete equally with the others.

In the region, shipbuilding and repair involves eight companies that account for £225 million a year in turnover. Shipbuilding and repair secures £100 million a year in exports, and employs more than 3,000 people in the south-east. It is a growth industry worldwide. Some 2,400 new ships are built every year worldwide. I understand that the Department of Trade and Industry is keen to double shipbuilding and increase ship repair by as much as 30 per cent. in the United Kingdom. The south-east plays a major part in the sector.

Further shipbuilding losses will have a knock-on effect throughout the entire marine industry sector, including ports such as Southampton, where port-related activities contribute £1.3 billion a year to the local economy, and more than 10,000 direct and 6,000 indirect jobs would suffer severely.

The process of shipbuilding and repair and yacht building in the region has led to the development of several world-beating educational institutions. Southampton has its Oceanography institute and its university and other support organisations such as Marine Tech South, all of which have come from the support of the marine engineering industry cluster.

In spite of the decline in British shipbuilding, it is a growth industry worldwide, and our shipbuilders should be out there competing for a stake in a rough, tough marketplace. That is why the Government, the home market customer, should use their purchasing power to ensure that, through fair competition and the award of warship contracts, the industry develops, innovates and becomes more productive. That can be achieved only through competition.

I endorse the Government's claim that they intend to do precisely that—foster and enhance competition in the industry. They say frequently that they support competition generally and within the UK defence market—specifically for the type 45 destroyer programme. In a Ministry of Defence memorandum dated 25 February 1998 to the Select Committees on Defence and on Trade and Industry, the Government stated:

"Competition remains fundamental to obtaining value for money… Where competition is not viable for prime contracts, competition at the sub-contract level is encouraged."

I see that I have caught the Minister's attention. On pages 38 and 39 of the joint report of the Defence and Trade and Industry Committees—HC675, Session 1997–98—it states that when considering such long-term implications of procurement decisions, the MOD includes factors such as

"the implications of the creation of a future monopoly".

The Government's introduction of smart procurement does nothing to change that, because it encourages the development of partnerships with industry. Ministers and officials therefore continue to emphasise the importance of competition. It is against that background that companies in the defence industry have to make major investment and employment decisions. The declared Government strategy for the type 45 destroyer programme is in line with their general policy.

It was with delight that we heard the announcement of the order on 11 July last year when the Secretary of State for Defence said:

"Our approach in this programme will ensure that experience in type 45 construction is spread between BAE Systems Marine and Vosper Thornycroft. That will assist future competition for follow-on ships… Provided that satisfactory arrangements can be agreed between the prime contractor and the two shipbuilders, we intend that the first and third ships will be assembled by BAE Systems Marine and the second ship by Vosper Thornycroft. Both companies will be able to compete independently for the assembly of batches of follow-on ships.—[Official Report, 11 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 701-2.]

The big question, which I hope, will feature in our debate, is what role the Government should and must play to ensure that that is achieved.

The Secretary of State and many of his colleagues have repeated those views. The Minister may recall that on 12 February 2001 he stated:

"There has been no change to date in our policy"—

so I wonder what happened on the 13th, 14th and subsequently—

"which is to conduct a procurement exercise involving both yards, under the direction of the prime contractor. That remains the policy."—[Official Report, 12 February 21101; Vol. 363, c. 17.]

However, a new factor calls into question the Government's commitment to competitive procurement of the type 45—the unsolicited bid submitted by BAE Marine to construct all 12 vessels. The Government maintain that their policy is uncharged, but at the same time they are considering a completely new strategy—giving BAE a monopoly in the design and construction of destroyers and frigates.

The Government previously expressed considerable support for competition in the type 45 procurement programme, but in another memorandum provided to the Defence Committee, the Ministry of Defence stated:

"Competing for follow-on ships in batches increases the pressure on tenderers to reduce prices. Savings of around 30 per cent. were achieved between the First of Class vessel of the Type 23 destroyer and the 14th hull of that class and we do not believe that these savings would have been as large without the pressure of competition. We anticipate achieving a similar level of savings in the Type 45 programme."

Again, I emphasise the reference to competition.

On page 56 of the Defence Committee's eighth report—Session 1998–99—the MOD went on:

"The potential savings which might be achieved if the entire class was ordered as a single batch can only be the subject of speculation, since this would be an unprecedented departure from current practice. Such an approach is unlikely to be adopted for a number of reasons. Firstly, warship design naturally evolves through the life of the particular class, for example, to take account of changing operational requirements. Formulating a contract with time, cost and performance parameters to anticipate design changes would be impracticable especially in terms of the commitment and risks involved in a programme of this complexity. Secondly, the industrial implications of such an approach could lead to a single supplier dominating warship procurement to the detriment of competition in the medium/ long term.

If that is the Government's position, why are they taking such a long time to consider the unsolicited bid? Why did they not discard it at the outset as not in keeping with their policy?

In answer to a question that I tabled, the Minister will recall that he said:

"The BAE Systems Marine unsolicited proposal is still being assessed but if it is accepted, the DFM contract would need to be re-negotiated."—[Official Report, 30 January 2001; Vol. 362, c. 99W.]

That is shorthand for saying that the statement that Vosper Thornycroft would have a fair share of the work was to become meaningless and that Government policy for strengthening competition in the United Kingdom warship building industry was to be abandoned.

The fig leaf that the Government are using to hide their embarrassment seems to be the proviso that fair work share on the first of class for the type 45s depends on the prime contractor, BAE Systems and the two subcontractors reaching agreement. BAE Marine and Vosper Thornycroft must reach agreement on cost and risk sharing. However, by awarding the DFM contract to BAE Systems without first insisting on a back-to-back contract with BAE Marine and Vosper Thornycroft for the subcontract work, the MOD has put all the aces in the hands of BAE Systems. In that game of poker, all that BAE has to do is raise the stakes and sit tight. Vosper Thornycroft is running out of construction work and shedding 100 or so workers as every month goes by, so it is obvious that, in six months' time, it may no longer have the capacity to bid effectively for type 45 work.

Incidentally, one reason why Vosper Thornycroft is short of work is that it subcontracted the construction of two new multi-role survey warships for the Royal Navy, worth £130 million and sustaining 800 jobs for about three years, to the Appledore shipyard in the constituency of my good and hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). Vosper Thornycroft did that because it expected to need the capacity in its yards for the promised work on the type 45 destroyers. To use a common phrase, that is being shafted—if I may use such an expression in this context.

Propeller shafted.

That might do. I will move swiftly on, Mr. Cook, rather than incur your disapprobation.

We often talk in this place about low politics, which seems to come with the territory, but there is also such a thing as low commerce. There is no doubt in my mind that BAE Marine submitted its unsolicited bid for the type 45 destroyer with the benefit of knowledge of Vosper Thornycroft's expertise and intellectual development. I have been in industry long enough to know how important those aspects are in retaining one's competitive edge and that we do not give away our skills, techniques and intellectual property lightly. Surely that knowledge was revealed only when the two companies were working together under the Government's instructions to collaborate for the first of class ships for the type 45 destroyer. It is naive to believe that Vosper Thornycroft would have revealed its expertise in, for example, modular construction, without the assumed protection of the Government pledge that it was to be contracted to design and build the second type 45 destroyer and would be substantially involved in the first and third.

More times than I can remember, Ministers have replied to questions of a similar ilk by saying that that remains the Government's preferred strategy for fair work sharing on the type 45 or that it is their intention that Vosper Thornycroft should undertake a significant amount of the work. If the Government sit back and wait until September, when decisions must be taken on the construction programme for the type 45, the only game left in town will be to negotiate a contract directly with BAE Systems Marine. Shipbuilding in the south of England will have been destroyed and with it any effective competition for warship building in the United Kingdom.

I do not blame BAE, which is pursuing a sound commercial strategy in the interests of its workers and shareholders. The Government must take the blame for allowing the strategy to succeed against the interests of competition, the warship building industry and the taxpayer, who will foot the inflated final bill.

The Under-Secretary is a gentleman who shows great patience and carefully considers the questions put to him. Rather than giving us the usual Front Bench platitudes, I hope that he will give a firm commitment that the Government will discard forthwith the unsolicited bid for all 12 type 45s from BAE Systems Marine as anti-competitive, and instruct the chief executive of the Defence Procurement Agency to intervene on the DFM contract and insist that negotiations with Vosper, stalled by BAE, will restart immediately. I hope, too, that the Government will instruct the chief executive to redefine reasonable cost parameters for work-sharing strategies under the DFM contract in the light of his letter dated 31 January, which stated:

"Although it could be argued that there is some additional cost for the first three ships inherent in this strategy,"—

work sharing—

"we believe this to be easily outweighed by the benefits of subsequent competition for which it provides."—[Official Report, 31 January 2001; Vol. 362, c. 184W.]

It is time that the Government put their money where their mouth is. Ensuring a competitive strategy for the type 45 is an issue that affects the future of shipbuilding in the south of England and has serious implications for the whole of the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry.

In case hon. Members are in any doubt about BAE Systems' ambitions in this regard, I shall quote from the company's briefing setting out its warship building strategy. It states:

"For some time now we have been seeking to develop a long-term warship building strategy in partnership with the UK Government. A key element of the partnership concept would be the award, clearly subject to the value for money test, of all of the Type 45 platforms and a further batch of Astute submarines to our Marine business. Furthermore, we have recently submitted an unsolicited proposal to the UK MOD for the construction of two Auxiliary Oilers at Govan which could be financed either by the government or by ourselves."

A raft of proposals is set out for BAE Systems to become the sole provider for the Government in the warship building industry. Clearly, BAE makes a case that it believes to be sound for the company and for the Government, but it deliberately stifles effective competition for future generations of the warship building industry.

If Ministers continue to ignore our pleas and avoid the issue, they will be responsible for closing the most profitable and innovative shipyard in Britain. Safeguarding the future of shipbuilding on the south coast is vital; it will benefit the Royal Navy, the taxpayer and the entire British shipbuilding industry.

rose—

Order. It has become common practice—indeed, almost an agreed protocol—in 90-minute debates that Front-Bench Members commence their winding-up speeches 30 minutes before the end of the debate. As so many hon. Members are rising, I appeal for brevity.

I will not repeat the detailed comments of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on the issues surrounding the debate. Instead, I wish to emphasise that shipbuilding on the south coast concerns not only Southampton or Portsmouth, but the whole economy of our part of the world. The issue should not be viewed as a contest between the south coast and the north of England because it concerns the future strategy on defence procurement and the building of warships in the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh set out, that strategy is particularly well served by ensuring that the contract for type 45 destroyers is delivered on the basis of the existing strategy of smart procurement, which involves Vospers and BAE sharing the work.

Anyone attending a football match in Southampton—which is, these days, a particularly successful premiership club—is struck by the fact that Southampton fans usually sing songs directed not at the opposing football team but at Portsmouth football club, whichever side Southampton is playing. I am sure that the same happens at Portsmouth football club—albeit with smaller crowds. People outside the area might think that Southampton should fight for its shipyard and therefore oppose Portsmouth on that issue. However, Members representing Southampton and Portsmouth constituencies are united in their concern. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) is unable to be present, but he has done an enormous amount of work on the issue. A range of people of all parties in our part of the world is united in the wish to ensure a future for shipbuilding on the south coast, wherever it happens to takes place. I am sure that we all agree on that important point

The hon. Member for Eastleigh set out a number of the substantial spin-offs that arise from shipbuilding on the south coast. It is important to the local and regional economy, jobs and skills. Many of the people who worked at Vospers and have obtained jobs elsewhere have enhanced the south coast's ability to build a first-class range of ships, not just Vospers warships. Shipbuilding is also important, as I said, to our national defence procurement strategy because we need to ensure that competition is maintained in the procurement of defence vessels. That creates a problem in regard to smart procurement, however, because only two contractors in the UK can effectively undertake the work for UK warships—assuming that one wishes to keep it in UK yards. The Ministry of Defence obviously feels that that is important and I thoroughly subscribe to that. It is difficult to conceive of perfect competition when only two yards or companies are competing, because they will know about each other's strategies and activities. Indeed, one may believe that those two yards should continue to provide competition, but the idea that one puts the other out of business, thereby extinguishing competition, undermines yes that principle. A smart procurement strategy therefore needs to be developed.

