I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on a subject on which people often expend a huge amount of air and noise—but on which they do not cast much light. The Territorial Army is a deeply emotive subject for many reasons, not least because it is one of the few remaining links between an increasingly isolated Regular Army, an army that spends much of its time behind the wire or overseas—or recovering from overseas operations—and the civil community. We shall probably hear more about those links. However, much of the subject is clouded in the mysteries of time.

I pay tribute to Corporal Ted Chapman, a Victoria Cross holder from the second world war who died recently. He was entirely a territorial soldier—by instinct, enlistment, courage and achievement. The fact remains that there are no more of his type today, but there are good reasons for that and I hope to shed a little light on them.

Things have changed since 11 September for the regular forces and for the territorials. The President of the United States of America, in his state of the nation address, said:

"Thousands of dangerous killers, schooled in the methods of murder, often supported by outlaw regimes, are now spread throughout the world like ticking time bombs, set to go off without warning."

In September, the Prime Minister said that however the United States decides to proceed, we will stand "shoulder to shoulder" with it, providing moral, physical and military support in the war against terrorism. However, it is a new style of terrorism. It is not the terrorism that we have grown used to, mainly republican or loyalist. It is asymmetric warfare, and the threat is just as likely to come from within our shores against civil targets in an unexpected and wholly asymmetric fashion.

The Secretary of State for Defence, speaking on "Westminster Hour" last Sunday, said:

"We have to develop a force to protect key points and similar targets above and beyond our regular forces."

His choice of words was interesting. The term "key points" is known to many hon. Members. It was a title that the old Territorial Army, the TA that we used to know, used to describe a task with which it was familiar. It indicated threats to our homeland, and the forces that would be available to achieve protection and give us a feeling of security.

I suggest that the Territorial Army is in dire straits, and that it may not be able to achieve that sort of operational stance. Our regular forces are deployed abroad, waiting to deploy abroad or recovering from operations. I shall not say that that is unprecedented, and I shall not use the much-used word "overstretched", but our forces are stretched almost to the limit. There has never been a more pressing need for the Territorial Army.

Since the strategic defence review, the Territorial Army has been used to support the regular forces in dribs and drabs by means of individual reinforcements, section reinforcements and, occasionally, platoon reinforcements. It has become used to operating at that low level. It has done a fine job, but difficulties and anomalies have arisen because of the new threat that is emerging. I am thinking particularly of the teeth arms, with the exception of the Royal Engineers, who can and will deploy independently because they have complete unit autonomy up to squadron and, I believe, regimental level. The Yeomanry, the Royal Artillery and the much-depleted 15 battalions of infantry are, however, incapable of deploying at anything above company or squadron level, and even that would be extremely difficult.

Let us take the example of an infantry battalion from the curiously named East of England Regiment, which is made up of several fine old county regiments and whose companies now extend throughout the midlands and into East Anglia. Each company is commanded by a territorial company commander, who is supported by territorial platoon commanders, when they can be recruited. There is, however, no battalion staff worth speaking of, apart from a regular commanding office, a regular regimental sergeant-major and a handful of captains at battalion headquarters, although that is not always the case.

Such an arrangement has a couple of implications. First, that battalion of the East of England Regiment cannot deploy as an entity. Let us suppose that an infantry battalion was needed—this would be a reasonable task—to defend Fylingdales and to provide armed force beyond that available from the police. The East of England Regiment could not fulfil that role, although a regular unit could. A Territorial Army battalion is not configured for such a role, because it has no autonomy of deployment much above platoon level.

It is also difficult to train junior and middle-ranking officers and middle-ranking non-commissioned officers. Ted Chapman VC won his Victoria Cross as a corporal at the Teutoburger Wald and ended up as a company sergeant-major, having held, with great distinction, every rank from private to company sergeant-major in the third battalion of the Monmouthshire Regiment. That would not be possible today. There can be no such thing as a battalion exercise created by the Territorial Army, because everything that it does must be strapped on to the Regular Army. It is difficult to train company sergeant-majors, company seconds-in-command or even company commanders, because no intrinsic training mechanism exists. By the same token, it is impossible to deploy a battalion without heavy regular Army support, and the Territorial Army is no longer configured for such tasks. That is, I imagine, why the Secretary of State for Defence referred to developing a force to protect key points.

I must also underline the pay anomalies faced by territorials who are called to the colours. The battalion to which I used to have the pleasure and honour of belonging was deployed to Bosnia and received territorial reinforcements, despite being one of the few fully recruited battalions in the Army. TA soldiers came forward wearing the badges of sergeants and corporals, but had to be paid as private soldiers when they were deployed, and that anomaly was deeply unsettling for those non-commissioned officers. Furthermore, they could not fulfil the role of corporal or sergeant in a regular infantry battalion, despite receiving two weeks' training at the reserve mobilisation and training centre and, indeed, training from their regular battalion on arriving in Bosnia. They wore the badges, but they did not draw the pay and could not fill the boots of their regular counterparts. That is a severe oversight and difficulty in the treatment of our territorials.

There has been much unhelpful talk about the call-up of the Intelligence Corps reservists in the wake of the emergency created by 11 September. I choose my words carefully, because the Minister will be exceedingly bored by now of my colleagues and me prodding him about procedures that have been reported extremely unfavourably and improperly by the press. The response of the 3rd (Volunteer) Military Intelligence battalion to the call was splendid. Its soldiers are extremely specialist, as the Minister is aware, so their call-up was going to be unusual and slightly more difficult, especially as the procedure had not been practised since the Suez crisis.

Newspaper headlines stating that territorials were reluctant to come forward, or were backsliding when the call came, were extremely unhelpful and insulting to the men and women of that battalion and the Territorial Army. I deeply regret that, as it makes our territorials look like something that they are not. I do not want to dive too deeply into history, although I have every inclination so to do, but the majority of honours on the colours of every infantry battalion or yeomanry regiment have been won by territorials. Precisely the same spirit to respond to the call of the nation is alive and well inside the territorials.

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. I have heard, anecdotally, that one person in the battalion wanted to join and was called up, but his employer was reluctant to let him go. That is a modern development.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. If one reads the newspapers, one would be forgiven for thinking that employers had been universally difficult with territorials called to the colours, and that there was a great deal of backsliding from the soldiers themselves. I think that I am right to say that there were only two or three examples of soldiers in the battalion whose employers impeded their call-up.

Call-out procedures must reflect the information age in which we live and its style of asymmetric terrorist and conventional warfare, if that is not a contradiction in terms. There is no doubt that the procedures used to get these men and women under arms were rusty and difficult. The soldiers have not yet joined their units, despite the fact that it is nearly six months since the emergency occurred. I will not labour the point, because I am grateful to the Minister for all the work that has been undertaken on the problem, but I want to underscore the fact that some of the staffing procedures in the call-up of the battalion were slow. That is probably the kindest thing that I can say about them. A huge burden fell on the commanding officer and staff of that battalion, who did magnificent work to produce a magnificent response.

I shall return briefly to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). There have been difficulties with some employers, but the Minister has assured me that they are being tackled.

I move on to the vexed question of recruiting. I see a hobby horse dashing past the window, but I will not jump on it. The Territorial Army is in a strange position. The directive about infantry recruiting from the director of infantry suggests that the aim for a territorial infantry battalion is for 66 per cent. of the 76 per cent. recruited to attend camp every year, which is fine. A territorial unit, especially an infantry unit, is always under strength, being only ever three quarters manned. That allows a budget for the commanding officer who, unlike a Regular Army commanding officer, is charged with recruiting for his unit. If he is undermanned, there is money in his budget to allow him to recruit more effectively.

We are in an invidious position. Should a territorial battalion have 100 per cent. manning, there would no money left in the budget for recruiting. The point is arcane, but there is a substantial difference between the Regular Army and the Territorial Army in terms of recruiting. The territorials should have an independent budget at unit level or at central level to allow them to recruit effectively. The lack of such a budget is one of the reasons why so many of our territorial units, hand-in-hand with our regular units, are chronically under-recruited.

:Although some may be undermanned, others are overmanned.

I am grateful to the Minister. The fact remains that the majority of units are undermanned, and I ask the Minister to consider carefully this anomaly in recruiting policy.

Turning to the issue of retention of morale from the perspective of a former regular officer, I am conscious of the fact that regular units, particularly infantry units, are overmanned with majors and lieutenant-colonels, all looking for commands. They want battalions or regiments to command, in order to progress with their careers. The trend for territorial commanding officers to be regular Army officers—less so in the yeomanry, but increasingly in the infantry—means that there is a grave disincentive for the territorial officer to serve through the ranks and endeavour to achieve the rank of lieutenant-colonel, commanding his local unit.

Is my hon. Friend aware that my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who are present, are holders of the territorial decoration? The Government scrapped that decoration in 1999. What does he think that that has done for the morale of Territorial Army officers? Although the Government introduced a new decoration common to both officers and other ranks, which is a good thing, Territorial Army officers no longer have the incentive of the right to place letters after their name. Is it not ironic that that should have been done by politicians, who are only too glad to give themselves awards that permit them to place many letters after their names?

The old territorial decoration was an important incentive for those who give up so much of their spare time to serve for paltry rewards in the defence and the support of their country. That decoration was an important adjunct to territorial morale. Also, I am so glad that the title was changed to territorial decoration from volunteer decoration, as the initial letters for the latter were somewhat unfortunate.

It is important in terms of retention that the commanding officers of territorial units should come exclusively from the Territorial Army. The territorial decoration is also important in those terms.

On retention, does my hon. Friend agree that there has been a breakdown in the ability of men and women to remain loyal to the unit in recent years? He mentioned the East of England Regiment, in which, through the Essex and Hertfordshire Company, some of my constituents serve. Pride in the TA is based on its team strength, its unit loyalty and its cap badge. Does he agree that retention has been undermined by the loss of such loyalty through amalgamations?

It is interesting that I can recall a battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment being changed from an infantry battalion into a logistics regiment, some 10 years ago—

Order. Tempting as it may be to face the hon. Member who intervened, the hon. Gentleman's remarks should be addressed to the Chair.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

May I assist my hon. Friend? The battalion in question was the 5th (Volunteer) battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment, in which I had the honour to serve and which became the Royal Logistic Corps battalion.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supplying those facts. The Royal Anglian's 5th battalion transferred from being an infantry battalion to being a Royal Logistic Corps regiment. It was widely supposed that that would damage morale. In fact, it did not matter because local men continued to serve with their comrades and with those with whom they had joined. Cap badge was relatively irrelevant.

Furthermore, I urge the Minister to continue the trend for the director of reserve forces and cadets to be a territorial. I appreciate that the current post holder is a Royal Marine reservist. However, it is important for the post to be filled by someone who has a civilian job. If he does not, that individual cannot empathise with the men and women whom it is his duty to represent effectively. I hope that the Minister will reinforce the resistance to the imposition by the regular forces of an officer who is either a regular or a recently retired regular, recalled as a reservist. I shall be grateful for the Minister's support.

Over the years, our territorial forces have given huge service to this nation, largely unrewarded. The casualties that they have suffered and the honours that they have garnered for the nation are innumerable. Things have changed; the threat has changed. However, we need a force that can deploy quickly, flexibly and, above all, autonomously, if the threat about which we hear so much is to be countered effectively.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) on having secured the debate and on having put his case so eloquently and authoritatively. I cannot claim to speak with his authority—he is obviously well versed in the subject. I am also delighted that the Minister is to sum up. He is no stranger to my constituency. He has visited it and is familiar with my territory, so he will recognise what I am going to say. I am also pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) is present. I have often heard her making a passionate case for the Territorial Army.

I have listened to many debates on defence matters, but this is the first opportunity that I have found to contribute to one of them. I should like to record the contribution of the Territorial Army in my constituency. My sentiments are similar to those of the hon. Member for Newark. My constituency has a great military history, with traditions that run deeply. Generations of young men and women from Cleveland have served in the armed forces, many of them with our local regiments, most notably the Green Howards—who are closely associated with Cleveland and North Yorkshire—and, in the past, regiments such as the Durham Light Infantry and King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry, as well as in the technical disciplines of the Royal Engineers, the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers and the Royal Corps of Signals.

I think of the sacrifices of many of those young men, who died fighting for their country and their democracy in the conflicts of the past century, and I grieve to see the familiar local surnames on the war memorials in the towns and villages of my constituency. However, threats to our way of life and to the democratic process, from wherever they come—from hostile nations or organised terrorism—must, in the last resort, be overcome by force of arms. In that endeavour, as the hon. Member for Newark eloquently explained, the Territorial Army plays a vital role in backing up the regular forces and ensuring that there is an adequate reserve of trained men and women ready to meet every eventuality.

On my patch, the Territorial Army is based at Colby Newham on the southern outskirts of Middlesbrough. At Colby Newham there is a detachment of B company, the Green Howards, otherwise known as the Tyne Tees Regiment. Also at Colby Newham is 104 Pioneer Squadron of the Royal Logistic Corps, a detachment of the Army Cadet Force and a squadron of the Air Training Corps. Altogether, there are 140 Territorial Army soldiers training there. There are 68 youngsters trained by 12 adult instructors.

Those people do not only train, valuable as that is. They take part in valuable community events. The refurbishment of Albert park, the main park in the centre of Middlesbrough, was carried out by 104 Pioneer Squadron. Over a few days it helped to repair boats from the park's boating lake and to erect new railings. It makes school visits in the area. It assists in fundraising for local charities, and only last year the Army Cadet Force took part, with good results, in the Imperial Cancer Research Fund "race for life".

This morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South reminded me that last year, during the flood crisis, the Territorial Army played an important role—including its work in Skinningrove in my constituency. It makes an important contribution to the spirit of Teeside. I note its support and recognition of multiculturalism in our society. A few members of our ethnic community are serving with the Royal Logistic Corps, and I am sure that that phenomenon will grow in the years to come.

The Army Cadet Force also participated in the Middlesbrough Mela 2000, which is a festival of the Asian community. That has been happening for several years and the Territorial Army has played its part, mingling with the Asian community. I know that because I have seen it myself; I have not attended every year, but when I have, I have seen the Territorial Army regularly.

Issues need to be tackled if the Territorial Army is to grow and be sustained—certainly in my constituency. I hope that the Minister will take the points I want to raise with him in the spirit in which they are meant. There is a need for the Ministry of Defence to pay closer attention to the standard of the buildings in which the Territorial Army in my locality is housed. A shoddy, down-at-heel building will certainly not attract young recruits. I have been to the premises at various times and there are always big repair bills. Recent bad weather has caused costly damage to the buildings, which could have been avoided if thought and cash had been applied to keeping them in reasonable repair.

As the hon. Member for Newark mentioned, there is a need to examine how the Territorial Army recruits officers. Locally, the Royal Logistic Corps has an establishment of six officers, but only three are in post. The Green Howards had similar vacancies, but that has been eased by the recent arrival of a permanent staff instructor. More thought needs to be given to that and, possibly, greater budget provision needs to be made available.

If there is no one to command our soldiers, training is attenuated and commitment must suffer. More thought must be given to the wages and allowances made to Territorial Army soldiers as well as to the legal obligations of employers to allow time off for training and service. The recent experience of Territorial Army personnel being reluctant to serve in Afghanistan because of job pressures shows that change is needed. Locally, our TA detachments are in fine heart. If we give them the backing and funding that they need, I am sure that we can show that our area can provide excellent soldiers with spirit and determination.