I found it particularly encouraging that the Government's strategy for the delivery of type 45 destroyers took the issue into account. They decided that the first three ships should be built jointly by the two yards so that the learning curve would be jointly steepened. Competition would then proceed from the end of the building of the third of class, and the overall objective of building the best ships at the lowest price over a period of time would be achieved. That sound and sensible strategy was set out to the Defence Committee last year. It was confirmed in an Adjournment debate before Christmas and was recently underlined to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and me when, together with a number of workers from Vospers shipyard, we spoke to a Defence Minister.

The strategy depends on the simple observation that there will be two yards for the entire period of the procurement of 12 vessels. If at any stage one yard ceases to exist, the whole strategy will be undermined. The appointment of a prime contractor is important to ensure that knowledge is shared at the end of the development of the third vessel and competition can proceed. If, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh emphasised, that prime contractor owns two of the yards that are competing for the contract, a problem arises. Obviously, Chinese walls are needed, but how strong and soundproof are they in practice? An unsolicited bid has been mentioned, which suggests that they are not that strong.

I have some sympathy with the Government over receiving that unsolicited bid. Of course they must entertain it. They cannot simply throw it out of the window, as they would be accused of not taking all factors into account in the competitive procurement process. Under the overall logic that has been set out, once that unsolicited bid has been entertained, it must be rejected because, by its success, it undermines the whole idea of competition in procurement in shipbuilding. It is important to ensure that the prime contractor does what was agreed and announced by the Government and that we have a genuine period of collaboration on those first three vessels, sharing out the work equally.

There is an important asymmetry in the process. Vospers wants the status quo to be preserved on competition and the procurement process. BAE consistently comes up with suggestions that may change that process. Indeed, The Observer of 25 February reports that BAE has yet again suggested that the Government should simply give it the contracts for two naval support ships. Vospers suggests that a competitive tendering process should be carried out and properly evaluated, with the contracts going to the successful tender.

A strategy that ensures that jobs and skills are retained on the south coast also secures the national interest. It ensures, too, that people do what they said that they would do. That is what we are asking for in this debate, and what Vospers is asking for. At the earliest stage possible, the security of that contract must be ensured so that the prime contractor does not wear down Vospers simply by procrastination. It is in the national interest that first-class ships, which Vospers—along with BAE—has a proud record of building, are secured for the British Navy. The Navy should have those vessels on the basis of a smart procurement contract, which ensures that first-class vessels are built at the lowest price achievable, with the rolling out of a contract over the full life of 12 vessels.

I wish to express my solidarity with the points that have been made by the hon. Members for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) and for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead). My involvement with Vosper Thornycroft goes back some 18 years, during which time we have had a lot to celebrate: the success of the privatisation, the company's role as the lead yard for Hunt class mine sweepers, its continuing success in export markets and the diversification programme, which involved moving into aerospace. Vosper Thornycroft Aerospace is headquartered in Christchurch, in my constituency, so my interest in the firm continues, though in a different location.

Vosper Thornycroft is a strong and successful company. Throughout the years I have lobbied on behalf of the company and, as the Member for Southampton, Itchen, I worked hard at that. The yard was in those days just outside the Itchen constituency, situated in Eastleigh. However, the Government and their officials have tended to take the success of the company for granted and to allocate Ministry of Defence work to less successful and less competitive yards. We encountered that problem on the south coast under the Conservative Government, and I argued strongly with Ministers that we should have a level playing field. I told them that it was counter-productive to give work to less successful and less competitive yards, simply because they happen to be located in the north and in areas of higher unemployment.

The success of that policy, pursued vigorously by the Conservative Government, has been vindicated. One may consider what happened with the Hunt class programme. The company began by being the lead yard; it would have loved to have the contract for the whole programme, from start to finish, without any competition, but it had to compete each time against another yard. It was successful each time and each time quoted a price much lower than it had been on the previous procurement. The hon. Member for Eastleigh mentioned that over the period of the type 23 programme overall savings were made of about 30 per cent. My recollection is that during the Hunt class programme, it amounted to about 60 per cent. less for the last one produced than for the first one. That was a result of the continual competition throughout the procurement process. It is depressing to think that the Government are even toying with the idea of giving one contract for the entire programme to a monopoly supplier. I urge them to abandon the notion immediately and have faith in competition and south coast shipbuilding.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on having the good fortune to win the ballot and secure this debate. We have already proved that it was needed; there is widespread cross-party support for the view that shipbuilding is essential to our area's history and future. We could become emotional when talking about the past, but for those in jobs there is no future in the past. They must have something to look forward to, and I hope that today's debate will secure that for them.

At present, there is confusion. BAE Systems wants a stranglehold on military shipbuilding in the United Kingdom. It is unhelpful when its company brief states:

"For some time now we have been seeking to develop a long-term warship building strategy in partnership with the UK Government. A key element of the partnership concept would be the award, clearly subject to the value for money test, of all of the Type 45 platforms and a further batch of Astute submarines to our Marine business. Furthermore, we have recently submitted an unsolicited proposal to the UK MOD for the construction of two Auxiliary Oilers (AO) at Govan which could be financed either by the government or by ourselves on the basis of a private finance initiative type arrangement."

The Government have said on several occasions in the past year that warship construction in the United Kingdom needs a fair and flat playing field on which all shipbuilders can participate. They have said that they want open competition and the ability to judge each bid on its merits. However, the company suggests that it is all but in bed with the Government and wants a completely closed shop in the construction of warships for the United Kingdom.

Those who have so far spoken in the debate were right to have retraced the history of Vosper Thornycroft and to congratulate the company on its achievements. Its record of success in selling ships overseas was built on the fact that it also constructed ships for the Royal Navy. If a company cannot sell to its own navy, why is it trying to sell overseas? If it is not competitive and good enough for the Royal Navy, what makes it believe that it is good enough to sell ships to another country's navy? It is difficult to convince overseas purchasers to buy ships in such cases. One cornerstone of Vosper Thornycroft's success is its ability to sell abroad, which is based on its successful record with the Royal Navy.

When I was a child growing up a stone's throw from the dockyard gates in Portsmouth, 48,000 civilians were employed in the dockyard. The industry was huge. That whole area of south Hampshire relied heavily on what happened in the dockyard. We are down now to fewer than 1,000 directly employed craftsmen in ship repair and maintenance on the naval base. Many of us in Portsmouth saw the relocation of Vospers operation from the Woolston yard in Southampton to the naval base in Portsmouth as a great opportunity—not only, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) said, for Portsmouth, but for the population of our part of south Hampshire, which stretches from the Sussex border to the edge of Southampton Water, along the New Forest coastline.

People will travel to work in such jobs. They do now, and they will in future. The yard's move to Portsmouth gave Vospers something that it did not have in Southampton: the ability to build bigger vessels. The type 45 is a great opportunity for the south coast to come alive again. We must think about the sort of ships that have been built in the dockyard, from the first dreadnoughts to Andromeda in the 1960s, the last ship built there. Vospers has a proud history of shipbuilding and the move was an opportunity to return to it.

I do not want the Minister who makes the decision about the type 45 and offshore patrol vessel contracts to take a Nelson-style approach, and put the telescope to the blind eye. He must not see only one option. Clearly, there are two options that could and should provide an opportunity for on-going competition. If the BAE Systems option is taken, Vosper and Appledore might not be around the next time that the Royal Navy is looking at shipbuilding. We need to grasp opportunities, not squander them. We have a great opportunity to fulfil the Government's ambition, and there are three good reasons why we should.

First, it is good for the UK and good for the Royal Navy for Vosper to be given an opportunity to do what the Secretary of State described on three occasions in the House and before his original statement in the middle of last year when he spoke to the Defence Committee. He gave a commitment that ships would be built in a partnership with more than one company. It is never good to put all the eggs in one basket. If competition is to mean anything, it should be fair and the rules should not be changed because someone decides to put in another bid after the competition was supposed to have closed. I cannot understand why the Government are even considering that option. Having 12 ships built by one company for one price, which would be fixed now, cannot be in the best national interest. It would cost the nation dearly over a 10-year period. There certainly would not be any savings.

Secondly, fulfilling the Government's ambition would be good for the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton and for all the businesses in and around the area that have flourished because of Vosper's success. Thirdly, it would be great for jobs—not only existing jobs but those that will be created if part of the contract for type 45 and offshore patrol vessels is secured by Vosper. It would provide opportunities for youngsters who want to develop skills and interest in shipbuilding, which the area would otherwise lose.

This has been an important debate, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will answer some questions. What justification is there for placing orders with BAE Systems Marine without competition? Does he believe that all orders should be subject to proper strenuous competition, which is open to all? Is he aware of other unsolicited bids for shipbuilding construction, about which we have not yet been told? We have been told only about the type 45.

When does the Minister expect the decision to be made? That is the critical issue. We know that the Royal Navy desperately needs such vessels and that at least two companies are desperate for the work. I thought that the Government were desperate for a decision to be made. It is important that the Under-Secretary gives a clear indication that the decision will be made in the near future. Whatever evaluation is being made of the unsolicited bid, I hope that it can be put through the wringer quickly. I hope that jobs will not be lost. The longer the process goes on, the more people will see the opportunities for them to stay in work evaporating. Vosper must be conscious that some of its employees will start to drift away without the opportunity of continuous work. They might take up opportunities to work elsewhere. I hope that the Minister will restore confidence and show that the Ministry of Defence has not written off warship building on the south coast. The people of our area have had a commitment to this country for generations. They were there when the country needed them, and now the country must repay that loyalty. We have played our role in the defence of the realm and we now want to see the Government play fair by the people of Portsmouth and Southampton. The best way to do that is by making a quick decision that brings the second type 45 and at least a share of the offshore patrol vessel contract to Vosper Thornycroft, sooner rather than later.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). He made some powerful points in an excellent speech. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) and the hon. Members for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) and for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on their speeches.

Much of the discussion concerned competition and the fostering of competition. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh made a point that I, gently, correct. He mentioned that only two prime contractors remain for shipping contracts in the United Kingdom, but we at Appledore were prime contractors in 1995–96, when we constructed HMS Scott, the Arctic survey vessel. Had we been successful in our bid for the alternative landing ships logistics contracts—either for one or both—we would have been the prime contractor. We would have extended our covered yard by 50 yd, and we would then have been in a position to tender for larger classes of ships, which the Government knew. They would have then had exactly what they wanted—more yards in the United Kingdom to compete for work.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh was right to say that we need fair competition—an ability to compete equally with other yards. After agreeing them, will the Government put the details of successful tenders in the public domain, so that competing shipyards can evaluate them to ensure that what happened was fair and that equity prevailed? The Minister will also be aware that the cost of tendering for vessels is huge. In order to encourage competition, will the Government consider underwriting part of the cost incurred by selected but unsuccessful tenderers?

Appledore has tendered for the contract to build three offshore protection vessels, which will be similar to the two that it has just completed for the Irish navy. I am told that the Irish are delighted with the vessels that we have constructed. Furthermore, I am told that Ministry of Defence officials have been on board at least one of the Irish offshore patrol vessels and were impressed by it. The officials have nothing but praise for the vessels that we have constructed.

Sadly, Appledore runs out of steel-cutting work in August this year, and lay-offs will begin. Appledore has had only one prime contract with the Ministry of Defence in the past 15 years, which was for HMS Scott. Recently, when I met the Secretary of State for Defence with Mr. Jim Wilson, the managing director of Appledore Shipyards, the Secretary of State referred to the HMS Scott contract. He said that Appledore had built a fine ship, on time to a fixed price. He said that he wished that he could say that about most other MOD contracts. All that I and the magnificent work force and management ask is for our tender to be considered on the basis of fair competition and value for money.

My colleagues, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), have made an elegant and detailed defence of south coast shipyards, and I do not want to duplicate what has already been adequately covered. There are two issues with which the Minister must deal in the broader realm of policy. The first issue concerns competition policy. A dominant firm is dangerous in any industry. That applies as much to computer software as to naval vessels. Dominant firms are dangerous because, ultimately, the consumer suffers a detriment. In this case the consumer is the Royal Navy and, ultimately, the taxpayer. In this industry there is a diversity of suppliers and it has already been explained in some detail why that is an important way of protecting the industry and the consumer from abuse by a dominant company.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) has just touched on the other important issue. There is a need for transparent, consistent, above-board processes of bidding and tendering. I was struck by a letter written by five of my colleagues to the Prime Minister a fortnight ago. My hon. Friends the hon. Members for Eastleigh, for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand), for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) and for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) wrote to him about the contract. One passage says:

"There are strong concerns that the bid has been made with the benefit of privileged knowledge shared by Vosper Thornycroft in their expectation of being design partners under the government's brief, rather than as competitors."

Any suggestion of that kind would immediately rule out an unsolicited bid as completely contrary to open competitive tendering processes.

The matter does not simply exist in isolation; I have encountered the problem recently on other naval contracts, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon. A few months ago a series of bids were made for the alternative landing ships logistics contracts. A company in my constituency, along with Appledore, put in a bid for the contract, having had been encouraged to do so by the Ministry of Defence. It went through a detailed and complex process and invested heavily in design and preparation work. The company was then told, at the very last moment, that the bids were not being taken further, for reasons that seemed to have nothing to do with cost or quality. That is why my hon. Friend was so right in insisting that tenders should be published. The participants in the bidding process should be able to see clearly what the criteria are.

I do not know whether my hon. Friend saw the leader in the Financial Times on Monday 30 October 2000, entitled "Sentiment and shipbuilding". He may have noticed the point made at the start of the article to the effect that

"in spite of 'smart procurement' reforms, the old-fashioned political fix still takes precedence over value for money."

my hon. Friend has put the point more brutally, but I am sure, much more accurately than I did. We all want reassurance that the bidding procedures employed by the Ministry of Defence will be transparent so as to preserve the values of competitiveness crucial to the long-term viability of the industry. It is unfortunate that the shipbuilding industry has become so highly reliant on the Ministry of Defence. However, it is precisely for that reason that the Ministry must establish procedure that ensures competition and makes certain that any bidding procedures are transparent and commercial.

Like other hon. Members, I do not want to take too much time as the Minister will want to have reasonable time to respond to the many detailed points that have been made.

I start by extending the usual courtesy and congratulating the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on securing the debate, although it should be held on the Floor of the House as this is an important matter. I congratulate, too, all those who spoke, many of whom referred to the proud history of shipbuilding on the south coast, although I do not want to talk much about that. In the past, in times of war and conflict, the United Kingdom has relied on vessels built in the shipyards on the south coast. We owe those yards a debt of gratitude, but gratitude is not enough. It is surely about what can be done and how good those who produce such equipment are in the usual competition process.

We are talking about a serious problem, which highlights the general debate about shipbuilding in the United Kingdom. To take up an earlier point, the debate is not about being against a particular yard in the United Kingdom. I have visited yards in Barrow-in-Furness. I have visited Cammell Laird in Liverpool and Vospers. At Appledore, I met a tremendously gung-ho, go-ahead team who really impressed me and made me believe that shipbuilding had a future in the United Kingdom. It is like that everywhere one goes. Those organisations understand the difficulties; they just want to ensure that there is fairness.

I want to tease out how the Government should approach such contracts. The type 45 contract was announced last July when it was clear that it was going ahead. As the Minister knows, I welcomed that announcement at the time. I wish to put it on the record again that I welcome the decision and congratulate the Government's decision to end the Horizon programme. It was a difficult decision to make, but it was justified and reasonable. The issue is not one of party politics. To go it alone to produce what is necessary for the Royal Navy was the right decision.

I take issue, however, with a previous speaker who said that the matter is about competition, similar to that in the computer industry. There is a difference. The scale of the market is not the same. Also, the fact that, by and large, the Government are making the purchase, tends to skew the process. We must accept that this is not about the clear competition that one would expect on the high street, but about competition to keep procurement across a range of shipyards and to make sure that the prices are right.

I turn now to the problems faced by Vospers. After the contract was placed, there was a period of silence. In December, the Prime Minister said that the Ministry of Defence had received an unsolicited bid from BAE Systems. Martin Jay, who even now is not that far distanced from the debate, said:

"The next few months will tell us whether the government remains committed to competition in defence procurement, or would prefer to rely on a single relationship with BAE Systems".

There are two major problems. The decision will not be taken until at least September and construction may not start until 2003. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh said, the longer that drags on, the less likely it is that Vospers will be in a position to offer such competitive tendering and be able to provide the sort of ship that is required as part of that early batch of three. By the time a decision is reached, there may be only one way for the Government to go. Dragging heels over the matter will create a major problem.

I am also aware that Vospers has announced redundancies, which will involve up to 650 employees in the Woolston shipyard. That will have a huge knock-on effect. In the great scheme of things in the United Kingdom, the loss of 650 jobs will not cause a massive raising of eyebrows, but it will have a huge knock-on effect on the south coast in specialisations and skills and in being able to produce the quality of work of which Vospers is capable. It will also have an effect on Appledore, which wishes to continue in shipbuilding.

Securing a portion of the type 45 programme was an important feature for that shipyard and, more generally, for skills in the south coast region. I refer the Government once again to their own comments on competition. I know that they have already been mentioned once or twice, but they bear repeating. The Ministry of Defence told the Select Committee:

"Competing for follow-on ships in batches increases the pressure on tenderers to reduce prices. Savings of around 30 per cent. were achieved between the First of Class vessel of the Type 23 destroyer and the 14th hull…We anticipate achieving a similar level of savings in the Type 45 programme."

The Ministry of Defence is now in the bizarre position of having announced an award, but having to contravene its own guidelines on competition and the placing of orders within the shipbuilding industry.

What is the real reason behind these developments? First, without any doubt, I see the hand of the Treasury at work. Part of the problem precedes the type 45 contract. The Minister will recall what happened to the contract for the roll on/roll off ferry. We warned that allowing four such ships to be constructed in shipyards outside the UK would have a serious knock-on effect on future orders. We can now see that happening.

Yards in Govan and Liverpool rightly believed that they were highly competitive and expected to achieve, within a UK bidding process, at least part of the award of those contracts for ship construction—but they did not. Having wrongly awarded the contracts overseas, the Government then scratched around to look for other vessels that could be constructed in those yards. That put pressure on the south coast: the business went to yards that might not, under usual circumstances, have been awarded the contracts. We now see the same process happening with the type 45. The pressure is on to provide work for yards in Scotland that could have been expected to have a clear programme of work—but did not. Short-term decisions taken a month ago clearly have a knock-on effect for later contracts and for skills on the south coast.

The most bizarre and worst of all reasons is the whiff of pork barrel politics surrounding the decision. Many Scottish Labour Members of Parliament are under pressure, particularly from the Scottish nationalists. They are, quite justifiably, complaining—and I supported them on the roll on/roll off ferry award—that work should have been allotted to those yards and that the effects would be devastating if it were not.

It is no coincidence that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose Department is responsible for demanding that the Ministry of Defence carefully examines the unsolicited bid, also happens to originate from the same area and is so close to those whose primary concern is about the next general election. We are all politicians in this Room and we all understand that. It is not as though it has not been done before. The worst aspect is that it was done on the back of bad decisions by the Treasury and has resulted in the impending and serious crisis for shipbuilding on the south coast.

Will the Under-Secretary explain why he refuses to take an early decision on the unsolicited bid? Why will he not return immediately to the Ministry's own guidelines on competition? If he does not, serious problems will arise. He cannot simply gamble that Vospers will be successful enough to survive and that the impact on the south coast will be less serious than the impact in Scotland. That would be a terrible decision, which most people would view as highly political and retrograde.

I hope that the Minister will rise to declare that he will no longer accept the unsolicited bid, that we should get on with the original order, that BAE should get on with its work with Vospers, that the type 45s will be brought into service as early as possible, and that highly important and competitive shipbuilding should continue on the south coast.

Until the contribution of the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), I disagreed with little that had been said. It is unfortunate that in a debate attempting to shed light on the subject, an Opposition spokesmen for a party that in government single-handedly virtually destroyed our armed forces over a period of 18 years starts whining, complaining, and crying crocodile tears on behalf of an industry for which it did little—certainly during the latter half of its term in office.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on securing the debate. I particularly noted his remarks about the long history of shipbuilding on the south coast and its association with the Royal Navy. The shipbuilding industry near my constituency is in a similar position, so like him I am well aware of the long traditions involved. I welcome the opportunity to speak on a subject that is important to all involved in the shipbuilding industry. The hon. Gentleman and hon. Members of all parties have, rightly, articulated their constituents' concerns and, as I said, I disagreed with little. I will endeavour to answer as many of their questions as I can in the short time allowed, although I have to add the caveat that, because many of the matters that we are debating are at a delicate stage of evaluation, I will occasionally be limited in what I can say and so will not necessarily be able offer the complete assurances that they want.

Our commitment to the UK shipbuilding industry was clearly demonstrated in the strategic defence review. We have embarked on the largest warship building programme for decades. In the past nine months, the Government have placed orders for two survey vessels with Vospers, which the company subsequently decided to subcontract to Appledore; a prime contract for the design and build of the first three type 45 destroyers, with BAE Systems as prime contractor; and the design and build of two alternative landing ships logistics—ALSL—with Swan Hunter (Tyneside). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has also announced that, subject to the negotiation of satisfactory terms and conditions, the BAE Systems marine yard at Govan will receive an order for an additional two ALSLs. As is well known, we intend to contract with Andrew Weir Shipping Ltd., a British-based company, for the 25-year private finance initiative strategic sealift service.

Will the Minister give way?

If I take interventions, I will not get through the necessary points.

I think that all hon. Members would agree that, taken together, those orders and announcements represent good news for the Royal Navy and for our shipyards, creating or securing several thousand jobs in yards and ancillary industries. There is more to come: during the next few years, orders will be placed for the follow-on batches of Astute class submarines and type 45 destroyers, and for the detailed design and build of future aircraft carriers. Those will be the largest surface warship projects of recent years. The UK manufacturing industry has an excellent opportunity to participate in advanced technology programmes, which we hope to place for competition across the UK, north and south, reflecting the strengths of individual companies in shipbuilding and other areas.