As the hon. Member for Newark said, the Territorial Army serves this country without fear or favour. The Government are doing everything possible, while they make hard choices in restructuring our defences to meet our new challenges. Those challenges are brought about by the end of the cold war and the ever greater challenges that confront all of us after 11 September.

In conclusion, I hope that the Minister takes what I have said in the right spirit, because people in my area are looking forward to a positive response from the Government.

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) on securing the debate and on giving a detailed analysis of the problems suffered by the Territorial Army. I recall that his last job in the Regular Army involved reservists, so he knows more about that subject than many in this Room, and on both sides.—[Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, so we must look forward to the Minister's speech to find out more.

I was on the Army reserve until recently, but I have fallen off the top because I am too old. I put my name down to volunteer for the TA in October, in case there was a possibility of going to Afghanistan. However, I do not think many soldiers from the TA have gone to Afghanistan.

As a young regular officer, I had a certain disdain for reservists until, along with one other person in this Room, I attended staff college. I was required to engage in a presentation of what was known as "One Army", which was a concept whereby the TA and the regular Army were as one. Having to do this presentation revealed to me that the TA was extremely important and that reservists were crucial to the defence of this country, which in the arrogance of youth I had not realised before. Later, I worked with the reserve special forces and was impressed by what I saw. People gave their time freely—well, not exactly freely because they were paid for it—but had to juggle that with their responsibilities as employees or employers.

On this point, I recall the German concept known as "citizen in uniform". By having reservists, one relates the armed forces—and particularly the army—to society. The "citizen in uniform" concept, which is part of the Bundeswehr, is crucial because the fewer reservists we have, the wider the division grows between the armed forces and society. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) referred to the importance of military aid for the civil authority, which is when people see the TA in action. However, if there are fewer and fewer soldiers, the Territorial Army will be seen less and less, so we need the TA to be part of society.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Newark has already mentioned, suddenly, after 11 September, we are involved in a long-term conflict, perhaps for the first time since Korea and certainly for the first time since the end of the cold war. It is not the same as the conflict during the second world war, but it is a long-term conflict. Suddenly, we must ask where the reserve is when we need it, because whether one thinks of Fylingdales, local defence or whatever, it is not there. That is extremely important to the defence of the country. Perhaps it has brought us back to what we realised before 1989; that there are threats out there. We need home defence in the face of international terrorism. That is not fanciful.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newark mentioned the reinforcement in Afghanistan. I understand that several TA people from London were called up and that their employers were difficult about it. I hope that the Minister has made note of that point.

There is a general philosophical point about the importance of the reserve forces. It is often easy to deal with big projects—a big airbus or fighter planes—but we must understand that reserve forces are crucial. The reduction in the TA was intended in the strategic defence review. I quote from paragraph 109, which states that

"numbers will fall to around 40,000 volunteers with reductions concentrated in yeomanry, infantry and supporting combat services"—

in other words, in what used to be called the teeth arms. Since 1997, we have been selling off buildings, such as the Duke of York's headquarters, which used to be a big TA headquarters. Some units have been scrapped and some have been pushed further out of London. That has reduced the impact of reserve forces on society.

We now need the reserves, but where are they when we need them, Mrs. Deputy Speaker?

Order. I remind hon. Members that I should be addressed as Mrs. Roe, as I am not a Deputy Speaker but a member of the Chairmen's Panel.

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) on securing the debate and on introducing it so well. I am pleased to participate in the debate as part of the Back-Bench platoon. I served in the Territorial Army for seven years, including service in two officer training corps and then in a NATO role infantry battalion, the 5 Royal Anglian. Its successor today, at least in the infantry role, is known as the East of England Regiment.

I want to raise three issues. First, I shall speak about formed units. Secondly, I want to refer to filling appointments with TA and regular officers, and, thirdly, I want to speak about home defence, not least in the light of events on 11 September.

One of the main thrusts of the Governments strategic defence review, at least in theory, was to make the Territorial Army more integrated with its regular counterpart. As a result, however, most TA soldiers now know that, in the event of war, their units would, effectively, be broken up and they would be fed piecemeal into regular units to reinforce them, perhaps as battle casualty replacements. It is difficult to maintain morale and unit cohesion in TA units when many of the soldiers understand that, if they have to fight—in the event of their training coming to fruition and deterrence failing—they will not fight as one unit.

That is not true.

The Minister says that that is untrue, but I understand that that is likely to be the case. For example, under current arrangements, most infantry battalions would be broken up, but I shall return to that point when I speak about home defence.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the central elements of serving in the armed forces is the cohesion and camaraderie that is created by serving together? When I served in the Territorial Army, I remember being astonished during my first assessment weekend that from a Saturday morning until a Sunday evening such camaraderie could develop between a group of people in the space of 36 hours. Surely that is the whole point.

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. When people volunteer to serve in the reserve forces, we need to keep them interested so that they continue volunteering. An undermining of unit morale and cohesion has an effect on not only recruitment, but retention. For many years, the TA has faced the problem that, although it has recruited people to serve, it has had a challenge retaining them. If the cohesion of units is undermined, the challenge of retention for commanding officers becomes all the greater.

Before the Minister quotes figures at me and says that everything is all right, I wish to make a comparison with other reserve forces. I recently tabled a written question to his Department in which I said that, good though it is, the Royal Marine Reserve is 10 per cent. below establishment. The Royal Naval Reserve is nearly 20 per cent. below establishment and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force is approximately 30 per cent. below establishment. The hon. Gentleman certainly cannot tell us that all is well because a simple comparison with other reserve forces reveals that not to be the case.

Appointments have been a long-running issue within the Territorial Army and, it is fair to say, within the Ministry of Defence. It was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark. The TA has a particular challenge with officer retention. The sort of people who make good TA officers also tend to be good in business. They are promoted and come under increasing pressure to choose between their TA career and their professional career. The Minister is nodding. One of the incentives for officers to remain in the TA is to hope to have the honour one day of commanding a unit.

If, however, more and more unit commands—battalion commanding officers, for example—go to regular officers because the Regular Army needs to find slots for people of that rank, that is a disincentive for TA officers to stay on. If it becomes apparent that those slots will not be available, they will think that they may as well concentrate on their professional career. A judicious balance must be struck between these competing objectives. I make a plea to the Minister on behalf of those in the TA to bear it in mind that, each time a TA slot is given to a regular officer, that has knock-on implications for the retention of TA officers further down the line.

There has been a great deal of talk since 11 September about so-called asymmetric warfare. It is said that some may not wish to attack members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation by the usual conventional means, but may use terrorist techniques, such as chemical or biological weapons. To give credit to the Select Committee on Defence, it identified that threat in the previous Parliament and used the phrase "asymmetric warfare" in some of its excellent reports. In a sense, the Committee was ahead of the game. It said that if there were an asymmetric threat to the United Kingdom—and, after what happened in the United States, we know that that can happen—more troops would be needed to respond to it. It said also that, in many ways, the TA was ideally suited for that purpose.

Let me conjure up circumstances in which there was a concerted asymmetric attack on the United Kingdom by people using chemical and biological weapons in tube stations, railway stations and other transport modes in large public buildings. To reassure the public, a large presence of troops would be needed. We would need troops in the past with the relevant equipment, who had been trained in chemical and biological warfare. The Territorial Army has trained for that purpose for many years and has that capability. However, there were fewer troops than there are now. In the circumstances I am describing, there would not be enough regular troops to go round the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newark said, that is because a proportion of the Regular Army is always deployed abroad in one capacity or another.

If we take the threat of asymmetric warfare seriously—I believe that we should, particularly after what happened on 11 September—there could be a new role for many TA units. They could work as formed units and be trained for a home defence role, specifically to assist citizens in the event of an attack. The Minister may recall that a Home Service Force was formed in the 1980s. It was trained and constituted to protect key points against saboteurs, and was specifically orientated for a home defence role. There could be a modern and relevant role for the TA in the 21st century. In particular, its infantry battalions—if I may be allowed that small plug—could train specifically to provide a layer of defence for the United Kingdom in the event of such a threat. That would mean more units, and the defence budget would need more money. However, given what happened on 11 September, I believe that the money would be well spent.

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the potential of the TA in defending the homeland. However, I ask him to comment on the danger of restricting the TA solely to that role, because there are other functions that it could fulfil. It may be difficult to recruit the breadth of skills that are needed, and many people would like to be able to serve in the front line elsewhere.

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The two roles are not mutually exclusive. If some TA units were to train in that role, that does not mean that they could never do anything else. Part of the concept of the armed forces is that they are inherently flexible. My argument is that there are not enough TA units. I would like to see extra TA units re-established, which may specialise in home defence but could also be deployed for other tasks. For example, a TA infantry unit that specialised in home defence could assist in flood defence, if the town in which it was based was threatened by rising floodwater. The two roles are not mutually exclusive.

In conclusion, history shows that when our country has been in great danger, the Territorial Army has often rallied to the colours. It has an honourable record of service. Whenever the bugle has sounded, it has responded to the call. As a result, it has sometimes been taken for granted. Its contribution should be properly recognised and honoured. The TA also needs to be resourced.

For the purposes of transparency, I want to register an interest. I serve on the regular reserve of officers and think that I will do so for at least another 10 years. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) on obtaining the debate, and I thank the Minister for listening.

In any debate about the Territorial Army, it is appropriate to begin by paying tribute to all those who give up so much of their time, because serving in the TA demands sacrifices in family life, social life, and work. It has a huge amount to offer the Regular Army. It provides a link between the Regular Army and the civilian world, and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) has paid tribute to that. Critically, when members of the Territorial Army join the Regular Army, they bring with them skills that are not usually available to the Regular Army. I had direct experience of that when I assembled a battle group to go to the British Army training unit, Suffield in the mid-1990s, about 15 per cent. of which was made up of members of the Territorial Army. They were easy to slot into the order of battle, and as the battle group went on, they contributed more and more. By the end, some of them were more useful than some of the regular troops that were there in the first place. Let no one doubt the real contribution that they make.

There is much that is right about the Territorial Army. The debate comes down to two simple questions: first, what is the Territorial Army's role in the modern army, particularly post-11 September, and secondly, how will it meet that role? As is appropriate for a Westminster Hall debate—they tend not to be party political—I shall make my remarks as constructive as possible. In trying to assess the Territorial Army's role post-11 September, I considered the strategic defence review of July 1998. In it, the Government said that the Territorial Army was then about 56,000-strong and still at 80 per cent. of its size at the end of the cold war.

That was its establishment.

It was largely made up of formed units at low readiness that were intended to defend the United Kingdom against invasion or to reinforce the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in Germany.

We need a smaller, more readily deployable and usable Territorial Army that is closely integrated with regular force elements. Although numbers will fall to about 40,000 volunteers, with reductions concentrated in the yeomanry, infantry and support-combat arms, we will be able to deploy more rapidly and bring the Territorial Army to full operational readiness. To achieve that, we will create an Army mobilisation centre and ensure that TA units are fully manned, trained and equipped to the standards needed to undertake their tasks effectively.

We must ask whether, as a result of the strategic defence review, the TA is indeed now fully manned, trained and equipped. I suspect that it is not. We must also ask whether the review's vision is still correct after 11 September. To answer that question, we must consider the three types of operations that the Army is likely to undertake post-11 September. The first must now be the war against terrorism. The second is an uneasy grouping of United Nations and Northern Ireland-type peacekeeping, peace-enforcement, counter-terrorist low-intensity operations. The third is conventional war.

There is still a clear need, which we often forget about, to reinforce the Regular Army with proper formed units. I strongly suspect that the TA is not geared up for a wholesale call-up. We would be extremely foolish to forget its role in conventional war. We rediscovered it when we had to fight the Gulf war. I have no doubt that, post-11 September, such expeditionary warfare may once again be on the agenda. We never know when such events are round the corner, and we must make sure that the TA is ready to meet them.

Surely that is the crux of the matter. Suddenly, we are in a new ball game in which, notwithstanding the strategic defence review, we might have to deploy force overseas. The strategic defence review does not have the capability to commit a formed TA battalion or unit of that size.

That is right. At a time of endless UN operations and the war against terrorism, it is tempting to forget about the conventional warfare role, but that remains extremely important.

I shall now deal with the rough alliance of peacekeeping, peace-enforcement, counter-terrorist low-intensity operations. Those were the operations envisaged for the Territorial Army in the July 1998 defence review, but the fact that it is not fully manned at the moment must undermine that. The estimates that I have seen suggest that there is a shortfall of about 18,000 recruits, and that must be addressed. The TA has a vital role to play in reinforcing the Regular Army, and in releasing its units to take part in the war against terrorism.

Many solutions to that shortfall could be implemented. For a start, the Territorial Army must be more proactive about the way that it recruits people. When I left the Regular Army—hon. Gentlemen may look puzzled—no one made any attempt to recruit me into the Territorial Army. That must be addressed. [Interruption.] At the end of the debate, my hon. Friends may know why.

Secondly, the Territorial Army must be more flexible about how it incorporates people into its ranks. An extremely good scheme for watchkeepers has now been abolished. Regular Army units regularly need watchkeepers, and an obvious pool of people with ex-Regular Army experience could fulfil that role. When we took a battle group to BATUS—British Army training unit, Suffield—each of the company squadron groups had a Territorial Army regular reserve watchkeeper. The scheme was abolished four or five years ago, and such flexibility needs to be restored.

Thirdly, a legislative review is necessary in the wake of changes in employment law to ensure that people can leave their work easily and be called up for operations and for the Territorial Army, as many of my hon. Friends said. Fourthly, we need to tackle pay differentials, which have, as far as I am aware, applied for five, six or even 10 years. It is simply wrong that people who serve in the Territorial Army are treated differently from those who serve in the Regular Army. That must be addressed.

Recognition is important. We have already discussed a territorial decoration. People who give up their free time for public service like to be recognised for that, and it is wrong that they are not.

The question of real estate has been touched on in previous speeches. People who give up their spare time for such activities want to do so conveniently. Many of the buildings being sold off are in the centre of town. The question of the Duke of York's has been raised. We must stop that process now.

The final matter that I should like to discuss is the war against terrorism. Many hon. Members have been enormously impressed over the years by the United States National Guard, a force that can deal with all types of civil emergency. The United States places a much bigger emphasis—and not merely because of the events of 11 September—on what it calls homeland defence. The Secretary of State suggested in a recent speech that in his view the Regular Army is not available for that task. The Territorial Army is ideally suited for that role, for two reasons in particular. It has excellent links with local communities, which need to be developed and improved. In that respect, we should note the importance of county regimental links, which draw people into the Territorial Army and allow them to feel that they are making a genuine contribution to their local community.

I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) for giving way, and to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) for having secured the debate. Glancing around the Chamber, I noticed my old squadron leader sitting behind the Minister, but I shall not embarrass him further.

Does my hon. Friend feel, as I did when visiting America, the close link between the general public and the National Guard? A National Guardsman told me, "The best thing about this is that the public keep coming up to me and saying how pleased they are to see us here." That is exactly the same link as the Territorial Army has with society as a whole. Does my hon. Friend agree that because of that link the money that is so desperately needed and richly deserved is vital?

Absolutely. I endorse my hon. Friend's comments and conclude by emphasising that point. The link between the Territorial Army and the county that it serves is important.

The Territorial Army is ideally placed to achieve co-ordination between the various civil authorities—fire, police, ambulance and the new strategic health authorities—and the military, which is critical in fulfilling the role of homeland defence effectively. In the summer, I spent a lot of my time in my constituency on the question of Kent Ambulance national health service trust. It was obvious that we did not have proper contingency plans to deal with a big civil emergency in Kent. Enormous infrastructure issues are involved, including the channel tunnel and the ports. There was a sort of plan to deal with a disaster in any of those places, but an all-embracing plan looking after fire, police, the strategic health authorities and the Territorial Army, which could be easily called up to provide the manpower, was noticeably missing.

We must review the role of the Territorial Army post-11 September and not forget its traditional role of reinforcing the Regular Army in times of conventional warfare and in low-intensity, peacekeeping operations. That review must be conducted in concert with the main defence review, not as a postscript tacked on to the end—the Territorial Army is too important for that.

As my hon. Friend pointed out, the integration of the regulars and the reserves is crucial. Does he share my concern that, because some members of the Army Board lack direct experience in sharing civilian and military roles and of the practical difficulties involved, they are not aware of sensitivities?

My hon. Friend makes his point well—we must review the Territorial Army in concert with the Regular Army—but I shall steer clear of criticising the Army Board.

Order. The hon. Gentleman must bring his remarks to a close. I am sure that he understands the rules of Westminster Hall.

I shall certainly do so, Mrs. Roe.

The review must make use of the Territorial Army's new role in homeland defence and, critically, we must ensure that service in the Territorial Army remains as attractive as possible.

I am delighted to take part in today's debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) on securing it, and on the effective way in which he deployed his arguments. He raised issues of great importance to the armed forces not only after the events of 11 September, but because of the wide range of challenges constantly faced by the armed forces that go beyond that of terrorist threat.

I also enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar), who set a good example to hon. Members, especially new ones, by skilfully weaving together his constituency experiences and, at the end of his speech, making some powerful points about the general debate. He tempted me to alter my own comments by making additional references to helicopters, but as I am speaking on behalf of my party, I will keep to more general points.

We benefited from the comments made by the self-styled platoon of Conservative Back Benchers, who deployed their considerable experiences and talents in this subject. I cannot imagine anyone daring to challenge our facilities knowing that such skilful and able individuals defend them.

I wish to frame my comments today on the basis of questions raised by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson), who asked what was the Territorial Army's role in today's armed forces and how it could be fulfilled. Whether it could fulfil that role effectively is also the subject of today's debate.

The key point about the Territorial Army is the flexibility and resource that it offers to our armed forces. It produces a reserve that we can deploy in several ways. I recently read the excellent biography of Churchill, by Lord Jenkins. I have reached the section on the second world war, which tells us that whenever Churchill met a general, he took the opportunity to ask him about his reserves. From the general's answer, Churchill determined his effectiveness in winning the battle, by finding out whether the general had deployed reserves that are available and could give flexibility. That is the key role that the Territorial Army can fulfil. It is wide and varied, and I hope that the Territorial Army will play it with flexibility.

It would be all too easy to conclude from recent events that the whole posture of our armed forces must be changed, and end up with a set of armed forces and a Territorial Army that is attempting to fight the last battle, although the next battle may be different. I argue, as did the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent, that we need a Territorial Army with flexibility to deploy the specialist and skilled troops who were sent to help our armed forces in such places as Bosnia and Afghanistan. The TA must also have the flexibility to deal with homeland issues that have been raised since 11 September, on which many hon. Members commented, and the flexibility to deploy more forces if we must fight a larger-scale conventional war. We all hope that that will not be the case, but we cannot guarantee that. It is only a few years since we had to deploy large forces in places such as Kuwait.

I hope that our Territorial Army will fulfil all those roles, and although the Government developed plans to allow the Territorial Army to fulfil a home defence role following 11 September, I urge them not to turn the Territorial Army into a form of home guard. That would demotivate some people who want to be part of the Territorial Army, and the TA would not meet the challenges that we may have to face in several years.

The second issue that I shall cover is whether the Territorial Army's present configuration meets the challenges of a flexible reserve to fulfil the roles of back-up for special forces, a conventional reserve and homeland defence.

Several hon. Members touched on the problems that the Territorial Army faces. The size of the Territorial Army has reduced over the past few years from 75,000 personnel in 1998 to around 59,000 in 1997. The figure is closer to 41,000 today. To be fair to this Government and the previous Conservative Government, that decline occurred alongside shrinkage of defence expenditure and the number of people in the main armed forces. That was a consequence of the end of the cold war and we should therefore welcome some of the contraction of the forces.

However, there is a worry that further shrinkage of the TA will mean that it will not be able to fulfil the roles that I mentioned. We must consider the 41,000 troops in the light of Government figures that suggest that only 50 to 60 per cent. are deployable at any point.

We cannot compare that percentage with previous years in entirety. The Minister wrote a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) in December 2001, which revealed that, unfortunately, somebody in the Ministry of Defence seems to have destroyed the records of the proportion of the Territorial Army who were available during years before 1998. However, recent figures show that only 50 to 60 per cent. of 41,000 people are deployable at any one time. I hope that the Minister agrees that that figure is too low. Does he plan to increase the availability of the 41,000 troops?

The role that we envisage for Territorial Army forces has a bearing on their availability. Several hon. Members touched on the problem faced by some members of the Territorial Army who were asked to go to Afghanistan or other foreign countries. That may be disruptive, and I understand that individuals and their employers could be reticent about long-term deployment. We must consider how to deal with that problem, and we must not demotivate people who want to be part of the Territorial Army by giving the impression that it is a home guard that will stand guard over various establishments in the event of terrorism. I hope that the Minister will address that and acknowledge that the motivation of personnel in the Territorial Army is linked to the role that the Government envisage for them.

The other issue that relates to the number of troops that can be deployed is the amount of wastage from year to year in the Territorial Army. The Minister provided figures in a recent written answer that suggest that wastage is as high as 25 to 30 per cent. That might be significant with regard to several issues that hon. Members have raised, such as motivation, pay and—even—facilities. We must reduce that wastage, if we are to ensure that as many as possible of the 41,000 people are available at any time.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newark for securing the debate. It has given hon. Members the opportunity to hold the Government to account on the issues under discussion. My party supports the key work that has been done by members of the Territorial Army, and we look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on how their role can be strengthened.

I draw the Committee's attention to the entry under my name in the Register of Members' Interests: I remain a serving officer in the Territorial Army.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) on securing the debate, and the hon. Members and my hon. and gallant Friends who have spoken. They have brought a wealth of experience and expertise to the debate. It has been a high-quality debate, and I will endeavour not to lower the tone.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newark made a plea to the Minister that the director of reserve forces and cadets should be a proper, pukka reservist. That relates to an important issue, about which I wish to add my own request. The reservists are embedded in the civilian community from which they draw their livelihoods, and they have a different ethos from the regulars, whose life style is predominantly closed and military, and who are much more amenable to central direction. It is important that the man who is charged with advising the Minister about the reserves should be a reservist with a proper day job. We have recently done well in that respect, but I wish that to be maintained.

I share the concern that has been expressed about the number of Territorial Army command appointments that have been taken up by regular officers. However, during the many years that I have been a Territorial Army officer I have received many regular commanding officers and, although I always found that experience profoundly shocking at the outset, it gingered up the regiment. The regiment benefited a great deal from occasionally having a regular commanding officer. Therefore, I would not wish to see that possibility ruled out, although it would be undesirable if too many regular officers commanded Territorial regiments.

Is there not merit in the idea that Territorial Army regiments should have a reservist commanding officer and a regular adjutant to ginger up the troops?

That consideration is worth taking on board.

The Opposition's position remains the same as it was at the time of the strategic defence review, and throughout the previous Parliament. We believed that 59,000 was the correct figure with regard to the size of the Territorial Army. If that figure were significantly reduced, that would damage the Territorial Army's ability to deliver its historic tasks of providing the civilian and military link, regenerating the reserves, and providing support to the Regular Army—and more of that support is required in the post-SDR environment, with its increased demand for expeditionary forces, and for support to the civilian power.

We hold to that position—although, given the events of 11 September 2001, perhaps we should review our assumptions, particularly in respect of what may come out of the additional chapter to the SDR. New roles have already been mentioned this morning by my hon. Friends. Even if we held to our view that 59,000 was the right figure, we might have to review whether a larger establishment was required to deliver a trained strength of 59,000, so there may need to be some expansion of the Territorial Army. Such issues need to be considered at great length. The measures would not be inexpensive. We shall issue a consultation document in the next few weeks that invites a debate on the subject.

The principal asset that the Territorial Army brings to the table in which the Regular Army is interested is the 3,000 serial reservists—serial mobilisers, should I say—who go from one mobilisation to another. One can understand the belief on the part of some regular officers that if all that is wanted and needed from the TA is those 3,000, there is no need for an establishment of 59,000 or, as it now is, 41,000. We must be aware that the reduction in the establishment of the TA took place at the same time as the change in emphasis in its structure, which reduced formed units that were deployable as such, and placed much greater emphasis on an individual training organisation capable of filling gaps in the Regular Army.

That has led to two problems. First, we are now fishing in too small a pond to find the required number of deployable reservists. The SDR reduction in the TA hit most severely the units that provided the bulk of its commitment in the Balkans. Secondly, the formed units are the goose that lays the golden egg, in terms of generating serial mobilisers.

The previous director of reserve forces and cadets described the TA as a broad church. Let us say that one third of it is young, with few financial commitments or family responsibilities. Such people are readily able to deploy, and gain a great deal from such experience. At the other end of the broad church is a third made up of older people with family responsibilities and developed careers. They are less able, but not impossible, to deploy. A constituent of mine—a judge—has recently returned from the Balkans. He can deploy, but is much less flexible than someone in the third at the other end of the spectrum. The other third is somewhere in between the two.

We rely disproportionately on the third that is much less deployable to provide the training infrastructure of the formed unit and deliver the third that is deployable. The reduction in the emphasis on the infrastructure and the formed unit is already beginning to show, in terms of the damage that it will do to the TA's ability to deliver the number of men that the Regular Army requires.

We have already begun to see evidence of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark referred to the level of undermanning. The Minister referred to some units that are overmanned, but most of those are a consequence of the reduction in establishments in SDR and it will be a relatively short-term phenomenon. We must not ignore the warning signals. The footprint of the TA is already far too dispersed to fulfil properly its function of recruiting and retaining. In many respects, the TA lacks critical mass to train effectively. My hon. Friend referred to the inability to train at battle group and brigade level. Such quality of training makes the TA capable of delivering the 3,000 serial mobilisers that are so important to it, because it provides the infrastructure for those who will train them. It is a vital resource.

There is already a severe shortage of young officers. I am involved in that aspect of the TA. At the territorial commissioning board, a large number of high quality candidates are coming through. However, not enough of them reach Sandhurst. The courses there are under strength and some are being cancelled. Sandhurst is now complaining about the quality of the training of the candidates when they initially present themselves at the college. They are effectively untrained, and what was designed as a testing course is increasingly becoming a training course. That is a severe problem that must be avoided. I can think of many initiatives that we could adopt to deal with that, but time prevents me from listing them, and I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

As usual I have a long, and I must say, as I did not write it myself, beautifully crafted speech. However, in the interests of trying to reply to the points that have been made, I will have to abandon it. I shall start with some general issues and then move on to more specific ones. I shall try not to miss anything out, but if anyone wanted to catch my eye towards the end, I would be happy to respond.

I shall start by considering the exact meaning of the ability to deploy. In a written answer to the hon. Member for New Forest, West(Mr. Swayne), I said:

"Under the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) the Territorial Army (TA) was restructured to make it more relevant and usable and more fully integrated into our armed forces and defence plans. As a result, more TA units are now held at a higher state of readiness than pre-SDR and we continue to assess that the TA infantry battalions have the capability to be deployed on operations as formed units. As such they are an essential part of the Army's order of battle."—[Official Report, 12 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 517W.]

We must recognise that in the old Territorial Army, at its pre-SDR strength of 58,000, there was no level of readiness for the type of operations that we envisage. We have reduced numbers and increased the quality of the tasks that we demand of the TA. As with German reservists and conscripts, the option of forming static infantry battalions for the defence of the homeland is no longer there. Nor is it considered necessary to the same extent as it was in the past. That is not a party political point, but a military one.

We must recognise that as rules change, we must change the ability of our men and women to cope with them. Hence the development of the centre at Chilwell, which has yet fully to make its mark but which is rapidly proving a valuable resource in the mobilisation of Territorial Army personnel. It will continue to play a growing and important role in the future. There is a gap in capability, which we are trying to meet. Our aspiration is to create fully formed units to perform the tasks that we expect of them. Yes, at present they do much in the way of individual reinforcement, but that always has been and always will be a role for reserves.

This is the first opportunity that I have had for a debate, as Minister responsible for reserves, with so many of my reserve officers actually present and speaking to me. I can assure them that, as with any reserve officer that I meet, I will listen to them very carefully.

To make a general point, as hon. Members will know, we will shortly publish a consultation paper on material that ought to go into the new chapter. I would welcome their responses and I will be happy to talk to them individually about that if they so wish. I include the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for New Forest, West, who, despite many grey hairs, is still well within the age limit, unlike the unfortunate hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who has had to drop off the twig—I will not make the obvious remark.

The TA is about 1,300 short of its establishment of 41,200. There is a high turnover of TA personnel, and we are trying to find out why. However, the rate has always been high. Perhaps it is something with which we have to live. Given the rate of flux, a shortage of about 1,300 is not considered to be critical. We are trying, for instance, to recruit into medical units, but it takes a great deal of time because we need specialised personnel.

We need to strike a balance. Yes, we want more highly skilled personnel, but we also need flexibility. I agree that we need both, but there is a dissonance between the two. We cannot have extreme flexibility and extreme skill, so when looking to build up a highly skilled specialist unit we must recognise that it may be a role for other parts of the TA. We must be careful when doing that, because the concept of the home guard must be avoided at all costs. Indeed, I would utterly reject that as a role for the Territorial Army. That is not what it is for, and it is not what we want.

As far as we can, we are trying to do away with different decorations for officers and men. It is generally accepted to be an outmoded concept.

The regulations with regard to commanding officers of the TA are clear. TA officers who are recommended in confidential reports will always get command in preference to regular officers, but we must remember that the pressure of their civilian jobs often makes life difficult for TA officers. Frankly, I do not see a way out of that dilemma. By and large, officers hold responsible jobs in the community and many do not have the option of continuing as part-time senior officers, given the necessary commitment that it requires.

The present director of reserve forces and cadets is Brigadier Tom Lang, who is a Royal Marine. I know Tom well, and meet him regularly. His is a part-time appointment. There is no question of the directorship being taken over by a regular officer, but we are giving the director more roles and increased responsibilities, and we will need either more part-time officers or a full-time reserve officer. Another possibility might be for the cadets to be moved from the TA. I am talking about possibilities, not about Government policy. I am thinking on my feet. It is a complex situation, but I guarantee that that post will be kept as a reserve post, although the increasing workload may make it a full-time past rather than the present part-time post of two days a week.

It is a most important point, and I am grateful to the Minister for giving it due cognisance. I understand that for the Royal Marine reservist—I appreciate the nuances—only someone who holds down a full-time job is able to empathise, recommend and advise correctly. I therefore strongly submit that anything that can be done to keep such a person in that post, even if it involves a dissolution of responsibilities, should be done. I am grateful that the point has been acknowledged.