Our plans also include a programme known as the future surface combatant to replace the current type 22 and type 23 frigates, submarines, and a variety of other vessels. They include the potential supply and support of offshore patrol vessels for the Royal Navy, using money-saving procurement methods. Proposals have been received, including some from Vospers. Those are currently under evaluation and, subject to a satisfactory outcome, we expect to place a contract shortly. The backdrop is therefore healthy—indeed, it is unprecedented in recent times.

Yards with the technical capacity to build naval ships are scattered widely throughout the country, including the south coast. Many of those yards would like to be considered for the simpler type of ship, but advanced warships such as submarines, destroyers and mine countermeasure ships are always likely to require specialist skills and facilities. In the north, for instance, our nuclear-powered submarines have for many years been exclusively constructed at Barrow-in-Furness, whereas in the south, Vosper Thornycroft has established a pre-eminent position in the construction of mine countermeasure ships.

I pay tribute to Appledore shipbuilders of north Devon. With a standing work force of only 540, Appledore has proved that it can make a substantial contribution to shipbuilding in this country. Under subcontract to Vospers, it is building our new survey vessels—highly capable new ships that, thanks to improved sea-keeping, will be able to carry out survey work in the rough waters of our western approaches for about 90 per cent of the year. That work is expected to sustain around 800 jobs with Appledore and its suppliers for the next three years. I encourage the company to maintain its efforts to participate in MOD work, while continuing to seek out commercial and naval work from other customers. That broader customer base should remain a key element of all our shipyards' strategies.

The honourable Member for Eastleigh commented extensively on Vosper Thornycroft, and I shall concentrate mainly on that company. I hope that my summary will allay some of his concerns and those of his constituents about the overall picture. Hon. Members may be aware that the Ministry of Defence recently signed a memorandum of understanding with Vosper Thornycroft to explore further the possibility of the company relocating its steel warship building business from its current location in Woolston, Southampton, to land leased at Portsmouth naval base. That proposal would allow Vosper Thornycroft to expand its facilities using surplus assets within the naval base, and increase the extent to which it can participate in the construction of larger warships.

If Vosper Thornycroft decides to proceed with the move, which remains a commercial decision for the company, it will make a major contribution to our drive to modernise and rationalise warship repair and maintenance throughout the United Kingdom. That will contribute substantial savings against the defence budget to fund the front-line improvements outlined in the strategic defence review through the warship support modernisation initiative. It should bring benefits at Portsmouth to the Ministry of Defence and to the company by reducing costs and improving efficiencies, while at the same time improving the support provided to the front line.

As hon. Members know, Vosper Thornycroft is involved in type 45 procurement because of its record as a designer and builder of innovative warships for the Royal Navy and various foreign navies. The company has been building ships at Southampton for more than 100 years, supplying 270 ships to 34 countries in the past 30 years. Its performance in exporting warships is particularly noteworthy: in the past 20 years, it has successfully built ships for the navies of Egypt, Kenya, Oman, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, to name but a few. Its building of the Hunt and Sandown classes of mine countermeasures ships in glass reinforced plastic for the Royal Navy has put it at the top of the world league for building these extremely sophisticated warships.

The Vosper Thornycroft group is a fine example of diversification, having used the experience it gained in shipbuilding to expand into new markets and reduce its dependence on warship contracts. That effort has been highly successful, with 67 per cent. of the group's turnover in the last financial year unrelated to new ship contracts. I am pleased that Vosper Thornycroft still wants to continue shipbuilding and its commitment so far to the design of the type 45 destroyer is evidence of that, as is its commitment to reforming its facilities to undertake the efficient building of those vessels.

We appreciate the shipbuilding community's anxieties about the lack of short-term work, despite the orders that have been placed by the Government. Bearing in mind the inevitable fluctuations in the ordering pattern for Royal Navy warships brought about by their long service life, we review the capacity of United Kingdom shipyards to undertake our forward programme, but it is not an exact science. The change to more modern methods of modular construction, the differing mixes of skills required for particular ship types and the way in which any particular shipbuilder will undertake the work make precise projections difficult. There is sufficient capacity in current UK shipyards to undertake our requirements, but that capacity cannot be sustained solely on the order book from Her Majesty's Government. That is why we give the strongest support to naval export orders.

We shall continue to seek to adopt commercial best practice whenever possible in design, manufacture, maintenance and marketing. We hope that that will allow predominantly warship yards to take on commercial work and vice versa, to assist in smoothing out peaks and troughs. I stress that adoption of commercial practices does not mean that we will relax any element that would compromise our ships' ability to perform their operational role. Operational effectiveness remains paramount.

The Government have a clear interest in maintaining a competitive and efficient shipbuilding industry. However, the first concern of the Ministry of Defence must be to provide our armed forces with the best possible equipment at the best value for money for the taxpayer. It is up to the yards themselves to be as efficient and productive as possible to compete for Ministry of Defence contracts and for other orders. Our order book, even on the scale now in prospect, cannot sustain the UK shipbuilding industry on its own. Ministry of Defence work provides an opportunity; companies with shipbuilding interests must reach beyond that for commercial and export work, which will in turn feed back into greater efficiency in a virtuous circle. That is, and will be, the most effective mechanism to ensure job security.

The shipbuilding situation changes frequently for many reasons, including the pressures placed on yards in a highly competitive market. That is not new. The important thing is to win the orders. Vospers won the order for the survey vessels and decided to subcontract the construction of the vessels to Appledore. Changed circumstances, however, have left it with a shortfall of steel construction work in the short term. The Government can and will provide strong support to shipbuilders in their search for other customers, but we cannot compensate for a lack of success in securing orders from them.

I said that I would talk about the unsolicited bid that we received from BAE Marine Systems for an alternative procurement strategy on the type 45 programme. For some time, the Government's policy has been to maintain a competitive base for warship building within the United Kingdom. The uncertainty that that causes for jobs is well understood and it is clearly a worrying matter for the work force both at Vospers and on the Clyde. As with any proposal that may offer better value for money for the taxpayer, we are bound to consider it, so we are doing so carefully, looking at the full range of issues that such a proposal raises in consultation with other Government Departments. The prime contractor has now passed his assessment of the proposal to the MOD.

I should like to give a clear statement about the outcome of our assessment, as hon. Members have requested, but I cannot. The assessment and evaluation of the bid is continuing and no decision has been made. We will come to a decision on that difficult issue as soon as possible, and I assure hon. Members that they will be informed of the outcome at the earliest opportunity.

I understand the Minister's problem, but can he tell us whether the Government are in discussion with BAE Systems on developing a long-term warship building strategy in partnership with the company? If so, is any other company being invited into those discussions?

As far as I am aware, that is not part of the current discussions, which focus purely on the bid. Obviously, it is part of the company's long-term strategy and no one can blame BAE for trying. It is operating in the same commercial environment as everyone else.

Returning to the other points made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh and by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), I can assure hon. Members that the prime contractor's work is closely overseen by the Defence Procurement Agency. In addition, Vospers has clear visibility of the developing design—indeed, it is leading the technical design team. That is working well. Work that Vospers is to undertake on first of class is clearly understood by the prime contractor, by Vospers and by Marine, and the contract pricing reflects that. That has not changed since it was articulated by the Chief of Defence Procurement on 21 December last year.

Vospers has agreed that it is difficult to contract while the design is immature. It has joined with the prime contractor and Marine to develop a detailed cost model for type 45 to allow a commitment to be made to it by September and enable its investment to go forward. That work is going well. It is to be reviewed in the next couple of weeks by the Defence Procurement Agency, by Vosper, Marine and the prime contractor. I can assure hon. Members that although the process might appear to have stalled, it is still progressing satisfactorily. That is of no great comfort to a yard that has a temporary shortfall of work, but there is nothing that we can do about that. The time scale for the steel construction was always fairly fixed. The hiatus is unfortunate but it is not the fault of the DPA, the Ministry of Defence, nor the company involved in the type 45 process. We are doing our best to move matters forward.

The prime contract for the first three ships was placed last December. It assumes a division of work between Vospers and BAE Systems Marine that will allow them both to gain experience and compete effectively for subsequent ships. That remains our intention. We are evaluating the bid from BAE Systems. In due course, when it has been fully evaluated, I will report on the results.

Time is up. Before I call the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), I should like to say that although I do not know who the young lady was who handed a piece of paper to the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon, but as she was not a Member or a Doorkeeper, that was grossly out of order.

I ask your permission, Mr. McWilliam, for my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Ms McCafferty) to speak after me. We share the local authority area of Calderdale and many of the cuts in social and other services proposed by the ruling Conservative group affect both our constituencies.

Since I asked for this debate some time ago, the Conservative group has backed down from making certain cuts and has decided to use some of the money from the housing transfer budget to save certain vital services. We must ask why the Conservatives have caused so much anxiety to many vulnerable people when, if we are to believe them, the money was there all the time.

The U-turn on the proposal to close the Scope outreach centre is very welcome, but I put on the record a warning that the Conservative council retreated from the cut only because of the wonderful campaign mounted by Janice Crabtree, the co-ordinator, her staff, the relatives and friends of the service users and, most importantly, the users—people such as Mr. Mark Pollard. He wrote to the Evening Courier in Halifax saying:

"I attend the service at the Bembridge Park Centre two days a week, on Mondays and Wednesdays. I learn about computers, literacy and numeracy, creative writing, cooking and drama.

This has allowed me to learn and develop things that I never dreamed of because I have cerebral palsy and visual impairment.

I have been able to publish poems, have a voice and opinion about things and to actually feel that I am a member of society.

If the service is closed what I have learned would be lost because I would not be able to get the same support that I get from this service as I know there are no services that can meet my needs to the same level."

That was a wonderful entreaty not to close the service. I am pleased for Mr. Pollard and the other users that there has been a retreat from the proposed cut. As hon. Members can see from that letter, the Scope outreach centre truly supports people with cerebral palsy and other physical disabilities so that they can achieve their individual potential. It is a centre of excellence and should never have been considered for closure in the first place. The Tories on Calderdale council had to listen and they have changed their mind.

Similarly, there was a proposal to close three adventure playgrounds that provide a good social service in areas in which there are many children and in deprived areas. A vigorous campaign was fought to save the playgrounds. Again, I pay tribute to the people such as Colin and Janice Jagger, who campaigned and fought so hard to save them. The Tory leader, Councillor John Ford, now says that they never intended to close that vital service for children, but I simply do not believe him. The massive campaign to save the playgrounds went on for two months, so why cause so much anxiety and fear among those communities for more than two months if they never intended to close them in the first place? The Tories could simply have said, "That is not true."

Welcome though the reprieve is for those services, many more face the axe. I am very concerned about the proposal to end free school milk. Since the Labour Government entered office, the eradication of child poverty has been a priority: 1 million children have been taken out of poverty and the Government plan to take another 2 million out of poverty in the next few years. School milk is an essential service for young children, particularly those with a low-income background. It provides vital nutrition, it is cheap and the take-up rate is almost 100 per cent. I call on councillors such as Mohamed Choudry and Shakir Saghir in St. Johns, Lorraine Stott in Mixendon and others to oppose this nasty little cut, which will save only £90,000. If they vote for the cut, they will harm children. The so-called independent councillor in Calderdale, Colin Stout, continually refers to his independence, so why is he taking the Tory whip on such a cut? It is disgraceful.