I am happy to acknowledge it. The ideal would be for someone in normal full-time civilian employment to do the job, but I recognise the importance of the director having empathy with what goes on. I recognise that an increasing amount of work needs to be done.

I do not think that I have ever had to reply to a debate to such a senior former officer as the hon. Member for Newark, and I am glad that he secured the debate.

Will the Minister answer a question from a much more junior officer? Our defence needs have changed since 11 September, not only at home—this place was a target—but on overseas expeditions. We played a supporting role in Afghanistan, and we may need to do so in other places.

I accept that point, but there is a shortage of officers. The reasons may be demographic or societal; and young people may have a more selfish attitude or be more materialistic. I could ramble on for hours about the possibilities, and I cannot honestly say that I have an answer. There are some typical officers on the Opposition Benches. If that is good enough for the hon. Gentlemen, I do not see why it should not be good enough for others.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) asked some questions. I must make it clear that reservists will not be going to Afghanistan. Some have been compulsorily called up, and I support that call 100 per cent. I have argued for it at the Ministry of Defence for the past year or so, because I think that it is right, but no reserves will be going to Afghanistan. They will be based in this country. There might be a possibility of them going to Afghanistan in future, but certainly not now.

Ethnic minorities are important in helping us to increase the numbers. Tomorrow, I am going to an exhibition in Hounslow about the role of Sikh regiments, which will be interesting. I am happy to visit the centre to see for myself how dilapidated it is, although I am sure that it will get a coat of paint at some time.

I think that I have covered as many points as I can, so I shall end by quoting a letter from the colonel of the 3rd (Volunteer) Military Intelligence Battalion, who said:

"The battalion's officers and non-commissioned officers accept the personal, financial and professional disruptions that attend mobilisation willingly and with good grace."

He adds that the vast majority will serve, and that has always been the case.

I call Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is—

Order. I remind hon. Members that I should be addressed as Mrs. Roe, because I am a member of the Chairmen's Panel.

I have had trouble on that score before. Good morning, Mrs. Roe, and thank you.

This is not the first, and certainly not the last, Westminster Hall debate on London housing, and I hope that there will be further debates on the Floor of the House. It is clear from the number of hon. Members present that there is serious concern about housing shortages and housing problems in London. The housing crisis affects almost everyone: those on waiting lists, those in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, those who are homeless or, unfortunately, still roofless, and those who are desperate to pay high private rents or buy a flat in London.

The situation demands large-scale public intervention, which has helped people out of poverty and misery in London in the past. There were large-scale council house developments after the first and second world wars and right up until the advent of the Tory Government in 1979. Many people owe the fact that they live in reasonable accommodation to the enormous efforts that successive Labour Governments and many Labour local authorities put into expanding their social rented stock, and such an approach remains the only long-term solution to London's housing problems, which the market alone cannot solve.

I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), will refer to this when she replies, but it is important to recognise that London's housing problems are markedly different from those in other parts of the country. Its problems are driven as much as anything by the property boom, which has a pernicious effect on all housing sectors and particularly on public services and on the ability of public service workers to live in London.

Lists and figures abound, and they tell a terrifying story. In 1998, 19,000 homeless households were in accommodation in London, but the number has now gone up to 48,000. The figure has increased from 2,000 to 4,600 in the borough of Haringey, and from 500 to 1,400 in my borough of Islington. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) will catch your eye, Mrs. Roe, because he wants to say more about that. Throughout London, the figures tell a similarly terrifying story.

Some 7,000 families have been placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation throughout London. That is an entirely miserable way to exist, and such accommodation is supremely inefficient and a gross waste of public money. We are giving millions of pounds to bed-and-breakfast landlords and making millionaires of people who often provide abominable accommodation. Anyone who cares to visit bed-and-breakfast hotels in Finsbury Park in my constituency and in many other parts of London will see the sheer misery in which people must live. Such accommodation is not cheap and is paid for by the public sector, because housing benefit pays the rent of a large proportion of the people involved.

If I may, I shall quote briefly from the Shelter briefing for this debate, which states:

"The Government has made tackling homelessness a policy priority. The Homelessness Bill, the National Homeless Strategy and the new unit dedicated to reducing the use of B and B are testament to this."

Shelter is very favourable to many of the Government's policies, but the briefing goes on to say:

"But these polices must be backed up by resources if the Government is to deliver on its pledge to halve child poverty by 2010 and end it in a generation. The Spending Review 2002 presents a key opportunity to put in place a sustained programme of investment backed up by challenging targets to improve the lives and life chances of homeless children."

Shelter has given us part of the important story. It is true that the costs of poor quality housing are borne by the public sector, in that we pay for extortionate private sector rents through housing benefit or through homelessness and bed-and-breakfast landlords. However, the children also pay. They pay in ill health, poor school achievement, endless moves from one set of homeless person's accommodation to another and family break-up. The damage to our communities resulting from the inadequacy of housing in London is astonishing. We must tackle that issue.

However, we must also look at the problems of communities that are being priced out of their geographical area. The borough that my right hon. Friend and I have the honour to represent is now one of the areas of the country with the fastest rising property prices. That means that even Members of Parliament moving there could not, unless they had substantial equity, afford the mortgage on a two-bedroomed flat. Price rises of that magnitude, which are similar to those that have happened in neighbouring boroughs, mean that unless families on average or below-average incomes obtain social housing through a council or a housing association, the possibilities of remaining in the community where they grew up are pretty well zero. Inner-city areas of London are simply exporting people on average or below-average incomes. That problem needs to be dealt with.

According to figures released this morning by the Halifax, the average loan taken out by a first-time buyer in London at present is £127,000. Does not that make for the sort of affordability crisis that my hon. Friend describes?

Absolutely. As that is a Londonwide average figure, many people in inner urban areas will have to pay substantially more. The costs of living in London are very high.

We need to look for solutions. The Labour Government who were elected in 1997 inherited a legacy. The outgoing Labour Government in 1979 were funding an enormous council and housing association building programme. Those of us who served on London boroughs will remember that between 500 and 1,000 new dwellings a year was a routine achievement. That figure dwindled so that at the end of the period of Tory Government very few were being built. We looked to the election of a new Government to encourage the expansion of the social sector. Unfortunately, that expansion has not happened to any great degree, and indeed, with the number of sales—particularly of existing council property—happening at present, the new build is barely keeping pace with current stock.

The Government have done much to try to improve existing stock, and I acknowledge the amount of money released through capital receipts that has been injected into areas by way of regeneration money. My constituency has benefited from that, as have the constituencies of many colleagues. We welcome that money; we welcome the new roofs and windows and the improvements to estates, including security and community and play facilities. Those are very welcome. However, they do not solve the problem. The solution is expanding the stock.

I am concerned that the Government seem to emphasise regeneration to some extent and estate transfers to a great extent. I hope that the Minister will deal with that question. I share the concern that many people feel about tenants being virtually forced into estate transfers because they believe that there is no alternative. It is interesting that despite a pressurised campaign to vote for a transfer, the tenants of the Aylesbury estate in Southwark voted to remain within the council. I hope that the Minister will tell us that in future there will be a genuinely level playing field on estate transfer votes, so that money will be invested whether or not the estate is transferred.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) cannot be present, and he apologises for that. However, he told me about that vote. He would agree with the hon. Gentleman that the choice facing tenants means that, in effect, they are being bribed to move to the stock transfer option. However, tenants voted against that by three to one—so they would back the point that the hon. Gentleman made.

We are all sorry that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey cannot be here today, but I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said.

I ask the Minister, where do we go from here? The Government have done a lot in terms of estate improvements, improving the quality of life for people on estates. They have also done much to promote key worker housing through some funding of teachers' schemes. However, it seems ironic that, while the Government invest to enable teachers to buy homes so that they may stay in the community—and none of us has any problem with that scheme—the police and other Government agencies are selling Government property. There seems a complete lack of co-ordination in that respect. We should retain in the public sector specialist homes that were built for the police, nursing staff, fire officers and so on. It seems that something has gone badly wrong in that regard.

Key worker housing is not a solution in itself, however. There is a desperate problem with getting nurses, police officers, firefighters and others to work in London, but there are other key workers who are not included. If no one sweeps the streets, they become filthy, so the street cleaner is a key worker. Hospital porters and catering workers are key workers, as are workers in many other grades.

I hope that the Minister recognises that, in the longer term, the only way in which to ensure good quality public services and a good standard of life in London as a whole is to expand the affordable rented sector. The Minister should recognise that, over the past three or four years, many in London have spent much effort and time examining the housing situation. That effort includes the Mayor's strategy document for London and statements on the subject by the Greater London Authority, London boroughs, Shelter and employers who have difficulty in recruiting skilled workers. Not least, it includes those views expressed by inner-city and outer-London MPs, who share those concerns.

I hope that, when the Minister replies, she can tell us a number of things. First, she may tell us that, when the restrictions are removed on local authority borrowing and authorities are allowed to borrow against capital assets, there will be no restrictions on councils' borrowing against those assets to build council stock if that is what they decide, democratically, to do. I hope that she will tell us that the Government are prepared to invest in new build or purchasing existing properties for conversion, so that we may expand the social rented sector. They should recognise that although different housing problems exist in other parts of the country, we must retain and expand the rented sector in London, so that we may look forward to a cohesive city instead of one that is increasingly divided by housing shortages and associated problems.

I know that these are difficult times, but it is too easy for the Government to say that they will leave the market to deal with such issues. The market has had a pretty free rein in the past few years in London, and it has shown that it can make a great deal of money from shortages but can do nothing for the poorest and most vulnerable, or for the cohesion of our city. I hope that the Government will recognise those issues and be prepared to invest massively in expanding the social rented stock, which, in turn, will lead to the better communities that we want.

This is not the first debate on this subject, and I am sure that it will not be the last. Week in and week out, some of us have to face people in our surgeries and speak to families with three or four children who share two-roomed flats. We see all the tension and anger that goes with that situation, but we have to tell them, "Sorry; you are not really a priority and you have no chance of being rehoused." It is hard, it is brutal and, above all, it is totally unnecessary for us to have to say that. Public intervention is necessary to save us from that situation.

rose—

Order. I remind the many hon. Members who wish to speak that the winding-up speeches begin at noon.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing this important debate, which concerns inner and outer-London boroughs. Some might think that those of us in the outer London boroughs have an easier time. That is true in some respects; I am aware of the problems in inner London. However, to imagine that, outside the inner core, we are all in leafy boroughs is far from correct. I am pleased to see that my neighbour, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), is present. I am sure that he will add to my comments on our borough.

Our problems are much the same and we do have deprived areas. However, the principal problem, which the hon. Member for Islington, North has elucidated, is that of rising house prices. Property prices have risen by over 100 per cent. since 1996 and most of our residents and their children are being priced out of their communities. I echo the point that the hon. Gentleman made about the importance of keeping communities together; this pricing out is having a very bad effect on our areas.

There is no affordable housing for purchase—that is a frightening prospect for anyone considering being a first-time buyer in central, inner or outer London. The average price of a flat in the London borough of Hillingdon is £104,000, and a semi-detached house is £170,000—anyone would regard that as an impossible first step. We are lumbering people with incredible debt, even at this time of low interest rates. If those change, we shall have extreme problems.

The issue of key workers is as relevant in outer London as it is in inner London. Key workers include everyone who works there—someone has to work in the shops and provide other services. Like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome teachers and other public service sector workers. However, it is not just the public sector that is affected. I regret the sale of police houses and other dwellings. It started some time ago and I am sorry to say that it is continuing. That is an accountant's measure—the short-term gain looks good on paper. However, the long-term loss is huge and we are now suffering greatly from it.

In outer London we have another problem—we do not have enough houses. However, the dichotomy is that we do not want too many to be built, because the places where they might be put are our open spaces. Week after week, people come to my surgery with stories of chronic overcrowding and they all have the same problem—they are not deemed to be priority cases; they have no chance of being rehoused. However, I also see people who do not want a development to be built because parks and open spaces are valuable. I recognise that; those are the green lungs of our communities. If we are not careful but build on those, we shall ruin the quality of life that the residents of suburbs value. Many of the people who live in Uxbridge moved out from central London just after the war because they did not like the pollution and thought that they were moving to a better quality of life. However, unfortunately, the quality of life that they left behind is extending further out.

When I speak to other Members of Parliament, I often find that the problem in the north of England is the reverse. Those of us who live in London wonder what can be done about the places around the country where the houses and vast estates cannot be filled. Government after Government have considered how to change the situation and it seems to be impossible to socially engineer. People come to London as a honeypot.

Two suggestions for dealing with the problem that the hon. Gentleman is hinting at are as follows. First, 50 per cent. of all new build housing on any size of site should be affordable housing and, secondly, we should increase the density of housing on any site. Does the hon. Gentleman support either of those suggestions?

I am not a housing expert, but I do believe that those suggestions should be considered. There is a real problem and something must be done to deal with it.

There is another problem, which I am sure is also faced by other hon. Members' constituents. Because of the lack of housing, a blame culture arises among those people who find that they cannot be rehoused, and they blame asylum seekers. My constituency is near Heathrow, so it includes a certain number of asylum seekers. It is a fallacy that people cannot be rehoused because of asylum seekers, but the shortage of housing creates a problem and increases social tension. Unless we can deal with that problem, the situation will get worse. It is difficult to explain to people that what they perceive to be true is not the case when there are so many urban myths around. It is difficult to tell people that they cannot be rehoused when they know of someone who has just moved in. That causes big problems in our communities.

We have individual problems in the area, such as a large university—Brunel university—and students to be accommodated. I am sure that most hon. Members share my concern about student debt. We will have another problem when the building of Heathrow terminal 5 goes ahead. Vast numbers of construction workers and other businesses associated with the construction of terminal 5 will require temporary housing. There might be an opportunity for those people who are involved in that work to house their workers and then allow the local authority to use the accommodation afterwards in some sort of planning gain, but that is for the London borough of Hillingdon to work out.

As time is short and many hon. Members wish to speak, I shall not go into detail on the situation in Hillingdon and the number of families in temporary accommodation. The London borough of Hillingdon has put in a bid to the void transfer scheme, and we are waiting to hear the result. That will not provide the whole answer to the problem. Almost certainly, the correct solution lies in the creation of more permanent housing that is affordable to households on low incomes. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) made some suggestions that we should all consider. Many families on limited incomes in Hillingdon are unable to afford market housing, whether it is owner-occupied or rented. That is the fundamental cause of housing need in my constituency.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on choosing this subject for debate. It is of enormous salience to our constituents, as it has been during my 18 years in Parliament. It remains the biggest issue for my constituents by a long way. It would not be inappropriate to say that we have a genuine housing crisis throughout London, particularly in inner London. That crisis has not suddenly occurred; it has been happening for a long time. It results fundamentally from a lack of investment. I will return to that point in a moment, but let me first echo much of what the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) said in his extremely interesting and honourable speech. His warning that we must all avoid looking for scapegoats when considering the difficulties faced by our constituents was well said and well taken.

The problems of investment for the creation of new accommodation at affordable rents for our constituents and the regeneration of existing council accommodation have existed for many years. Throughout the period of Conservative Government, there was a decline in investment. I am pleased that, in the past four years, more money has been available to boroughs such as Islington to renovate and create housing, but it is nowhere near enough. I welcome that extra investment. This year, Islington has double the amount of investment money for its housing work than it did four years ago. That is an enormous improvement, and it is welcome. In the coming financial year, it will amount to a little more than £40 million.