Another cut that looks small in monetary terms but would cause an enormous reduction in a vital service is the decision to axe £12,570 from the drugs and alcohol residential rehabilitation budget. That would be a disaster in the face of the increasing problem of drugs in Halifax and the Calder Valley. The mobile response team will be cut by £100,000, even though that service offers a lifeline to elderly people living in the community. My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley will go into more detail, but we have both visited the scheme and know its worth.

Cuts to such vital services will threaten the excellent work of the health and social affairs committee set up by the former Labour council. The council is one of five that have achieved beacon status for joint working with the health services. That sort of initiative is rare and is included in the 10-year national health service plan. Labour-controlled Calderdale council introduced joint working in 1994 and it would be tragic if the committee's excellent work was threatened because of cuts in the grant to the voluntary sector, which I shall now address.

The proposed cut in the grant to advice centres has encouraged the citizens advice bureau to try to outbid two other voluntary organisations—Rhodes street advice centre and the DART advice centre for the disabled. Sadly, the CAB appears to have done a deal with the Tories, although I have warned it that if it sups with the devil, it will need a very long spoon. Calderdale DART is an advice centre for people with disabilities; it offers the excellent specialist service that is needed if, as we all want, disabled people are to remain in the community. One of its users wrote to the Halifax Evening Courier stating:

"I am particularly incensed to see that the local authority has encouraged voluntary organisations to try to outbid each other in the competition for funding…

As a client of Calderdale DART I have nothing but praise for the service it provides. Advice is accurate, clients are given polite, courteous treatment and more so. DART's motto seems to be that if it can't help it knows someone who can!

I have an assigned advice worker which prevents me having to explain my circumstances every time I contact DART. They will visit me in my own home, as my disability prevents me accessing office-based advice centres.

I have on several occasions also attempted to obtain advice from the CAB. The telephone help line is continually unavailable; apparently only 26 per cent. of its calls are answered."

That shows the pressure on the citizens advice bureau. I am not criticising it for that, but it is ludicrous to suggest that it could take over two specialist services.

The other advice centre that will close if the cut in the voluntary sector goes ahead and there is an amalgamation is the Rhodes street advice centre. It is an invaluable service in the middle of the Asian community and the co-ordinator, councillor Mohamed Najib, who ran the centre as a volunteer for years, and his staff of five offer advice on social services, housing, health, immigration and a host of other subjects. They deal with 14,000 queries a year and the suggestion that the CAB could replicate that service is nonsense. To go down that road is to play into the hands of right wing extremists on Calderdale council.

Finally, I shall mention another service for retired people highlighted by the Liberal Democrat spokesman on Calderdale council. There is a possible cut in the budget for Matham Road bowling club and Ackroyd bowling green. Elderly people use those facilities and the council will save only £8,000. Meanwhile, it is spending £80,000 to ask the people of Calderdale for their ideas on best value—it is spending £80,000 on a public relations exercise while cutting two well-used and well-loved bowling greens.

The Tory budget contains many cuts is that would harm young, disabled or elderly people. Tory councillors who fought last May's election on promises to improve services should examine their consciences. They ought to put the interests of the electorate who voted for them first by voting against this awful budget.

We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) that the Tories who run Calderdale council are guilty of incompetence and heartlessness in drawing up their budget proposals. I am of course delighted by the reprieve of services such as road safety education, recycling facilities, adventure playgrounds and especially the Scope outreach service but, as my hon. Friend mentioned, credit for that is due to local people who have campaigned vigorously against the cuts. There is no credit due to the Tories for withdrawing proposals that should never have been made in the first place.

The original Conservative budget proposals caused massive dismay and concern throughout Calderdale. In particular, the proposed cuts to the Scope outreach centre and the mobile response unit caused anger, outrage and fear among people who depend on those vital services. Indeed, it appears that some of the cuts were not even required. It is hard to believe that the council's financial position could have changed so much in only three weeks. The satisfaction of seeing some of those services saved should not hide the long-term damage that will be inflicted by the Tory budget, because many damaging cuts remain.

The Tories still propose to decimate the mobile response service by cutting its budget by more than half. They have failed to indicate how the same level of service can be provided. Therefore, they are putting 2,500 vulnerable elderly people at risk by their actions. They are continuing to ignore the health of young children by scrapping free school milk, they are reducing the alcohol and drug rehabilitation budget and—this is an idea from the dark ages—they are closing 22 public toilets, which will make life difficult for the elderly, diabetics and anyone with poor bladder control.

There are also serious doubts about the long-term future of services. The Tories have given social services extra funding for one year, but that could mean cuts of up to £1 million next year. They have piled further pressure on social services by failing to give them adequate funding for contracts. Perhaps they know that they will lose control of Calderdale next year, so they are happy to pile up problems for the party that takes over from them. It is an uncaring and short-sighted budget from an uncaring and short-sighted party.

I should like to give an example of the damage that the Tories' heartless proposals would cause. The mobile response team is part of the community alarm service. A team of staff are on call 24 hours a day to go out immediately to people who press their alarm button because they need help. They may have fallen or need help getting back into a chair or bed. They may be unwell and need someone to check and reassure them. They may have had an accident or have some other care need, in which case the response team will visit, assess their problem and provide appropriate help. The team makes a real difference to the quality of life of older people. Without it, there would be no choice but to call an ambulance or other emergency service, which would mean that many of the older people would quickly end up in either hospital or long-term care.

The Conservatives still want to decimate the team by cutting more than half the budget. However, they have no idea how that might be achieved or what might replace the service, and they have had no discussions with the charity that provides the service. Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax and I met the staff. Like many who work in social care, they are totally committed to the people whom they help. They are at a loss to understand how anyone can treat their work and the service that they provide with such contempt.

It is perhaps ironic that Calderdale was recently awarded beacon status for its joint work with health. Of course, that reflects policies and initiatives that were implemented by the previous Labour administration. However, the Tory budget proposals and the way in which they were prepared must cast doubt on how long Calderdale will retain beacon status. There has been no consultation with health and voluntary sector partners, some of whose grants are being cut. No thought has been given to the impact of such actions on the priorities and agendas that have been established. Calderdale authority is not generously, or even adequately, funded. Social care staff have said that they are deeply disillusioned with the way in which the authority treats the social services department. Their belief that they are treated as second-class citizens is reflected in the fact that the authority is finding it difficult to recruit staff.

We are awaiting publication of the social services inspection of services for older people, and it is perhaps unfortunate that the report will not be published until the budget process has been completed. It is widely believed that the report will criticise the department's performance in many areas. It is unlikely that it will make a case for cutting expenditure on vital services, but actions that officers might take to address any criticisms in the report will be undermined at the outset by Tory budget proposals that will further damage morale and funding.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax and I have made it clear that we will support council representations to the Government for further assistance, but only if it is honest about the financial situation and its proposals' impact, and if it ceases to target its proposed cuts on the most vulnerable. To date, our offer has been ignored. It seems that Calderdale Tories are more interested in political gestures than working together to benefit vulnerable people.

I ask the Minister to consider the problems that Calderdale faces. This year, Calderdale enjoyed a very generous financial settlement—the second highest secured by a metropolitan borough. However, historically, Calderdale has been underfunded because of decisions taken in the 1980s on the structure of local government finance. I hope that that issue will be addressed in the future, but is targeted help available now? Could such help be accompanied by further vigilance in seeking to protect the vulnerable in Calderdale from the impact of the budget proposals? I urge the strongest possible action to ensure that Calderdale council meets its targets and achieves the standard of services that local people have a right to expect.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on securing this important opportunity to debate social services spending plans in Calderdale. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Ms McCafferty) on her important contribution.

Both my hon. Friends will agree that social sevices provide a hugely important range of services for some of the most vulnerable in our society, particularly children and the elderly. They can also help by dealing directly with the very real issues of social exclusion and deprivation that continue adversely to affect too many of our communities and fellow citizens. Those are very important responsibilities, and I believe that it is the Government's task to ensure that those crucial services are properly resourced and operate within a framework that promotes greater independence, opportunity and choice, and which raises the quality of front-line services. However, it is the job of local authorities such as Calderdale to provide and plan for the necessary front-line services to meet the needs of local communities, and to demonstrate clear improvements in both quality and accessibility. Those are the essential criteria against which any proposals for social services expenditure must be judged.

I turn first to the issue of resources. The Government have substantially increased the resources available to local councils to ensure that they are better able to discharge their duties. I should like to say more about those new resources, highlighting how Calderdale has benefited. Through the spending review announced early last year, over the next three years the Government are increasing by an average of 3.4 per cent. in real terms the resources that are available to councils with social services responsibilities. That increase compares with an average real-terms growth in social services resources of just 0.1 per cent. per annum during the previous Parliament.

The people of Calderdale will be among those who benefit from the substantial increases in resources provided for social services. This year, the funding made available through standard spending assessments is just over £32 million—5.1 per cent. more than in the previous year. We recently announced that those resources will increase again next year by a further 4.4 per cent.—substantially above the rate of inflation. In addition, the council will gain from the significant increases in new and on-going special grants that we are making available. In December, the Secretary of State for Health announced that a further £100 million, on top of the figures that I have quoted, would be made available for social services spending in 2001–02. Calderdale council will benefit by an extra £378,000 from those additional ring-fenced resources.

We have provided significant additional resources for children's services over the past few years. Last year, we introduced, for the first time, a grant to improve the range and quality of children's social services provided by local councils. In the first year of that grant, Calderdale received £260,000. It received a further £410,000 this year, and next year the grant will rise to £1.026 million. Other services have received additional resources. For example, Calderdale's carer's grant has more than trebled over the past three years. The grant totalled £75,000 in 1999 but will rise to £259,000 next year. Similarly, the council's mental health grant over the same three-year period will have risen from £331,000 in 1999 to £597.000 next year.

I hope that both my hon. Friends accept that the Government have provided significant new and additional resources to Calderdale council. In 2001–02, adding together what has been allocated through standard spending assessments and the new ring-fenced grants, the council has been provided with more than £36 million to spend on its social services. Exactly how those substantial sums are spent is for the council to decide. Local councillors must weigh up how much should be allocated to social care services, taking into account Government targets and what local users and carers want. It is the council's responsibility to manage those resources carefully and sensibly, so that maximum benefit accrues to people who require social services in Calderdale. That is the challenge facing all councils at this time of year as they set their budgets for 2001–02.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax rightly decided to raise her concerns at a time when it seemed that Conservative councillors in Calderdale intended to impose swingeing outs on the social services budget, putting many vulnerable people at risk. Like my hon. Friend, I was worried when that prospect was brought to my attention. However, I understand that following recommendations made last night as a result of the concerns that she and others had raised about the proposals, councilors have revised their budget allocations and have stepped back from taking a number of decisions which would have caused considerable anxiety to local people. I know that she and my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley remain concerned about some of the decisions that Conservative councillors appear to be intent on pursuing, and I fully understand that. The yardstick against which those and any other decisions are to be judged will be the extent to which they enhance community well-being and help to meet the needs of vulnerable people in Calderdale. It will be for local people to make any such judgment and to express it through the ballot box.

The Government will continue to look carefully and closely at the performance of social services in Calderdale to ensure that progress is made in meeting the national objectives that we have set. I assure both my hon. Friends that those objectives are not optional. They were set for the clear purpose of raising the standard of social services in every part of the country, and Calderdale is no exception. We expect every council to take the necessary steps to meet those standards, because that is the right way in which to end the lottery of care that has been apparent in social services for far too long.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax recognises that Calderdale can point to progress in improving its performance in a number of important areas. On children's services, for example, the council's performance in providing stability for looked-after children has improved significantly, but only one in three children leaving care did so with any educational qualifications. That is not good enough and we shall look for significant improvements in that important indicator.

In Calderdale, few people with learning disabilities are helped to live at home, although the number is gradually increasing. The same picture emerges for people with physical disabilities or mental health problems, and residential care services are acknowledged to be poor. Some inspections of residential homes for adults were not carried out within the statutory time scale, and the number of people entering residential care in Calderdale is much higher than the national average. That needs careful attention.

Everyone accepts that it is better for people to be helped to live in their own homes Unfortunately, in Calderdale, the number of people receiving intensive care to allow them to live in their own homes fell last year against the national trend. That is a matter of concern and I shall look to the local authority to make greater efforts to bring its local performance into line with that in other parts of the country.

Calderdale is to be congratulated on achieving beacon status for partnership working in health. It will be necessary to ensure that high-quality services and strong partnership working are maintained when the reconfiguration of local health services has been completed.

In summary, Calderdale is at the start of a long journey in the development of good social care services. That will require a strategic, long-term vision of what needs to be done. That vision will have to be embraced by elected Members and the local community. It will take time, commitment and further investment, not less.

Will the Minister look particularly at the joint working between the local authority and Calderdale health care trust, because together they have done such good work? If the cuts jeopardise that, it would be sad for all those who have worked so hard.

I agree strongly with my hon. Friend; I had intended briefly to mention intermediate care developments in Calderdale.

This is not the time to contemplate cutting funding for crucial, front-line social care services. Rather, it is time to review whether every pound is spent to maximum effect, whether better commissioning practices might release further savings, whether the balance between cost and quality is right, and whether current services are delivering the outcome sought by local people.

I referred earlier to the new policy framework within which we expect social services to operate. Central to that policy framework is the development of a new range of intermediate care services designed to prevent avoidable admissions to hospital, to enhance rehabilitation and faster recovery from illness, and to enable as many people as possible to live independently in their own homes. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax is anxious to see development of the new services in Calderdale and to ensure that the budget reductions proposed by the local Conservatives do not impede developments in that important area. I share her concern. We have made significant new resources available through the national health service plan, which are filtering through to services in Calderdale. For example, the Calderdale primary care group will benefit next year from a specific allocation for intermediate care of more than £150,000.

A substantial component of the £900 million announced in the NHS plan relates to resources provided to local government. In determining funding for social services to be made available through the standard spending assessment over the next three years, we took account specifically of additional council investment in services that promote independence, particularly for older people. The local government settlement makes provision for that over the next three years. The deployment of money provided through the standard spending assessment is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax acknowledged, a decision for councils in the light of local circumstances.

There has been significant development in intermediate care services in Calderdale and all the service providers who have been involved in that deserve congratulations. A range of new services is coming on line which will enhance the care and support available to older people. It would be tragic if any of that was put at risk because of short-sighted decisions that local Conservative councillors might be tempted to make.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax has done her constituents a substantial service, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley, in raising these matters this afternoon. We shall continue to take a close interest and watch over what is happening in Calderdale to ensure that the proper national objectives that we have set for social services over the next three years are delivered for the benefit of her constituents and of those of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley.

The Minister will know that I served as Chairman of the Select Committee on Health for five years and that, in 1996–97, that Committee undertook an inquiry into children's health. I have maintained my interest in the matter and I am delighted to have this opportunity to raise matters of concern with her.

First, I seek an assurance from the Minister on the needs of children explicitly described in the booklet, "Your Guide to the NHS", which bears little resemblance to the old patients charter. It emphasises patients' responsibilities to the NHS, as well as their rights. However, the guide makes no explicit reference to the health needs of children, unlike the "Charter for Children and Young People", which was issued in 1996 during the Select Committee's inquiry into services for children and young people. I should welcome the hon. Lady's comments on whether there has been an omission and whether the Government are prepared to rectify it.

Another matter that causes concern relates to children in adult wards and intensive care units. What assurance can the Government give that the needs of children who are ill and in hospital are not being ignored? Unfortunately, basic principles of care that have been acknowledged by all Governments since 1959 and highlighted by the Select Committee's inquiries into services for children and young people, such as children on adult wards, are still being ignored.

The Government have increased finance for paediatric intensive care, but children are still being routinely admitted to adult intensive care units following elective surgery, because some surgeons still ignore Department of Health guidance and undertake specialist surgery on children in hospitals without the appropriate facilities. Careful monitoring of paediatric intensive care, as promised in the Department of Health guidance in 1997, seems to have omissions because children who are admitted following elective surgery do not seem to be identified.

The Select Committee was shocked to discover that children's community services, which have been supported by every Government since the Platt report in 1959, are still not universally available, with about 40 per cent. of the United Kingdom being without a service. I welcome the Diana, Princess of Wales children's community teams for children with life-threatening or terminal conditions, but eight teams for England, although important, is a small contribution compared with what is needed. Many children with acute illness or following surgery remain in hospital because no children's community nursing service is available locally.

I shall quote from the Select Committee's third report, which states in paragraph 49:

"The overall intention must be to introduce as soon as possible a home nursing service provided by appropriately qualified staff and available to all children requiring nursing interventions and their families. For many years there has been such a nursing service for adults in their own homes. We consider that, as a matter of principle, sick children need and deserve no less."

I would welcome the Minister's response on that.

As for child and adolescent mental health, following the Select Committee's fourth report, the Government allocated money to that wholly inadequate service. However, the removal of child and adolescent mental health services from children's services, which has links with children's social services, education and children's health services, into newly-established mental health trusts, which are focused on the needs of adults and are unconnected with the range of agencies concerned with children, causes some concern. Unfortunately, the reality is that a stigma is still attached to mental health services, so some families may not wish to have the stigma of services from a mental health trust.

In addition, due to the paucity of services, children with mental health difficulties are admitted to acute paediatric wards, which are in a different trust. I ask the Minister, is this shift to services focused primarily on the needs of adults for the convenience of managerial organisation and professionals rather than the needs of children and their families?

There is a role for a children's commissioner—we now have a Children's Commissioner for Wales—although only one with a clearly defined role. The children's commissioner should be entitled to monitor the interests of children looked after by statutory services. He or she should also have a wider function in relation to the work that affects children that the Government carry out across all Departments.

Children—almost uniquely in society—are unable to participate in the democratic process. Adults make legislation and regulations that affect them, both directly in terms of provisions dealing with children and indirectly through the way in which we legislate to support the family. It is therefore right that an independent person should have the remit to examine legislative proposals across the range of Departments and to represent the interests of the children who will be affected by them. In that way, those interests will properly be taken into account in the workings of government and the legislative process.

I welcome the children's taskforce, but I have concerns about the needs of children who are sick within the NHS. The children's taskforce appears to focus on prevention and young people who cause specific difficulties, such as pregnant teenagers. Of course, I acknowledge the importance of prevention. Indeed, the Select Committee second report states:

"The rewards of good health care in childhood, especially health promotion and preventative interventions, are unique because the benefits may last a life time, and may be passed on to future generations."

There is, however, considerable concern that the needs of children who are ill are not being appropriately considered, but lumped together with adult services.

As a Member of Parliament who is interested in the issue, I must inform the Minister that I have been unable to obtain more than a photostat copy of the children's taskforce booklet and introduction. I should be grateful if I could have some copies of it in its true form, rather than having to rely upon that. I telephoned the lady whose name appears in the booklet to ask for copies, but unfortunately I received no reply. I should be most grateful if the Minister could help.

One aspect of quality health care that the Select Committee praised was integrated services for children without traditional barriers between hospital and community services. They included acute services, such as neo-natal intensive care and hospital in-patient and out-patient care, and school nursing and community services, such as community children's nursing services and services for children with learning disabilities or mental health problems. As the staff involved include therapists, a child receiving, say, physiotherapy in the community for his cerebral palsy would, following surgery, receive treatment from the same physiotherapist while he was an in-patient in the acute hospital.

One of the themes identified was that services are too often organised for the convenience of staff and, sadly, such services are now being broken up to fit managerial convenience instead of children's needs. The emphasis on primary care trusts is resulting in community aspects of children's services going into the primary care trust, in mental health going into adult-focused adult mental health trusts, and in acute services going into adult-focused acute hospital trusts. Children therefore become a small part in adult-focused services, with staff that are educated and experienced in children's needs divided and increasingly isolated.

The Government recently announced their intention to set national standards for children's services, which is to be welcomed. I hope that early dates for the publication and implementation of those standards will be announced, as that would ensure that children's needs are not overlooked in services designed primarily for adults. A national service framework for all children would ensure that children's needs are not overlooked through services designed for adults, with children fitted in or, on a disease basis, tagged on to services that are geared primarily toward adults.

I am most grateful for the opportunity to place on record the anxieties that I and many others have about children's health. We look forward to the Minister's response and the addition of more information to that which we already have on the policies that the Department of Health, the hon. Lady and her colleagues will implement.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on having secured the debate and choosing it to discuss an issue about which I feel especially strongly and which is extremely important for both the Government and the House. I pay tribute to the work that she has done with the Select Committee on Health and subsequently on children's health, an issue on which she has campaigned and worked for a long time.

The matter is extremely important to the Government, not simply from the point of view of children's health, but because children's health is so closely linked with other aspects of children's lives. Perhaps more tangibly than at any other stage in life, social, emotional and educational development are closely linked to health. That is especially true in the years when children are very young Health in the early years can affect health throughout life, and health problems that develop in childhood can haunt people throughout their lives. The deep-rooted health inequalities in society often stem not simply from childhood but from pregnancy. The Government therefore regard children's health as a priority.

In responding to the points raised by the hon. Lady, I shall set out some of the progress that has been made and some of the measures that are already under way. I shall also outline some of the work that is being planned for the future in relation to the children's taskforce and the standards she mentioned towards the end of her speech.

A major programme of work is being planned to draw together many of the individual strands of children's health into a single national service framework for children. The national service frameworks have been developed as major programmes across the health service. NSFs are currently in place for mental health and coronary heart disease, and although the cancer plan had a slightly different genesis than NSFs, it sets out comprehensive standards of care and treatment in a similar fashion. The full range of care, from prevention to treatment to palliative care, is covered for conditions that are the big killers in society. We are keen to apply the same comprehensive approach to children's health. I strongly believe that the national service framework should not only be about children's heath services, but that it should include prevention and health promotion and cover many of the service issues raised by the hon. Lady.

We are still at an early stage in developing and determining the scope of the national service framework. A major consultation will be needed: parents, children and young people will be subject to extensive consultation as part of the process. The children's taskforce will play a major role in that work. We are currently at the stage of determining what issues should be included. I shall outline a few of the areas in which work is already under way, which will need to be fed into the national service framework, and cover some of the other areas that the national service framework will have to address in more detail.

We have taken considerable action on prevention, which, as the hon. Lady said, is extremely important. The rolling-out of the meningitis C vaccine programme is an example: we are the first country in the world to introduce a nationwide meningitis C programme. Managing to introduce it and offer the vaccine to everyone under the age of 18 in the space of 15 months is a huge tribute to the NHS, especially school nurses and those working in primary care who implemented the programme.