I spoke to the director of housing last week, as we visited one of the estates in my constituency that are in need of improvement. He said that, given the condition of Islington's existing housing stock, before we even think about creating necessary new housing, improvement measures costing about £440 million will be needed. It does not take a genius to work out that if we have only £40 million a year, it will be a long time before that existing housing stock is put in decent order.

The problem is becoming worse. Many estates built in the London borough of Islington, and in the old borough of Finsbury, were built in the immediate post-war years. Those estates have now reached the point at which major structural difficulties occur. That is bound to happen after 40 or 50 years. The concrete is starting to crumble. The structure needs major attention and that problem will become worse during the next few years.

My first and most important plea to the Government is for them to understand the need for sustained and increased investment in the housing capital stock in boroughs such as Islington. It is needed to put existing housing in a decent condition and to ensure that people no longer have to live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, in overcrowded accommodation and, in some cases, in no accommodation at all.

The Government have rightly identified the provision of public service as their major priority for this Parliament. In areas such as inner London, it is not just health, education and transport that need attention, but housing. I hope that we will begin to hear much more from the Government about that, and that they will identify it as one of the key public service priorities—because it certainly is a key priority for my constituents.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the article in London Housing that estimates that, if the capital funding proposals of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions were to go ahead, London would lose out, in comparison with the rest of the country, to the tune of £128 million of resources? London and the shire counties also lost out in the revenue support grant settlement of the past three years. Therefore, it is clear that London and the shire counties are losing out with regard to the Government's local support grant settlements.

I have not seen the article to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and I am unsure whether I share his analysis of the provisions for London and the rest of the country. The floor and ceiling proposals in relation to revenue support grant—which the Government have rightly put in place—must also be taken into account, as must the many other ways in which they are assisting, such as the single regeneration budget schemes and the neighbourhood renewal fund. London rightly benefits from all those forms of assistance, as do other areas of the country. However, my key point is that the Government must specifically address funding for housing work in the London boroughs.

My constituents' problems are currently compounded by the appalling service that they receive with regard to the administration of housing benefit, which was outsourced four or five years ago to a firm called IT Net. Forms are lost, not just once but twice or three times. Delays of months occur in the sorting out of even the simplest cases. Letters are occasionally sent out, on the same day and to the same person, that give a different housing benefit assessment. Tenants are sometimes issued with eviction notices—and they might face court action, or receive a visit from the bailiffs—because their housing benefit has not been properly assessed.

Unbelievably, the Liberal Democrat council—that party currently controls Islington, alas—did not send IT Net packing, as it should have done. Instead, it extended the company's contract and gave it more money. That was absolutely the wrong decision. However, a month and a half ago the new contract was signed.

I ask the Minister to draw to the attention of her colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions the problems that the people of Islington are facing because of the failures of IT Net, and to ensure that the Department's housing benefit team takes the matter seriously and does whatever it can to help the tenants of Islington to receive a better service.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the original contract for IT Net was signed by a Labour council? Before the 1998 local elections, the Labour administration agreed to a poor supplier and signed a weak contract. It would have been extremely costly to end that contract, and it would have led to short-term chaos—which has happened in other London boroughs.

The hon. Gentleman is right on one point: the contract was signed by the previous Labour council. I said at the time that that was the wrong decision. The Minister and I have told the council so many times since. Now, it accepts that it was wrong. It was far worse to compound the error by continuing and extending the contract.

I make a brief final comment. I fear that there is considerable uncertainty about our tenants' likely fate on rent because of the Government's rent restructuring proposals. I understand why the Government wish to establish a more rational system of setting rents for council tenants throughout the country, but I urge them not simply to attach council and housing association rents to market rates. Market rents in inner London are astronomical and getting worse. If market rents are used as the lodestone for setting social housing rents, I fear that our constituents are in for substantial rent rises. I hope that that will not happen. A problem is that the Government have not given us precise information about how their proposals will affect what our constituents must pay.

I hope that the Government take account of the worries that my colleagues and I have about the proposals, which I know that many of our constituents share. We need more and better housing at affordable rents in our constituencies. That is a major issue of importance. The Government have done much to improve on what they inherited in 1997, but there is further to go.

I endorse everything that hon. Members have said, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). I will not repeat the details that were furnished about the severe housing crisis under which London is groaning—that is no exaggeration. Undoubtedly, the Government have invested more money in affordable social housing than was invested under past Governments. However, I regret to tell the Minister that the money is not sufficient for London.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury pointed out the problem of a lack of investment over decades. We need more investment in London to create more affordable housing. The Government should adopt the policy that has been promulgated by the Mayor—I must declare an interest because I serve on the Mayor's advisory cabinet with the portfolio of homelessness—that all new projects should consist of 50 per cent. affordable housing.

The hon. Member for Uxbridge was right that we must protect London's green spaces. That causes higher density, and would require higher standards of build quality so that we do not encounter the problems of neighbour disputes caused by noise and harassment, which all London Members have heard about from people in their advice surgeries. Therefore, costs will inevitably rise, which is why the Government must examine how there can be more investment for London housing.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, there is little point in the Government's prioritising long-term investment for education, health, transport and tackling crime if housing is not addressed. I am sure that every London Member knows of a surgery case of a child who is treated for asthma in hospital and returns home to a flat in which mould is growing out of the child's bedroom wall, producing spores. In addition, there is a problem if an elderly person who eventually has a hip replacement must return to a building in which the lift is out of order and there are 68 steps up to her flat. It is impossible for children to benefit from the Government's vast investment in education if their home is so overcrowded that there is nowhere for them to do their homework. I shall not list specific examples in the two other subject areas that I mentioned—transport and the prevention of crime—but we all know that inadequate, unacceptable housing can feed the root causes of problems.

The Government must seriously and speedily address the need for increased investment in affordable housing in London. I acknowledge that investment is a medium and long-term solution to the problems that we all face in our advice surgeries. I would argue that the Government can take action in the short term to begin to improve matters now.

The overriding issue of housing benefit has already been mentioned. I represent half the borough of Camden, which has received two charter marks for the excellence of its housing benefit system. However, because of the inadequacies of the system in other London boroughs, landlords in my constituency are now refusing to accept tenants if they would be paid via housing benefit. That seems entirely improper, but there is nothing that the Government can do. However, they could certainly take the payment of housing benefit to landlords out of the hands of the tenants. The local authority should be able to pay directly to the landlord. That should also be the case with other types of housing, such as temporary housing. We have already mentioned the scandal of bed and breakfasts, and I am delighted that the Government have introduced the bed-and-breakfast unit. There is much that the Government can do in the short term.

On the subject of keeping communities together, I should like to mention local reference rent. I dealt only this week with the case of a constituent who was made redundant. She had lived in a flat for many years. The LRR officer visited and disagreed with the rent that her landlord was charging her. The result is that my constituent has to find an additional £100 a month from her unemployment benefit, as I still persist in calling it. There are huge discrepancies in rents charged in my constituency. As there is so much pressure on housing in London, inadequate properties can command very high rents. In the short term, the Government could consider and change the existing structures.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that the difficulties with housing benefit that she outlines, particularly in London, are leading to additional pressure on the affordable rented sector, which is no longer available to some people? The private rented sector is therefore a factor in increasing the numbers of the homeless.

I thought that I had already made that point, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making it clearer. That is absolutely the case. We are experiencing the break-up of communities. More people have to leave the places where they, their parents and grandparents have lived for years, because they cannot afford the rent.

Far too many organisations in London have partial responsibility for tackling such issues. The Government's overarching strategy is to be welcomed, and the Bills that the Government have introduced will help to tackle homelessness and attempt to prevent it. However, there are also the Association of London Government, the 33 boroughs, the Government office for London and taskforces hither and yon.

We are in a real crisis, and the Government should consider the issues and accept the argument that I am urging on them. There should be a single strategic group, which I think should be the Greater London Assembly and the Mayor, to devise strategies and implement speedy and co-ordinated measures to begin to tackle an issue that, if not dealt with in the short, medium and long term, will lead to vast bills further down the line for London. We have heard from the hon. Member for Uxbridge about the potential for severe social disruption; I have heard similar stories. Only the other week, someone said to me, "If you are black, you can get a house. If you come into the country, you are guaranteed a house immediately." We all know that that is not the case, but if such urban myths are not challenged, London will never be a world capital city. The housing issue will be a constant pressure on everyone.

I strongly urge the Government to deal immediately with the issue of increased resources and, in the short term, to amend the existing structures that I mentioned with regard to housing benefit and local rent referral. We must devise one statutory body—I made it clear where responsibility for that should lie. That body should be responsible, if not for actually delivering new houses, for devising the strategy and the overview to tackle the problems for London as a whole.

I shall try to be brief because other hon. Members wish to speak. I agree with an enormous amount of what has been said. The first political job that I did that carried any responsibility was that of chairing the housing committee in the London borough of Waltham Forest in 1973. I may have thought that things were difficult in housing then, but they did not compare with today's problems—we have waiting lists so long that the computers might as well be turned off. The number of homeless exceeds the number of lettings available to local authorities and social landlords. The single homeless are, for the most part, not even covered by homelessness legislation. The Homelessness Bill will make some changes and provide that local authorities should give advice, but I despair to think what that could be in the current circumstances.

I echo the comments made about the need for investment. It is crystal clear that, unless we significantly improve investment, we shall not begin to tackle the problems. I have never understood why local authorities are not allowed to borrow against their assets, or why, in cases involving housing associations, the right-to-acquire receipts are ring-fenced for new provision, but councils' right-to-buy receipts are not. The removal of that inconsistency could make a difference straight away.

It is clear in boroughs such as Waltham Forest that, whatever is done in terms of new build—I agree with making available 50 per cent. affordable housing in new developments—it will be no quick fix and will not provide the whole solution. As long as London housing is organised on a borough basis, individual boroughs will have difficulty in managing.

I recall a time in my borough when the council bought properties—there were programmes in which 200 to 300 properties a year were bought. It seemed a simple and straightforward way to increase the supply of rented social housing.

There are significant numbers of empty properties in London—perhaps we could start with those.

Absolutely; that would be a good place to start. We should also remove some of the barriers encountered when local authorities try to lease in the private rented sector—such as the housing benefit threshold—which make it more difficult for them to run leasing schemes.

I want to comment on some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) made about the private rented sector. Although I do not pretend that the whole sector is wonderful or that some people are not living in horrible conditions within it, I despair when people come to my surgery who are being evicted from decent private rented sector homes, usually because of housing benefit problems. We had an experience in Waltham Forest of the privatisation of housing benefit. Fortunately, the council decided to terminate that contract. In doing so, it did not face making payments to the contractor but received money from the contractor because of the contract's failure. Surely part of the strategy must be to deal with such problems in order to prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place.

We should reconsider the system of local reference rents. Gaps between the housing benefit that people receive and the rent that they are required to pay can eventually make them homeless. It is argued that if we did not have local reference rents and keep the lid on, market rents would spiral out of control, but they are doing so anyway. That argument would work only if there was a genuine market in which people had some choice and could tell their landlord, "I'm not paying that money. I'm going elsewhere." The London housing market does not offer the sort of choice that allows people to operate in that way.

(Ilford, North): My hon. Friend mentioned homelessness prevention. Is he aware that the neighbouring borough, Redbridge, has a homelessness prevention team that is doing very good work and, indeed, saving money? There is also a scheme that gives boroughs choice in housing allocation.

I am certainly aware of the choice-in-allocation scheme, and it will be interesting to find out how it operates. I was not aware of the specific work being done in Redbridge on homelessness prevention, but I should like more local authorities to put more effort into that. It is difficult for them when people have such problems in the private rented sector.

We could also make some other small changes to housing benefit—changes to disregards, tapers and thresholds—which would make a significant difference to some people. We should stop tinkering with the system. Local authorities receive a new circular every week on another change to be made to the system. It is no wonder that the administration starts to falter.

The long-term solutions must involve investment. There is no answer in the medium to long term but greater investment. However, we should also consider shorter-term measures such as letting local authorities buy and considering what we can do to improve the housing benefit system so that at least we prevent some people from becoming homeless and putting extra pressure on the social sector.

Order. I remind hon. Members that winding-up speeches begin at 12 noon.

Given the lack of time, I shall try to reduce my speech to a few points. The first, and the most salient, is that we must fund the welcome changes that the Government have introduced. Following legislation, for the first time 18 to 21-year-old care leavers will be given priority, as will all 16 and 17-year-olds. In Tower Hamlets, that will mean a minimum of an extra 300 young people turning up at homeless services. We welcome the fact that they will be given priority, as they must be in any civilised society, but we must have the money to back that up, and it is not there at the moment.

Secondly, we must reduce temporary accommodation, especially among families with children, as has been said. Shelter estimates that an investment of only £250 million, which is surely crumbs from the table, would bring about 10,000 empty private properties back into use as temporary accommodation, with much cheaper rents. Will the Minister respond, if not now, perhaps in writing, to that proposal?

Thirdly, we must tackle and prevent homelessness among those who do not qualify for priority need. That can be done only by increasing the amount of affordable housing.

Fourthly, although all hon. Members have many problems with stock transfer in our constituencies, it is fair to say that, according to the DTLR's deprivation index, I have the worst. Recently, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), who is in the Chamber today, and Lord Falconer, the Minister for Housing and Planning, visited my constituency. He saw a family of 16 people who lived in two bedrooms and described that as the worst housing that he had ever seen. It is shocking that such housing problems exist. We cannot sit back and allow another generation of children to grow up in slums. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that I have my colleagues' support on that issue, as I shall lose it on my next point. Having seen two cases of successful stock transfer, which has turned slums into very good quality housing, we must consider that route and deal with the problems that arose with the first wave of stock transfers 10 years ago.

Fifthly, the right to buy is another controversial matter. At the very least, it must be suspended in areas of regeneration where it is sucking up Government money that was made available to improve housing.

Sixthly, I am horrified by the prospect of rent restructuring. I seek the Minister's reassurance that it will not be dire for housing associations. Some housing associations in London, for example, have said that they do not want to increase their rents but will be forced to do so.

Finally, I commend the Minister on her decision to review the housing health and safety rating standards. I hope that she will deal with the overcrowding regulations, which have not changed since the 1930s. I welcome her comments on all the issues that I have raised. We are millions of pounds better off under the Labour Government, but it is still not enough for our housing problems. Please could they give us some more?

:All that I can do in the few minutes that are left is to impress on the Minister why there is a crisis in my borough of Lewisham. It has 250,000 people with high deprivation rates. Its constant population growth is now reckoned to be about 7 per cent. over the next 10 years. In the past six years, the number of lettings that have become available from council stock has decreased by nearly 50 per cent., to 2,000 per annum. That is because people cannot get out. They would have purchased homes, but during the same period the average cost of a flat has increased from £64,000 to £155,000. That is an impossible price for the average person to pay.

There are 15,000 people on the waiting list and they are in serious need. My borough is one of only four in London that do not use bed-and-breakfast accommodation. It is to be commended for that. However, as a consequence, no one else can acquire council house stock because 1,400 homeless households are in temporary accommodation. During the same period, only 260 new homes have been produced in the whole borough. That is not even enough to house my case load of homeless people. My borough could have taken the close on 4,000 units that were produced throughout London last year by social landlords, and still not met our needs. That is the extent of the crisis. It is a catastrophe for individual families. As so many hon. Members have said, families are breaking up under the strain. Children's health and education are being sacrificed. The position is unacceptable.