Work has also been done on promoting healthy living for children, especially in relation to access to fruit and vegetables and a healthy diet. Today, we roll out the next wave of the programme to provide free fruit in infants schools. Experts recommend five portions of fruit and vegetables a day to help to prevent cancer, heart disease and asthma in children. Research shows that, on average, children only have about two portions a day and children in low-income areas have considerably fewer. The provision of free fruit in infants schools across the country will make a major contribution to increased access to fruit and vegetables and a healthy diet, and to improving children's nutrition and long-term health.

Work has been done in relation to maternity services, and the sure start programme is tackling ill health and promoting health among families and children in the early years—for those under four—ensuring proper access to immunisation programmes and health care and, importantly, signposting to specialist services when health problems arise, ensuring diagnosis at the earliest possible moment, and proper support and provision of the expert services required in low-income areas.

The hon. Member for Broxbourne referred to acute care and community care. She is right to say that we introduced additional funding in 1997 to improve paediatric intensive care. To date, an additional £51 million has gone into building up the strengths of centres providing the highest level of care to the most critically ill children to ensure ready access, to develop specialist retrieval teams and to ncrease funding for specialist skills, especially nursing skills. We are now considering what further improvements we need to make to the level of local hospital support for that system to meet the needs of children who require high-dependency care. We must also consider neo-natal intensive care, in which expert work is under way that we can feed into the national service framework. We have made clear our intention to expand critical care—we have made major improvements during the past few years—but we need to be especially sensitive to the issues of neo-natal and paediatric intensive care.

The hon. Lady asked whether particular areas or consultants were following best practice. We know that that is in place in many areas—there are some excellent examples—but we also know that there is wide variation in the care provided, which is unacceptable. That is what drives the national service framework. In coronary heart disease, cancer and other areas, the national service framework has set national standards that every area must follow, which can be followed up through clinical governance and inspection mechanisms and the NHS performance management framework to ensure that they are properly implemented. The national service framework for children's services will provide us with the levers to ensure that every area is able to adapt and start to follow best practice, which we know is in place in some areas. That will take some time and we should be realistic: identifying best practice and developing the right standards will take time, but it will provide us with a powerful mechanism as the work takes place.

The hon. Lady also mentioned community care for children. That is especially important because, no matter how ill children become, most families want to care for them at home and most children will always be more comfortable at home. We should provide whatever services we can in the community. Through the national service framework, we shall need to consider the developing role of health visitors and school nurses, work on which has already begun as a result of the "Saving Lives" White Paper to improve the public and family health role of such services. Again, we need to consider what further work can be done and what further role such services can play as part of the national service framework.

We also need to consider support not just for prevention but for those children who become sick or have problems, whatever they may be. The hon. Lady referred to Diana nurses—we strongly support their work and are keen to learn lessons from it when providing care across the country. We are also keen to ensure proper palliative care support for children in the tragic circumstances in which it is needed. That is being considered as part of the current wave of consultation on the new opportunities fund to determine what additional care and support can be provided.

The hon. Lady referred to child and adolescent mental health services. A considerable amount of work has been done; national targets in health and social care for child and adolescent mental health services were introduced for the first time in 1999, under the national priorities guidance In the past two years, we have invested £50 million of additional funds in the modernisation fund and the mental health grant to help to achieve those targets. For a long time, mental health was not regarded as a serious problem for children, because it was felt that they would simply grow out of it, which is not the case. More work must be done to extend the best practice in some areas to the whole country. Capacity, reform and the provision of services must be considered.

We are committed to the growth of NHS capacity across the board as part of the NHS plan, putting extra investment and extra staffing in place to deliver services, although we must be realistic about the time it will take to deliver necessary improvements. However, we need not simply to expand capacity, but to reform the way we do things by setting national standards and focusing on children's needs. We need to focus on prevention, not simply on treating the sick, and to work in partnership with schools, families and the community. Work with children cannot be done by the NHS alone.

A theme from the NHS plan that we must consider in the context of children's services and children's health is that current professional roles may have to change and professional barriers that have been in place for a long time may have to come down. Much work is being done in that sector at present, and we are keen to ensure that it links with other action across Government. The health service should not work in isolation; we must consider social services, the obvious area of support, but also education and support for those with learning difficulties.

We must acknowledge that inequality and poverty are the root causes of children's ill health. My view is that a commitment to abolish child poverty will have more impact on children's health than any other Government measure. We have already made progress in that respect by taking 1 million children out of poverty in the course of this Parliament, which is a huge step forward, but there is an awful lot left to do. Many children still need help and support, but in the long run, action on child poverty will improve children's health. Health inequalities are partly to do with the causes of ill health, but also relate to children's and health services. Services for children in low-income areas must be as good as the best in the country, which has, too often, not been the case.

A huge programme of work is under way on the lines suggested by the hon. Lady, and we have an amazing opportunity, through the national service framework, to take matters further in the next few years. We want to ensure that there is post-natal and maternity support, as well as support for children throughout their childhood. We have an ambitious programme, which will make for an interesting time in the next few years. I welcome the hon. Lady's contribution to the debate and thank her for raising these issues. I am sure that she will continue to do so as this work carries on over the next few years.

Before I call the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), may I compliment him on where he has chosen to sit? It was intended that Members should not split and sit according to their party. A debate across the Floor is much more helpful than trying to talk to the back of someone's head.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your kind words. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in the House of Commons this very important issue for my constituents. For the last quarter of a century, manufacturing industry in my constituency has undergone the most radical change. Thousands of jobs have been lost in what were often considered to be lifetime occupations. No sector has suffered more than textiles, which dominated employment in the Irvine valley. Over the years, we have lost more than 400 jobs. The collapse of Basford Home Textiles, a part of the Basford Group, that went into receivership in June 1999, was a severe enough blow for the 38 workers who were made redundant, but they consoled themselves to some degree with the thought that at least their accrued pension rights in the group pension scheme would contribute to their standard of living at the time of retirement. The 99 employees retained by the successor employer also thought that their position was safe. Consequential to the receivership, the pension scheme had to be wound up. That process has revealed to the employees just how misplaced even that small amount of optimism was.

Mrs. Margaret Dawson, of Darvel, worked for many years in the industry both for Basford and their predecessors. She planned to retire at 60 and had a fair idea of what her pension would be. In 1995, the scheme was altered to equalise the normal retirement age for all members at 65. She knew and understood that the change forced on the scheme by the European Court case of Barber v. Guardian Royal Exchange would have a detrimental effect on her benefits. However, before she retired on 2 July 1999, the Basford Group went into receivership. The immediate effect of the commencement of the winding-up of the scheme on 26 May 1999 was that the new trustees, acting on the advice of the scheme actuary and pending clarification of the funding position, took a decision not to consider any early retirement requests.

Mrs. Dawson, who is a formidable woman, persisted with her request for early retirement and eventually, on 30 March 2000, the trustees agreed to pay her the guaranteed minimum pension. That figure is significantly less than the benefits she expected from the scheme, as set out in the figures she was given when she made her initial inquiries about early retirement. Now, almost two years after the date of her retirement and three years after her 60th birthday, she has no clear idea of what her final pension will be, and will not know that until the funding position of the scheme is finally known. She survives on the basic state pension, supplemented by the guaranteed minimum pension. She is confused, feels betrayed and rightly has a burning sense of injustice.

Bobby Armour of Kilmarnock also worked for Basford, but left before the receivership. He has a deferred pension in the scheme, and is still in employment but is nearing retirement age. He is also a victim of the uncertainty, as he cannot work out what his accrued benefits are worth. Furthermore, he cannot transfer his Basford pension to another scheme, as the value of the scheme has not yet been quantified, and a true transfer value cannot be assessed. He is in an almost identical position to David Ralston, another Darvel resident who is still working in the industry—in the firm that took over from Basfords in Darvel. Like Mrs Dawson, Bobby Armour and David Ralston also feel betrayed and have a burning sense of injustice.

Those three cases are but examples of the circumstances of many of my constituents affected by the closure of the Basford plant. Over the past two years, there have been a series of comprehensive announcements from the independent trustee, Mitre Pensions Ltd., and the members' interests have been rigorously pursued by the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, and in particular the regional organiser John Easdale and their shop stewards Eunice Callender, Paddy Quigley and Jim Raymond, who is now a local councillor.

Investigations by the independent trustee have uncovered a catalogue of actions in the last few months of the existence of the group that directly affected the pensions of all the employees, and which may leave some pensioners with as low as 48 per cent. of what they paid for. It appears that the trustees ignored advice from their actuary about the level of contributions necessary to maintain the funding requirement of the scheme and investment advice from their fund managers. Furthermore, the owner of Basford, Maurice Cresswell, who was also the chairman of the trustees of the pension fund, at a time when the only other trustees were directors of the company, persuaded the other trustees to buy two premises already owned by him, at a cost of some £560,000 to the fund—a figure that, not surprisingly, came in at about 5 per cent. of the fund's value.

Those actions, along with non-payment of employer contributions of at least £150,000 during 1998–99 and a delay in paying employee contributions during the same period, left the fund some 12.3 per cent. short of the value required to sustain the pensions of its members. Given that current pensioners are better protected than deferred pensioners on the winding-up, deferred pensioners will take a bigger loss, which is estimated at up to 28 per cent. by the new independent trustee, Mr. Iain Talman of Mitre.

Even those figures are still provisional, as the fund managers, Aon Consulting, have not yet been able to provide accurate figures on which to base decisions concerning the scheme. The winding-up of a pension scheme is not a simple process, but it is not helped by delays that are avoidable. The necessary actuarial valuation was promised within six months of the winding-up date. It took a full year, and even then it had to be redone. A second actuary was employed, but he resigned before he could report. A third actuary has been instructed, and his report is awaited, but the uncertainty for pensioners continues.

There has been an unexplained delay in claiming the outstanding employer contributions from the national insurance fund. Despite the fund managers having been aware of the valuation, and therefore the level of the missing funds, since last summer, it would seem that they only began the process of recovery before Christmas. That has further delayed the final valuation of the fund. Indeed, it has been difficult for anyone to find out anything from Aon Consulting. In his earlier announcements, the independent trustee encouraged members with questions about their specific entitlement to consult the fund managers as the first point of contact. I am repeatedly told that requests for information have been fruitless. I wrote to them on 20 December last year asking a number of questions relating to the scheme. On 7 February this year, I wrote again seeking a reply. I had not even had the courtesy of an acknowledgement. To be fair to them, that omission was corrected by a holding letter of 13 February, but I am still awaiting answers. If the Member of Parliament cannot get answers from people who manage the pension funds when there is a clear, direct, constituency interest, it does not augur well for ordinary members of the public.

The whole process has been one of delay after delay, and all this time more and more charges are being made on the scheme, lessening its value again and again. In his latest announcement, the independent trustee said that

"any member wishing to contact … the independent trustee or the scheme administrator should feel free to do so on the understanding that both are professional organisations that receive remuneration from the scheme for their services."

The scheme will also have to bear the cost of additional investigations and expensive legal advice about whether there is a legal claim in respect of any or all of the actions that have caused the shortfall.

The buildings that were purchased from Cresswell were the subject of a series of transactions of labyrinthine complexity. There may also have been a deliberate attempt to make them not resaleable, because access to one of the buildings was retained by the owner, who is also the chairman of the trustees and the man who owned the company. To date, only one of the buildings has been sold. Until the second building is sold, no assessment can be made of the loss or, more unlikely, the gain to the scheme from the property transactions alone. At the same time, some assessment has to be made of he likely rental income that should have accrued to the scheme from the buildings, but which did not. For some inexplicable reason, the trustees allowed the company to get out of a notional leasing deal for one of the buildings, which was due to last for 10 years, without penalty after two years. Alternatively, an assessment should be made of whether other investment of the £560,000 purchase price would have been more beneficial to the scheme, and whether that is what the trustees should have done with the money in the first place.

Another cause of uncertainty is the fact that now, almost two years after the company went into receivership, no assessment is yet possible of whether legal action may help to recover part of the deficit. Mitre is properly taking legal advice on this matter, but in a letter to me of 9 February, it stated that

"this has proved to be more complex than was first anticipated. This has required substantial amounts of investigation and this continues to occur. There will be a further meeting with our solicitors shortly at which point a decision should be made as to whether any actions can be raised."

The members would rather have the certainty than the potential for litigation against someone who may turn out to be a man of straw.

None of the members of this scheme has benefited in any way from the changes implemented by the Pensions Act 1995, never mind the protections legislated for in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000. Undoubtedly, had those members had the benefit of that legislation, the history of this scheme would have been different. However, that does not mean that there are not legitimate questions that the members are entitled to ask of the Government. There are lessons still to be learned from their appalling experiences.

Will my right hon. Friend consider setting up a pensions safety net fund, similar to the redundancy payments fund, to protect the investment of ordinary people whose pensions have been damaged through no fault of their own? This proposal hss been put to me forcefully by the GMB, and on the face of it seems a much-needed reform. I am aware that the Government continually review the level of projection needed for vulnerable pension scheme members such as the Basford employees. I know that, as part of the consultation on security for occupational pensions, the Government are in dialogue with the industry, and that the Institute of Actuaries and the Faculty of Actuaries have proposed that solvency insurance could have a role to play in protecting members of underfunded schemes in the event of the insolvency of the sponsoring employer. Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government intend to follow that recommendation? If they do, it may come too late for the Basford pensioners, but it would go a long way to giving some protection to others who may find themselves in a similar position in future.

The winding-up of this pension scheme has taken almost two years now, and the end of that process is not yet in sight. I am told by some of my colleagues that it is not unknown for the winding-up process to take significantly longer than that. One of my hon. Friends told me that, after seven years, a pension scheme in his constituency is no nearer being wound up. The process itself is a significant drain on the resources of the scheme. The powers given to the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority to direct schemes on winding up may provide a less complicated and less expensive method of getting answers than the courts presently provide. When will those powers be brought into force, and what steps can the Government take to assess the performance of pension fund managers such as Aon, who hold themselves out as independent experts, both in their stewardship of the schemes, and in their performance when things goes wrong and delays are caused?

What is happening about the reform of the minimum funding requirement? If the minimum funding requirement ensured that there were sufficient assets to meet the liabilities of a fund, it would solve many of these problems. However, evidence suggests that it does not. Are the Government any nearer to determining their priority in relation to the minimum funding requirement? Is it to be greater security for the public's occupational pensions or greater investment freedom for schemes and investment fund managers in line with the Paul Myners review?

What proposals does my right hon. Friend have for improving the level of communication to scheme members when an occupational pension scheme winds up? The Department of Social Security undertook a research project into this issue prior to the implementation of the Pensions Act 1995. In the Basford case, the frequency and comprehensive nature of the announcements of the independent trustee is admirable, but his correspondence is still remarkably complex and difficult to understand. Yesterday, I had to read through the announcements two or three times before I could understand even the basics, and from my experience they are examples of good communication in such a situation.

Many other questions require to be asked in this particular case, but they can be posed only when the work of the administrator in winding up the scheme, and of the independent trustee in assessing culpability, is completed. In the meantime, any steps that the Government can take to ensure that other pension scheme members do not suffer the fate of my constituents, the Basford pensioners, will be warmly welcomed by them and by all other pension scheme members across the country.

I agree with your initial comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about the seating position of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne). I did not like the former arrangement in this Room, and greatly prefer the present one.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing his case. I am sorry to hear about what happened, and I recognise that scheme members must be beside themselves with worry. Many hundreds of people—pensioners, payers or deferred members—are involved.

It may not be parliamentary or ministerial to say so, but the case that my hon. Friend described stinks. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that because many of the issues are on-going, what I am able to say is limited. I shall do my best to explain the system currently in place to protect pension schemes. Some aspects are under review and some changes have already been made. I also want to respond to as many specific points about the Basford case as I can.

The vast majority of UK pension schemes are set up under trust law. The basic duty to run a pension scheme lies with the trustees, not the company or the Government. The trustees must ensure that the rules of the scheme are followed and comply with the law.

The framework of trust law was reinforced by the Pensions Act 1995, which resulted from the Maxwell scandal. It introduced a series of measures to protect members of pension schemes, placed extra duties on trustees and set up the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority. We are actively monitoring and reviewing the Act's provisions in order to build on existing measures.

OPRA is the independent pensions regulator that investigates complaints when occupational pension schemes do not comply with the Pensions Act 1995. Anyone can report a pension scheme to OPRA if they believe that it is not being run properly. The scheme auditor and the actuary have a statutory duty to blow the whistle when they have reasonable cause to believe that the 1995 Act is not being complied with.

I have not checked the latest figure, but the last time I looked into it, there were about 120,000 pension schemes in this country. It is certainly a huge number. OPRA operates as a reactive regulator when people make complaints. We have examined and strengthened some of OPRA's operations through legislation that has not yet come fully into force.

My hon. Friend raised concerns about the actions of the trustees and the actuaries involved in the Basford Group case. When Basford Textiles became insolvent, the insolvency practitioner appointed a statutory independent trustee. The previous trustee no longer acts as a trustee in relation to the scheme. The last actuarial valuation of the Batsford Group scheme was in 1996 and the next was due on 1 May 1999. The trustees sought 25 extra days as the wind-up of the scheme was due to commence on 26 May 1999. That valuation was completed on time by 26 May 2000.

When I started to get to grips with the minimum funding requirement, I mistook it as a solvency test. It may appear that way to a lay person, but there is no doubt that it is not. Pension schemes must be adequately funded to cover their liabilities. The 1995 Act introduced the MFR, which requires defined benefit schemes—schemes based on final salary—to hold a minimum level of assets to meet their liabilities.

We recognise that matters have changed since the minimum funding requirement was introduced. It came into force in 1997. As my hon. Friend acknowledged, many of the issues that affected his constituents are not covered by the 1995 Act, which had not come fully into force at that time. The Government consulted on the future of the minimum funding requirement and are currently studying the responses.

Coupled with that was the Myner review set up by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Given that he is about to make a major speech in the House in the not too distant future, he may or may not have something to say about that. The report has been received, and the consultation on the minimum funding regulation concluded at the end of January. We have been considering the responses to that consultation, because we must make an early statement about whether we will do nothing or do something, so that people know what is happening.

Pension contributions should be paid promptly and at the right level. In 1996, the actuary of the Basford Group scheme recommended a rise in employer contributions from 8.7 per cent. to 10.2 per cent., to take effect from April 1997. The trustees decided not to take the actuary's advice and did not increase the employer contributions. That may seem a small rise, but it represents a 20 per cent. increase. Under the minimum funding regulations, which have come in since the 1995 Act, a schedule of contributions must be set out clearly. That schedule must be certified by an actuary. If those regulations had been in force when the Basford trustees took the decision, it is unlikely that the actuary would have been able to certify that level of contributions. The actuary would have been obliged by law to report the situation to OPRA. A real problem has arisen, which predates the change in the law, by refusing to increase employer contributions by 20 per cent.

The trustees monitor the payment of contributions on the scheme's payments schedule and must tell OPRA and scheme members when contributions have been paid late or not paid at all. There is a firm rule about that. As my hon. Friend knows, there was a failure on the part of the employer to pay the contributions in the Basford case. I understand that a notice went out from the independent trustee to all members of the Basford Group scheme in July 2000 stating that all employee contributions had been recovered.

At present, there is no legal requirement for trustees to include members of pension schemes. Legislation went through the House last year, which will come into force later this year or early next year, whereby a minimum of a third of the trustees of a pension scheme must be members of the scheme. They may be pensioners, active members or deferred members, but they must be members of the scheme. In future, a group of trustees cannot be employer dominated.

The Pensions Act 1995 introduced restrictions on employer-related investments, such as shares in the company, land or property owned by the company. Clearly, that was the result of the Maxwell scandal. In May 1999, the independent trustee of the Basford scheme voiced doubts to OPRA about the appropriateness of several actions of the previous trustee in connection with the purchase and use of properties in 1996—a point that my hon. Friend raised in some detail. Those property dealings may have constituted a breach under the 1995 Act. Unfortunately for the scheme members, that Act did not come fully into force until 1997.

When things go wrong, it is only right that measures are in place to protect members of a scheme. I regret that many of the problems of the Basford scheme occurred before the 1995 Act came into effect. My hon. Friend realises that his constituents have a hell of a problem. Hopefully, it is being sorted out with the trustees. I note the delays that he listed, and I shall make it my business to ensure that I follow them up through OPRA and my officials. It is unacceptable if Members of Parliament do not receive replies. There is almost an implied threat that, if inquiries are made, the scheme will be charged. The only people making any money out of the situation are the professonals who are examining the problem, whereas the members of the scheme feel that their pensions are under threat, and they contributed to those pensions.

Measures are in place for redundancy payments schemes when a firm has become insolvent. If, on winding-up, the scheme is not fully funded under the minimum funding requirement, the amount outstanding becomes a debt on the employer, and the trustee must pursue that amount. Of course, the Pensions Compensation Board was also set up under the 1995 Act. It has not made many payments to date—I declare an interest, because one recent payment was in respect of a company in Birmingham that employed some of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden).

Members must be protected from fraud and dishonesty. Provisions for compensation were introduced in the 1995 Act. The Pensions Compensation Board pays compensation to an occupational pensions scheme if it suffers a reduction in its assets because of dishonesty when the sponsoring employer is insolvent. Improvements to the pensions compensation scheme were contained in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, which is due to come into effect shortly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun asked about consultation on the minimum funding requirement. As I said, we hope to make an early announcement about suggestions that have been made for mutual insurance for the industry. There are pluses and minuses, but we are actively considering that option, because since the 1995 Act was passed, gaps have been clearly identified that we want to close. The time that has been taken to finalise the case is an issue, and I give my hon. Friend my personal assurance that I will follow that up myself. The Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 introduced a package of measures for schemes in wind-up, which are intended to introduce more accountability into such schemes and to extend OPRA's powers in that regard. Again, the Act will come into force early next year—I know that these things are always later this year or early next year, but we are dealing with a huge industry. Millions of people are in pension schemes—there are about 120,000 pension schemes—so we must be careful about changes, and take time to consult even after the House has passed the main legislation.

Most pension schemes are extremely well run. The best run schemes from my experience are those in which members are involved as trustees and there is a free share of information, in which they watch with eagle eyes what happens to investments, especially if it appears that the company concerned is using some of the funds. We cannot legislate initially for every eventuality, so sometimes we legislate as we go along, filling the gaps, which is why we constantly review the framework.

I have great sympathy with the issue raised by my hon. Friend, and I am glad that he has given me the opportunity to put on the record some of the measures we have already taken and to signal future announcements. I understand that OPRA is at present satisfied that the independent trustee is doing everything in his power to rectify the situation by collecting as much money as possible for the scheme, which was clearly underfunded when it refused to increase employer contributions by the recommended 20 per cent. There is a major problem with underfunding, but OPRA will continue to monitor the scheme until it is fully wound up. I will ensure that if I can open a door or kick a door open, I will certainly do so in the interests of my hon. Friend's constituents.