I agree with all that has been said and must impress on the Minister the need for more public intervention and more investment. The right to buy should be suspended in cases of great shortage, such as that in my borough, and allocating 50 per cent. of development to social housing is the least that we can do.

The Government have given my borough considerable good news. However, today we need to complain because people are suffering and there are remedies that the Minister must put into effect.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing the debate. He initiated a debate on housing in London last July and I agree with him that we should keep bringing the issue to the House until we get a solution. We have to keep arguing and must convince Ministers that the matter is urgent. Those of us who represent inner-city and outer-London constituencies hear about it in our surgeries every week. I am sure that others feel as I do after their surgeries: frustrated, angry and impatient—and lots of other things for which I would be called to order if I said them—about our inability to deal with some of the problems that are brought to us, not least overcrowding. A lot of my constituents have many points on the housing list, representing their need, but that need is unmet.

The misery out there is beyond words and it is getting worse. That is happening for a series of reasons that are well known and have been mentioned. Consider the history of housing policy in London. After the second world war there was plenty of land on which to build and large amounts of money did make an impact on the housing crisis in those years. Now we have population growth not seen for decades but land is scarce, so prices are high. The problem is possibly at its most acute in London's history. Despite some of the proposals and policies that have been mentioned, the Government have yet to meet the challenge. It is a major challenge and they should recognise that.

The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) gave a moving example from her constituency. My example is from a report produced by Fordham Research for Kingston council on the housing needs in the borough. That estimates, after detailed research, that every year for the next five years there will be a shortfall of 1,365 dwellings for affordable rent in Kingston. That is an indication of the need in one area. If we multiply that across London, we shall get an idea of the problem.

The Government have introduced a few welcome measures. At least the starter home initiative recognises the problem despite not meeting it by any means. However, the Metropolitan police and the national health service are selling off homes, so we are taking one step forward and two back. It is questionable whether the way in which the starter home initiative is set up deals with the problem for key public workers. I ask the Government to consider whether shared equity is a better way—it might produce more money per buck.

Rent restructuring has been mentioned. That is incredibly worrying on affordability grounds and because of what it says about the Government's underlying attitude to public subsidy for housing in London. It seems to suggest that there will not be much Subsidy—that will have to come from the tenants. Is that really the way forward? Does it solve the problems that we see in our advice sessions? It is also creating uncertainty for the future of the registered social landlord sector in that it is unclear what will happen because the Government have made such a mess of it so far. With that uncertainty, landlords will not conclude the deals that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow talked about. We shall not see the advances that have been made in other parts of the country. The Government must act quickly. They must get it right and they must understand the problems of affordability as they affect London.

There are other solutions that the Government should seriously consider. The GLA has been good at promoting use of the planning system to tackle some of the problems. That is a medium-term solution, as hon. Members have said. We need to consider the 50 per cent. affordable housing proposal for new developments, and we should apply it to sites of smaller numbers. The floor needs to come down.

I apologise for my late arrival, but I had a constituency engagement that was arranged some time in advance. It is obviously useful for me to play an active part in the debate.

I want to tackle the Mayor of London's 50 per cent. blanket housing proposal for key workers. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will comment on my concern, which is that it may have unintended consequences, especially if there is a downturn in the property market as a whole during the next two or three years. A limit as high as 50 per cent. across the board may discourage developers from building at all.

I suppose that I am grateful for the intervention, but I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman misrepresents the GLA's proposal, which is about more than key workers. Moreover, if the Mayor went down the road of a much lower limit, as some developers have suggested, we could not tackle the problem. We may have to adjust and tweak as we go along. I am sure that the GLA is aware—I hope that Ministers are—that if the problem makes the market dry up, we may have to consider other measures. Land values and property prices in London show that the idea that developers could not still make a handsome profit does not hold water.

There must be more than a planning solution, as the Government must do their bit. The affordable housing planning permission is well and good, but a public subsidy is still needed to build the houses through the social sector. The Government do not seem to be putting that money forward. Perhaps we shall see in the comprehensive spending review in July that they have changed their mind, but the GLA briefing for the debate suggests that the total public subsidy requirement for London needs to be £600 million a year to deliver the social housing if we have the 50 per cent. affordable planning guidance. If one compares that with the public subsidy of £240 million provided at present, one sees the size of the increase needed—it needs to be almost trebled, year on year.

That is a challenge to the Government. I hope that the Minister will say that she and her colleagues will hear the voice of hon. Members in today's debate and argue strongly with Her Majesty's Treasury for such increases. They would be an effective use of public subsidy, as they would use the benefits of the planning system effectively to reduce the land price, and would lever in financial capital with a relatively small public subsidy. Although the increase may seem large, it is good value for money for the taxpayer and is worth defending on Treasury terms. If the sum required was considered in historical terms, it would still not be as great as the amount that was spent in the 1950s and 1960s in real prices. What the GLA argues for in terms of resource requirement for London's social housing is relatively reasonable.

I want to talk about one other solution for the problem, which may be more controversial. People who want to leave London to live elsewhere—the necessary houses are available in other parts of the country—should be able to do so if they wish. A recent experiment in my borough facilitated that by bringing landlords to Kingston, providing details of job opportunities and vacancies from jobcentres and providing packages in which local authorities have supplied money for relocation. People are starting to take up such offers. Recently, people have relocated to Lincoln, Easington in County Durham and elsewhere. Such people are still economically active and are moving for jobs as well. That may be part—I emphasise that word—of the solution.

The Government have to recognise the extent of the problem. They have to back the GLA's actions and tell the Treasury to come up with the goods.

I am grateful that you have allowed me to catch your eye in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing it. It is a matter of consensus that the problem of homelessness, and particularly the problem of people living in temporary accommodation and bed and breakfasts, is getting decidedly worse. The subject is important and needs to be addressed by the House.

I would like to start, if I may, by administering a minor rebuke to the hon. Gentleman. The idea that everything in public housing was wonderful up to 1979, but suddenly got worse between then and 1997 and then suddenly got better again between 1997 and today, is farcical. I think that we would all agree that the problem is one of under-investment during a long period, under Governments of both parties. We must try to find ways of putting that right and improve the lot of people living in London.

London is by far the most expensive place to live in Britain. Even people on average incomes cannot afford to buy or even rent decent accommodation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) pointed out in his excellent speech. house prices rose by 23 per cent. between September 1999 and September 2000, to an average, in London, of £194,000. Such a figure would require a single person to earn over £50,000 a year to get a mortgage. As the hon. Member for Islington, North said, even Members of Parliament would be in difficulty.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge said, the population of London continues to grow, which will further exacerbate the problem. The total population of the capital is approaching 7.2 million. That is an increase of 28,000 every year since 1983. Those figures are taken from the Office for National Statistics' "Focus on London 2000". The population is increasing partly through net inward migration from the rest of Britain—a north-south drift—and partly through net inward migration from the rest of the world. We need to take those figures carefully into account.

I hope that the Government are examining the latest census. I doubt that the Government's figures are accurate, because of the number of uncompleted forms. They need to be accurate so that a proper revenue support grant can be made to the London boroughs. I want to return to that aspect of the allocation of resources to London, which I mentioned in an intervention.

There is a staggering estimate that, by 2016, one-person households as a proportion of the total will rise from 37 per cent. to 40 per cent. Married couples are expected to decline as a proportion of households from 44 per cent. to 30 per cent. That will require a substantial number of empty houses. It is not only the increase in one-person households that will determine that, but the fact that we are all living longer and that more people want to live in London. The problem is acute and getting worse, and to solve it more investment will be required.

Many hon. Members have mentioned the issue of homelessness and people living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I have only a short time available to me, but the rate of increase in the number of people living in such accommodation is a scandal. We know, from a written answer supplied by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), that the number of families living in bed-and-breakfast in the United Kingdom rose between June 1997 and June 2001 from 4,500 to a staggering 11,340, of which 6,270 families are currently housed in bed-and-breakfast in London. I would say to the Minister and every Member of the House that that figure is far too high. It is a scandal and a waste of precious resources.

The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) quoted the Shelter brief prepared for the debate. She quoted the figure of £250 million, which is the sum required to provide 10,000 units of privately leased accommodation. It is estimated that £60 million is spent on bed-and-breakfast accommodation in London alone. That money, therefore, would provide 2,500 units of accommodation. The figure is not huge, but it is there. Money is being misapplied. Furthermore, the standard of accommodation in bed-and-breakfast is often very poor, so we must get away from the idea that we are providing a service for those people when, in fact, we are doing them a great disservice. The Government should regulate to set standards for bed-and-breakfast accommodation, so that the huge amount of money that we pay is at least spent on something of reasonable value.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the so-called scandals. In the past year, 11,000 properties in London were sold under the right-to-buy legislation and only 3,000 new properties were built. Nationally, it costs about £50,000 to build a property, but the right-to-buy receipts are for an average sum of about £28,000. Last year, over £1 billion was spent on the right to buy. Does the hon. Gentleman want anything to be done about that?

The hon. Gentleman is part of the governing party. If he could persuade his Minister to abolish the right to buy, he would have a point. Until he can persuade the Minister to do so, he will have to live with it. There is no point in his intervening on me because I am not in the Government—they sit on the hon. Gentleman's side of the House.

The most serious problem that I shall cite in this debate relates to the estimate by Crisis, among others, of the number of hidden homeless. The problem is really tragic. Crisis estimates that as many as a staggering 400,000 people in the country as a whole may be hidden homeless. In London, it is estimated that some 112,000 women and children—and, perhaps, a further 75,000 men—are hidden homeless. There may be 200,000 people in London who are hidden homeless. Those figures are far higher than the Government have ever admitted in their official figures. The Government need to address all those categories, including people sleeping rough on the streets, living in bed-and-breakfasts, and sleeping on a sofa or the floor in friends' houses. No one knows exactly how many there are.

Will the Minister state clearly that she will initiate some research, so that we have at least some idea and are given an authoritative figure of the number of people who are homeless in London? An easy way to do so would be to include a question in the census form. I know that there will not be another census for another 10 years, but these things take a long time to plan, and we might plan for the future. Meanwhile, some academic research should be conducted to allow us to discover how many hidden homeless there are in London, and in which boroughs, so that we can begin to allocate resources to each borough on a sensible basis.

A number of people have said that one problem that leads to homelessness is the non-payment of housing benefit to people, who are subsequently evicted from their homes. We have raised that point in Westminster Hall before, and the hon. Member for Islington, North intervened in another debate on that matter. It is no wonder that there are problems with housing benefit when the system is changed almost weekly; there have been between 70 and 90 new directives in the past three years. No one can administer the housing benefit system correctly if it is changed with that rapidity. I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman for the fact that his council has contracted out the management of housing benefit but, equally, I have some sympathy for the company administering it, because the Government continually make changes to the system.

Finally, I shall mention the allocation of resources, which is a subject that I raised in an intervention. I quoted from a London Housing article from October 2001, which showed that the DTLR proposals would mean that, over three years, London would lose out in resources for capital investment in housing by £128 million, which includes £91 million for local housing authority strategies and £37 million for housing associations. Given the picture that has emerged of the number of homeless people increasing and the number of social housing units that are being built declining in the current period of Labour Government, it seems wrong that the resources allocated for London are being reduced. Indeed, we know that in the past three years, the resources allocated for London have been reduced by £91 million. It is worth noting that the Government use the index of deprivation to replace the old index of local deprivation. In a sense, that is to compound an error twice because that is the mechanism used to distribute regeneration grants and it does not take account of other factors, such as rising populations, in each borough.

It has been a worthwhile debate. Many hon. Members have emphasised that there is a problem of under-investment, but we know that, under the Labour Government, homelessness has risen substantially, the number of people living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has risen substantially, the number of social housing units has fallen substantially and Labour councils have more empty council houses than Conservative councils. Those councils should turn houses around more quickly. Conservative councils can manage their housing stock better than Labour and Liberal councils—

Shame!

:Order.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

We know that the Government will have a real job to do to reverse the tragic human misery caused by the problem of homelessness in London, which is getting worse.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing the debate. It is not the first time that he has raised the issue and I am sure that it will not be the last. I also congratulate all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. I shall not reply to each point in detail because many general points have been made, but the debate has raised our level of thinking and awareness of housing problems in London.

I want to start by making a few general points. I agree with much of the analysis of problems in London. The Government of course recognise the real pressures that exist in the capital. I also want to make two specific points. First, I want to remind hon. Members of the history of under-investment in housing over many years, especially during the 18 years when the Conservative party was in power. All of us whose political memories predate 1997 and who have had anything to do with housing in London—

:It is pathetic.

:It is not pathetic. All of us who have longer political memories and practical experience in housing know exactly what price communities in London paid as a result of that under-investment.

Secondly, in addition to under-investment, there has been a failure to tackle some of the issues surrounding housing standards. Some of those issues have been mentioned: how we calculate the fitness of properties and overcrowding, how we define who is homeless, how we determine rents and how we plan to provide decent support, through housing benefit, for people who cannot afford to pay their rent. That adds up to a big agenda, which the Government must tackle by dealing with investment issues and with the standards and legislation that underpin housing provision.

It will be impossible to deal with all those issues in the time that I have available, but I hope to make progress on some of them.

I want to pick up the point raised by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). We have 2,000 families in temporary accommodation—almost on the scale that existed after the second world war. At that time, Clem Attlee came along and launched almost a Marshall plan to allow local councils to borrow to build. Will the Minister address that central question? Why cannot councils borrow to build?

I shall deal with a range of issues raised in the debate, but I shall refer specifically to investment and the procurement of investment for affordable housing. As hon. Members acknowledged in their speeches, since coming to office we have reversed the decline in investment in housing and have aimed for significant increases, including in London, not just through council accommodation but also through registered social landlords. Where the money goes is an important issue, and one of its major uses is bringing the existing housing stock up to a reasonable standard.

I can see no justification for authorities—including the Government, who are responsible for the provision of housing through local authorities and housing associations—to tolerate unfit public sector housing stock. We have made it a priority to bring the housing stock in question up to standard and have applied a substantial amount of money to that task. We have set a target of bringing all public sector housing to a fit standard by 2010, and a third of it by 2004. That will be a challenge. The argument about finding alternative sources of investment, in particular through stock transfer and other options, is partly to do with increasing the speed of funding streams to bring housing to a decent standard.

As to the shape taken by our proposals, hon. Members will be aware that we have a range of options, including not just stock transfer, but arm's length management companies. Now there is the discussion with respect to the Prudential code, which will shape the possibility of councils' raising funds in the private sector to use in upgrading their housing stock.

I am well aware of the vote on the Aylesbury estate. Thought will be needed to ensure that council tenants are still provided with the housing improvements that they want, and to which they are entitled. However, in many ballots throughout the country tenants have voted for stock transfer and it has been successful in many instances. It is now a realistic option, which has produced good results.

The points that were made about rent restructuring must be tackled if we are dealing with a diversity of providers of public sector housing. I point out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) that safeguards are built into the system with respect to both the year-on-year increases and the total cap. I pay tribute to the London Members of Parliament whose vociferous lobbying was partly responsible for the incorporation of those safeguards.

My hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North and for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) both raised the issue of overcrowding. We are investigating that. It is an important factor because it has repercussions for so many other Government agendas, especially ensuring that children have a decent education. The overcrowding regulations are probably among the most difficult standards with respect to improvements because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow mentioned, they were introduced in 1935. The arguments that Labour Members of Parliament made about improvements then are the same as those made today, and it will be a major task to make progress. However, it makes no sense that in this day and age people should still be expected to sleep in the kitchen.

Hon. Members made an important argument about the need to increase the supply of affordable housing in London. That is of course right. There is not enough time to go through all the arguments, but hon. Members will know of the starter home initiative. Important factors in that, besides the need to deal with the high property prices, are recognition of the need for high quality public services in the capital of the country, to ensure that it maintains its position as a world-class city, and the importance of good public sector workers to deal with key services. The initiative is not a universal panacea, but it is designed to tackle a specific problem. We are also taking other measures.

As to the question of future action, the debate comes at an opportune time. Later this week a conference will be held to launch the consultation process for the 2002 London housing statement, which will set out the key housing policies and priorities for the capital. It is important that all partners take part in the consultation, so that the statement may have a real impact. From what I have heard this morning, the debate will be trenchant and lively; I hope that it will tackle the real issues of homelessness and housing in the capital.

Before I call the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), I give notice that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) has sought permission to speak from the initiator of the debate, the Minister and myself. I am happy to give my permission, and I shall certainly call him.

In light of 11 September and in a week when the Prime Minister is visiting Africa, it is timely that we should be debating the New Partnership for Africa's Development, which was formerly known as the new Africa initiative. I welcome—

Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving do so quietly?

I welcome the Prime Minister's visit and the Government's commitment to Africa, but Africa's chronic crisis will not be solved by one man on one visit. The Government clearly recognise that the new partnership will need the support of wealthier countries to succeed. I agree with the sentiments that the Prime Minister expressed at the Labour party conference following 11 September, when he said that the state of Africa was a scar on the conscience of the world. If we focus on Africa, we can help to heal that scar; if we do not, it will become deeper and angrier.

A coalition against Africa's poverty is crucial. It is obviously no good the UK Government performing well on debt relief, for example, if the G8 coalition of which it is a part also includes underperformers. A coalition means collective responsibility, and the new partnership can succeed only if it is built on a firm coalition, which includes several players, the first of which is the United States.

Friends of America must wonder whether it is delivering enough. President Bush's state of the union speech mentioned evil five times, but poverty not once. Of course, it is right that we must fight terrorism throughout the world, but we must also fight poverty. Colin Powell is on record as asserting:

"While Africa may be important, it doesn't fit into the national strategic interests, as far as I can see them."

We shall have to persuade colleagues in Congress and friends in the American Government that the United States could do more. The United States claims to be the largest development donor in the world, but that does not change the fact that it also gives the most parsimonious percentage of development assistance, at just 0.1 per cent. of gross national income. President Bush will attend the forthcoming financial summit in Monterrey, but it is questionable whether he intends to announce that the United States will increase overseas development and assistance. Instead, it looks as if he will offer poor countries a change in the way in which the International Development Association operates. That might look attractive in the short term, but it will be unsustainable in the longer term, and it is not what Africa needs. Africa—particularly sub-Saharan Africa—needs all Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries to meet the target of 0.7 per cent. of GNI for overseas development as soon as possible.

The second part of the foundation that is necessary for the new partnership to succeed is the European Union. Its communiquè following the first Africa-Europe ministerial meeting last year stated:

"The European Union welcomes the New African Initiative which reflects many of the essential elements of the EU's own external relations policy."

There must, however, be concern, because seven of the top 10 recipients of EU external assistance are middle-income eastern European countries, which will soon join the EU. Last year, Poland received three times more aid than Uganda, which is the only African country in the top 10. The Secretary of State told the Select Committee on International Development that the amount of European Union development aid that was given to poor countries was actually dropping and was now less than 40 per cent. We must, therefore, persuade colleagues in the EU, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers that the EU's development assistance and budgets must focus much more on poverty and on Africa.

The third part of the foundation of the new partnership must be African countries themselves. Nigeria's President Obasanjo accurately asserted that the resolution of conflict will be central to the success of the new partnership.

For African countries the rhetoric of partnership features prominently. As a press release by the South African Department of Foreign Affairs succinctly notes, the new partnership will be

"a common vision and a firm and shared conviction…to eradicate poverty and to place their countries…on a path of sustainable growth and development, and at the same time to participate actively in the world economy and body politic".

Those may not be new commitments. They are the conditions for which the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have provided aid for years. Importantly, they are now clearly stated African commitments. We need a firm partnership that involves the United States, the European Union, which obviously includes the United Kingdom, and African countries. We must then consider how that could impact on specific policy areas.

The first crucial building block of the new partnership will be Africa's health and education. HIV/AIDS infects someone in Africa every 25 seconds. Even those better off countries such as South Africa and Botswana are suffering catastrophic levels of HIV infection that may kill off a quarter of young men and women in the next few years. That is a fairly horrific figure.

Wealthier countries are clearly failing to deliver more directly for two reasons. First, the global health fund has revived only a fraction of the $10 billion that it needs to combat the pandemic, and we need to ensure that other countries contribute to that fund. AIDS is undoubtedly fuelled by poverty. Secondly, wealthier countries are partially failing on drug patents. I welcome the declaration signed at Doha on TRIPs—trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights—but it remains undecided whether developing countries can import cheap copies of patented drugs from third countries. That would benefit only countries that have their own manufacturing capacity, and that often excludes Africa.

Education is equally important. According to UNICEF, infants born to mothers with no formal education are twice as likely to die before their first birthday as those born to mothers with post-primary school education. Again, the European Union is the most culpable, as it allocates only 3 per cent. of aid to basic education through the European development fund, and the gap between disbursements and commitments can mean that as much as 40 per cent. of aid is returned to member states. That must change in order to meet Africa's needs. Furthermore, the lack of public funds now means that in countries such as Tanzania, Ghana and Zambia many poor people cannot afford basic education. In Zambia, as much as three quarters of basic education spending must be met directly by poor parents themselves.

Poor countries are sick because they are poor, but they are also poor because they are sick. That need is even more apparent when we consider the other two building blocks of the new partnership—debt relief and access to market economies. The new partnership clearly sets out how debt relief should be linked with costed poverty reduction: wealthier countries should commit themselves to deeper debt relief for African countries that show a commitment to poverty reduction. However, I am not sure that it happening under current World Bank criteria. The debt payments of Zambia, Tanzania and Cameroon exceed their combined health and education budgets. The poor people in those countries will see the World Bank giving in principle, but taking in practice.

The World Bank's constriction on development sustainability is compounded when we consider the economics of African countries since 11 September. Commodity prices are falling. African countries rely on coffee, cotton and tobacco, but the prices of those commodities have already fallen by 7.4 per cent. this year; and the International Monetary Fund expects them to fall even further. We need to ensure that Africa is given a strong voice in institutions such as World Trade Organisation, but adequate economic access for African goods to the markets of Europe and the developed world.

The erosion of Africa's share in world trade between 1970 and 1993 represents a lost annual income of $68 billion. We have to work out how African economies might benefit from increased trade; that must mean rich countries allowing quota and tariff free access to their markets. It is particularly important that African agriculture is not undermined by unequal competition with industrialised agriculture.

The new partnership will want to emphasise the importance of developing the private sector in Africa and promote foreign direct investment. Such investment has never been high there; it has fallen dramatically since the Asian crises. Indeed, the Financial Times recently observed that sub-Saharan Africa's neglected ports had significantly held back the progress of their economies.

We will all watch with interest the emerging Africa infrastructure fund that was announced last week. Perhaps the most telling sign is that the nine African countries that are experiencing the worst civil conflicts all have one thing in common. Each has a per capita GNP income of less than $200. Conflict resolution will be crucially important to the success of the new partnership. The onus must be largely on African countries, and I support the comments made by the Prime Minister today in The Times. Some of us were disappointed that the countries of southern Africa were not more effective in helping, for example, President Mugabe of Zimbabwe find a resolution for that troubled country's current difficulties.

I have no doubt that the world will meet the United Nations 2015 targets on poverty, not least because of the improvements in China and India. The danger is that as four continents of the world progress, one—Africa—is at best standing still, and at worst, going backwards. Of course, it is an important matter and it is right that the Prime Minister should be there. None of us should be under the illusion that unless there is a massive political commitment—involving us as parliamentarians, colleagues in the European Union, colleagues in Congress, and importantly, colleagues in Africa itself—there will not be the progress in Africa that all of us want to see at the start of this new millennium.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) for allowing me to contribute to the debate. I congratulate him on putting the matter on the agenda of the House of Commons. It is not before time, and it is important that it is not only on today's agenda, but that it remains on the agenda of the House of Commons, and is a popular campaign in Britain.

There is a real danger that the African continent will be completely locked out of the process of globalisation. While the rest of the world gets richer, it is evident that Africa is getting poorer. At the start of the 21st century, sub-Saharan Africa includes many of the world's poorest countries. In a reverse of some of the improvements of the 1960s and 1970s, Africa became poorer in the 1980s and 1990s. Average income per capita is lower now than it was at the end of the 1960s. In Britain, the average income is about £16,300 per annum, or about £313.60 per week. In Africa, it is £320 per annum, or £6.50 per week. That is less than £1 per day. Prices are lower in Africa and money goes further, but it does not go that much further. The discrepancy is huge.

Life expectancy in Britain is 78 years; in Africa it is 49 years. Of the 25 million people worldwide who have AIDS, two thirds are African. Therefore, the continent includes a growing share of the world's absolute poorest. Many problems of development are endemic to African countries. The World Bank recently published a table that showed that, while a few countries have moved forward, other countries—such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Niger, Sierra Leone, Madagascar, Zambia, the Central African Republic, Mauritania, Chad, Ghana, Rwanda, Cote d'Ivoire, Togo, Burundi, Senegal, South Africa, and Nigeria—have all gone backwards in terms of GDP per capita. In other words, the endemic problems—for example, poor primary school enrolment and high child mortality—remain.

I refer to the summary of the World Bank report, "Can Africa claim the 21st century?" It says:

"Moreover, many development problems have become largely confined to Africa …including malaria and HIV/AIDS—that impose costs on Africa at least twice those in any other developing region. One African in five lives in countries severely disrupted by conflict.

Making matters worse, Africa's place in the global economy has been eroded, with declining export shares in traditional primary products, little diversification into new lines of business, and massive capital flight and loss of skills to other regions. Now the region stands in danger of being excluded from the information revolution."

The response of recent times has been insufficient to tackle those searing problems. There has been deteriorating capacity, weakening institutions and inadequate infrastructure. Great changes are needed. There must be a concentrated focus on the challenges that face Africa in order to move things forward. Due to the rapidly growing population, 5 per cent. annual growth is needed to stop the numbers of poor from rising. If severe poverty is to be halved by 2015, annual growth of more than 7 per cent. will be required, along with a more equitable distribution of income. That is a massive challenge.

We must link the global and local. We should not think globally and act locally, but simultaneously think and act locally and globally. What do I mean by that? We should address local development projects without neglecting the global need for infrastructures. There are more telephone lines in New York than in the whole of Africa. We must do something about telecom infrastructure and transport and communication infrastructure to allow Africa to be included in the global world.

I welcome the Prime Minister's initiative to visit Africa, and the building of a coalition and a Marshall plan. I also welcome the infrastructure fund, which is greatly needed. I hope that the Prime Minister's visit will be a catalyst for a new, continuing and sharper focus on Africa. That would be linked to initiatives on good governance and conflict resolution.

In addition to challenging politicians in America, we must do more in our communities to build popular support for initiatives in Africa to give resonance to politicians' measures.

In May 1990, a BBC television film called "The March" showed people from Africa who were locked out of the economy. They could see images of Europe getting richer, and they wondered why they should stay in Africa rather than move to Europe. If we want to face the challenges of migration and refugees, we must accept that we live in an interdependent world. If we do not address peoples' needs in parts of the world that are small and vulnerable, we should not be surprised that people want to move to where the goods are.

It is in our interest to focus on the initiative. However, I ask for the new initiative on Africa to be not only a high-level initiative, but to be supported by popular campaigns in schools, neighbourhoods and residents associations in our communities. That would give people basic information to make them aware of how Africa is locked out. We should campaign to say that the globe's real challenge in the 21st century is the inclusion of Africa as a whole.

Before I call the Secretary of State, I am sure that I reflect the views of hon. Members by expressing our gratitude to her for coming to reply to the debate. That clearly indicates the important role of Westminster Hall.

I very much welcome the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) on securing it. I agree with him and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) that we desperately need a stronger international focus on Africa because of the needs of the people of that continent and the future security, safety and stability of the world. If a whole continent becomes ever poorer and mired in conflict, that is a desperate tragedy for its people.

Africa is Europe's near abroad. If it is in trouble, that trouble and conflict will spread across the world. For example, bin Laden was in Sudan before he went to Afghanistan. Africa contains rich minerals, which leads to criminality around diamonds. That may lead to drug dealing, which may cause destruction. That may lead to the spread of disease and massive refugee movements. There are more displaced people in Africa than anywhere in the world. There is no conflict among what is morally right, what is necessary for social justice and what is in our intelligent self-interest. It is in our intelligent self-interest to ensure that Africa has better hope for the future.

Poverty in Africa is deeper and wider than anywhere else in the world. Two thirds of the absolutely poor, who live on less than $1 a day, live in Asia, the most populous part of the world. That figure uses purchasing power parity, so it shows what $1 a day would buy in the United States, not in Africa. It is a desperate level of poverty. Some 1.2 billion people live at that level and just about scrape enough to survive. One third live in India; we must keep up our efforts in Asia. One third live in Africa, and nearly half the people on the continent live in such poverty.

At current rates of economic growth, more people will become poorer, because population growth across the continent of Africa is faster than average economic growth, so we can expect further deterioration under present trends. That is desperately serious, and we should pay better attention to the problem.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West said, conflict is also an issue. Some 20 per cent. of people in Africa are living in conditions of conflict. The permafrost of the cold war, which controlled disorder and conflict to some extent, has thawed. Conflict breaks out often because states are so weak that they are not able to provide security. Any bunch of gangsters can go around with a gun and enrich themselves. The conflict in Sierra Leone is about diamonds and everyone having kalashnikovs. Many small arms are circulating and breeding disorder in weak states across the continent. When there is such disorder, people can do very little to improve their lives.

In a moving and eloquent publication from the World Bank, "Voices of the Poor", 60,000 people from 60 countries—among the poorest people in the world—were asked what they felt about the world in the year 2000. Some of the descriptions of the grindingly difficult nature of their lives are very moving. What they ask for most is security. No one can begin to grow cabbages, keep chickens, take children to school or gain access to health care if there is total disorder and no security. Conflict oppresses people, destroys infrastructure and sets back development. It is an enormously serious problem, and it will get worse unless we do better. However, matters are not hopeless.

There has been much reform in Africa in recent years. There is much more democracy across the continent. Important reforming Governments are making progress in economic growth and the reduction of poverty. More than 20 African countries achieved a growth rate of 4 per cent. in 2001, and Uganda, Botswana and Mozambique achieved growth of 7 to 10 per cent. If we are to succeed in halving poverty, there must be 7 per cent. growth across the continent. Some African countries are achieving that. Therefore, Africa can do it if we make a greater effort to resolve conflict and support reform.

Our great opportunity is that Africa is now setting the reform agenda. The world has been hectoring Africa for a long time. In the past, all sorts of reform agendas were written in Washington and flown to Africa, where they were accepted by reluctant Governments who needed the money but never really believed in the agendas and the reforms failed. We have learned that there is a greater chance of success when there is local commitment and ownership and people design their own reform agenda. That is the real importance of the New Partnership for Africa's Development.

Leading African Governments are now supported in the African Union by all the countries of the continent. They can now say that they are going to reform themselves and resolve conflicts. They know the conditions for which they will get the inward investment that will give them access to modern technology: decent democracy, cracking down on corruption, providing security, enabling the local private sector to grow and investing in infrastructure. Africa is now telling itself so, and is taking the leadership. That is an important opportunity.

In his second term, the Prime Minister has made a commitment to partnership with Africa's agenda for reform, because of the needs of Africa and the danger to the world. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West said, the United Kingdom can help, but cannot alone rise to the challenge sufficiently to offer the continent better prospects. The United Kingdom is a member of the Security Council, the European Union—which is significant with regard to trading rights—and the G8, which represents the richest countries in the world, and which promised at its Genoa meeting to offer a response to the New Partnership for Africa's Development. Therefore, the United Kingdom, with all of its alliances and relationships, can respond and begin to help.

More aid is needed—it has been declining, and things have got worse in Africa—but it must be better deployed. It must be deployed to build up the capacity of African Governments to successfully manage their economies so that they can provide services for their people. It should not be used to fund a proliferation of projects, which weakens the capacity of Governments, because they have to spend all of their time accounting to the donors for how the money is being dispersed, instead of strengthening their health and education systems and providing basic universal services for their people.

What happened in Somalia and Rwanda represented disastrous and shameful failures by the international community in its attempts to resolve conflict in Africa. Sierra Leone is a small country, but the success of the peace effort there—to which the United Kingdom made a significant commitment—was important. It marked a turning point. There is now peace throughout the country: all of the rebels have been disarmed, and elections are planned for May.

However, several larger countries must move forward. The Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan are ready for peace. The Democratic Republic of Congo has never been well governed. Its colonial experience was crude and exploitative. Mbutu was a corrupt kleptocrat, whose regime was propped up by the west because he was a pro-western corrupt kleptocrat. He misused the country's rich natural resources. Now it is divided into three parts. It experienced a civil war, partly as a result of the genocide in neighbouring Rwanda. However, the Lusaka peace accords are sensible. They were made in Africa, and they were endorsed by the Security Council and by all of the regional players. They should be driven forward, so that peace can be delivered.

Since it gained its independence in 1956, Sudan has suffered from civil war for all but 10 years. Both sides want a peace process. The Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan are massive countries; each of them is as big as western Europe. If we put some energy into their peace processes, the prospects of the entire continent would begin to be transformed. We could then begin to turn things around by supporting the reformers, deploying aid well, improving economic performance and increasing the numbers of children who attend school—which is being achieved in countries such as Uganda and Mozambique.

HIV/AIDS is a disaster for Africa, as it is for other parts of the world. Infection rates are increasing in India, Russia and the Caribbean. We must not think that it is only an African problem. However, with regard to the problem in Africa, Uganda shows the way forward. The infection rate among its young children is rapidly falling. In Zimbabwe, one in three adults is infected and life expectancy will fall by 20 years, but the situation in Uganda offers hope. We must campaign, make condoms available, tell the truth about how the infection spreads and treat sexually transmitted diseases early because when they are endemic in a population they spread much more rapidly. We know about many things that must be done. They should be done, so that every African country can do as well as Uganda.

The Prime Minister is going to Africa to listen, so that when he returns he can generate energy in our country, and use that and our historical relationship with Africa to mobilise the G8 and to encourage the Security Council to make a better effort, so that the people of Africa can have more hope of a decent future.

People often ask me about my travels. They say that it must be depressing to meet so many poor people. They are wrong; it is inspiring. The poor of the world are among the most hard-working, creative and dignified people. They live in conditions that we could not survive. They grow their own food, build their own houses, give birth to their children without any healthcare system, and raise them without help. They deserve the chance to use their energy and commitment to make a better future for themselves, their children and their continent.

Things are so bad in Africa that if any of us lived there, we would not be able to get out of the mire. The people of that continent deserve decent Government, peace, basic healthcare and education and the chance to develop their economies. If they were to have those things, we could turn things around. By means of a real partnership of mutual respect, responding to the lead coming from Africa, we could begin to turn that continent's prospects around.

People say that there is nothing to believe in in politics any more. That is not true. We are more responsible for the state of the world than ever before and there is a chance for a great advance if we are big enough to grasp it. Responding to Africa is crucial to the future of the world.

I thank the Secretary of State for her reply. We now move on to the next debate, initiated by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke). Before I call him, I should inform hon. Members that the hon. Members for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) and for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) have shown their interest in taking part and sought the permission of the initiator of the debate, the Minister and me.

I am very grateful to you for those words, Mr. Deputy Speaker and I am pleased to have obtained this debate on such an important subject. It gives us the opportunity to focus on an important milestone when dealing with the scourge of myalgic encephalopathy, or chronic fatigue syndrome. The report published this month, after painstaking activity and work, entitled "A Report of the CFS/ME Working Group: Report to the Chief Medical Officer of an Independent Working Group" is addressed to Professor Liam Donaldson. I am sure that we would all want to thank him for his considerable interest and contribution.

I hope to be brief in order to accommodate the contributions of my hon. Friends—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) who chairs the all-party group on myalgic encephalomyelitis with such distinction—and to give them the opportunity to make known their views on the report.

ME is an unfashionable cause—some people go as far as to say that there is no such thing. They claim that if it exists at all, it is a mild illness that only the middle class can get—it is all in the mind. People are told to pull themselves together, get a grip and face reality. We now know what reality is. ME does exist. Thanks to the Donaldson report, we are told

"Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS/ME) is a genuine illness and imposes a substantial burden on the health of the UK population"

Much of the scepticism that has been so harmful to sufferers of ME stems from the 1980s, when a phrase to describe the illness popped out of thin air—yuppie flu. The report acknowledges what a disservice that was to ordinary men, women and children who succumbed to the illness. It dispenses brilliantly with those misunderstandings, disposes of them and gives us the response for which we have been waiting for far too long.

What is ME, or CFS as it is sometimes called? The term ME was coined in the 1950s following an outbreak 20 years earlier in the Royal Free hospital in London. The term CFS is a more recent invention. We now know that the illness has been around in one form or another for at least a century, possibly even longer. The report estimates that there are approximately 150,000 people in the United Kingdom with the illness. It is often, but not always, triggered by a viral infection. Labyrinthitis, an inner ear infection, is specifically cited in the report. The symptoms are often bewildering: total and overwhelming exhaustion; severe muscle pain; debilitating problems affecting concentration and short term memory; digestive difficulties; and, sometimes, intolerance to food, light, alcohol and even medication.

Contrary to myth, CFS/ME can affect anyone, regardless of their background, age, sex or ethnic origin-even children under five. How can children of that age imagine or invent such an illness, with all those symptoms? Those who have it most severely—about 25 per cent. of the total—cannot do even the most personal task without help.

I declare an interest in that I had the illness for 20 months in the early 1990s, but I was one of the lucky ones who made a full recovery. However, even those who have what might be described as a mild form of ME are in my opinion entitled to recognition and, indeed, a care package, which has hitherto not existed. Yet, as the report discloses, we invest virtually nothing in research into an incredibly destructive illness that varies in intensity among people. Are we therefore surprised that so little is known about the illness right across the board from patients to professionals in health care?

Following the Donaldson report, there can be no excuse for such indifference or indolence. In its own words,

"inaction due to ignorance or denial of the condition is not excusable."

We can no longer tolerate circumstances in which specialists are few and far between and it can be virtually impossible to see a specialist because there are only a tiny handful in the country and those that exist are massively oversubscribed and often collapse under the burden. We are often no better further down the line. General practitioners are never given proper guidance. Some perform heroics, but others are openly hostile. Indeed, I know of one GP who sent a message to a patient that said "Stop being so nice to people and start digging the garden as I am doing", a view flatly contradicted in the report, which states:

"All clinical interventions carry a potential risk of harm, especially if applied incorrectly; for CFS/ME in particular, imposed, rigid programmes can be actively harmful."

Much better, surely, is the report's recommendation that all management approaches should be done in full partnership with the patient. That also applies to diagnosis. GPs are encouraged to spot the illness early and to put in place a sensible plan for coping. Surely that is far better than what happens now, when many patients wait up to six months merely to be told that they are ill.

Should hon. Members have any doubt, I refer to the study undertaken by the charity Action for ME, "Severely Neglected". It surveyed almost 2,500 patients—the most ever—and revealed that a third waited more than a year and a half to be diagnosed, two out of three received no advice from a GP, and people were made worse by treatment and denied access to health care and benefits. It is not surprising that 50 per cent. of those interviewed in the survey said that they felt suicidal.

I welcome the positive and practical proposals in the report—early diagnosis and advice and much better treatment and care. It says that professionals should be properly trained and that the NHS—GPs and secondary and tertiary care—should be equipped to deal with the problems. The report strongly recommends proper research into all aspects of the illness to achieve a big breakthrough.

For the reasons that I have given, I shall conclude by saying that an enormous number of people have worked tremendously hard to get us to this point, not least Action for ME and its chief executive, Chris Clark. In an interview with Brian Dow in response to the Donaldson report, he said:

"I wish I could believe that every single sceptical doctor, nurse, therapist and member of the public will suddenly have their minds changed, but that's not going to be the case. What should and will happen though is that the day after publication, if a doctor uses the immortal words 'I don't believe in M.E.' the patient has the power to say 'I'm very sorry but the Chief Medical Officer says that it does exist and here's the evidence'."

In that spirit, I commend the report to my colleagues.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing this important debate. It is always difficult to cram all that needs to be said into the allotted half-hour, so I thank him for his generosity in allowing me to make a small contribution.

I believe that the most significant aspects of the report relate to improving diagnosis, treatment, care, research and health service planning. I and everyone else with an interest in the issue would welcome a clear statement today from my hon. Friend the Minister on the Government's plans for implementation in those areas.

Equally important is the question of diagnosis. There is, of course, no single diagnostic test to prove that a person has ME. Until now, it has simply been a question of eliminating other possibilities. However, as early diagnosis seems to have a direct link to the likelihood of recovery, that must be resolved as a priority. The study by Action for ME showed that a third of people took more than a year and a half to be diagnosed. Most thought that that had made a "huge difference" to the severity of their illness.

The Chief Medical Officer's report is very strong on that point. It states that a provisional diagnosis can be put in place after six weeks, with accompanying sensible advice on rest and activity. The diagnosis can then be confirmed if the patterns continue. That has been almost universally welcomed, not least because it may help to break the spiral of a patient becoming worse and having to pay more visits to the GP.

On treatment and care, the report made it clear that because of the lack of serious research, there is no magic pill that helps all people. None the less, much can be done to alleviate some symptoms. Moreover, for those at the less severe end of the scale, rehabilitation programmes involving pacing, graded activity and cognitive behaviour therapy can be beneficial. The report makes it clear that none of those are cures and the latter two in particular are not appropriate for all people. Care must be taken on an individual basis. The report notes that awareness and understanding of ME as a serious illness needs to be increased among the general public, schools, the media, employers, agencies and Departments.

All in all, the report's publication marks a long overdue watershed moment in the history of ME. However, what we do next is every bit as important, if not more so. I therefore have several questions about the Government response to the report. The Government stated that they would refer the issue of providing guidance to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in due course. I hope that the Minister understands that we need to be clear on when that will be. I believe that NICE's own period for producing guidelines is two years.

I understand that the Donaldson report referred only to England and Wales. Perhaps the Minister will say if anything similar is planned for Scotland.

I believe that the issue will be debated in Scotland and I am sure that the Minister will answer the question. Will she tell the House when advice on diagnosis will be passed to GPs and if it will follow the outcome of deliberations by NICE? Does the Minister think that the UK charities' suggestion of implementing interim guidance on management is a good one, and if so, when will it be done?

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that patients are fully involved in the urgent research called for in the working group report? It is important, too, to listen to support groups such as the Beccles and district ME support group in my constituency. I am sure that my hon. Friend joins me in praising and congratulating the new Norfolk and Suffolk CFS/ME service under the leadership of Dr. Terry Mitchell, who serves both our constituencies, for its pioneering work. We need to build on that work and ensure that it is carried out elsewhere in the country.

I have no hesitation in applauding the work done by charities, especially the local groups in Norfolk and Suffolk. It is a matter of postcode prescriptions; whether one gets the treatment depends on where one lives. Dr. Mitchell is a pioneer on the issue in the Yarmouth and Waveney area.

On health services, the report identifies grave deficits in primary, secondary and tertiary care, which urgently need to be plugged. We need to take action to ensure that the changes happen as soon as possible, so those who are most severely affected do not continue to receive the worst deal from the NHS. What assurances will the Minister give on the matter? Does she intend to implement specific funding for such services? If it is to be left entirely for primary care, we will be making a rod for our own backs and condemning patients to years of frustration.

What are the Government's intentions on research? For many sufferers, that is the area in which they are desperate for leadership. The York review, which was incorporated into the chief medical officer's report, highlighted the chronic lack of serious research. Indeed, only 43 studies worldwide met the York criteria. The report stated categorically that there should be a programme of research on almost all aspects of the illness.

The report is being forwarded to those responsible for developing the national service framework for chronic disease. That is welcome, but the outcome may be achieved only over a 10-year period starting in 2005. Given that the report indicates that the deficits identified, particularly in relation to the severely affected, need addressing urgently, does the Minr agree that we cannot afford to wait more than a decade for a clear national strategy to be put in place?

I am pleased that the matter was referred to the Medical Research Council with a request that it should convene an independent scientific advisory group and produce a broad strategy by the end of February. To date, the severely affected have been excluded from serious research and that needs correcting. It is essential that all aspects of the illness are covered. It will go down very badly indeed if research that may help those who are more severely affected is ignored. More work is needed in immunology, virology and endocrinology, among other areas.

At a conservative estimate, ME costs the country £4 billion a year in lost earnings and benefit payments. Does the Minister support the concept of ring-fenced money for research and, if so, what amount does she consider appropriate?

In essence, the chief medical officer said that from 11 January people with ME are entitled to the same support as those with other long-term, chronic illnesses, which is what sufferers and patient groups have been saying for years. They do not want special treatment, just parity with those who have other serious illnesses.

I welcome the recommendation that there should be public awareness campaigns to highlight the seriousness of the illness and I hope the Minister will tell us whether she intends to implement that recommendation. The report also recommends that the education and training of doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals should include CFS/ME and that there should be specific postgraduate education and training in the subject. What assurances can the Minister give in that respect? For example, can she say when that will happen? Finally, can the Minister say how the recommendations on children with ME will be implemented? The impact of such an illness on a young child and their family can be devastating.

As hon. Members know, ME has suffered a curious history, and those who have it have had to face a peculiar double burden over the years. They must cope with an illness that to a great extent destroys their lives and suffer the prejudice and ignorance that has followed the illness around. It is hard for any of us to imagine what it must be like to endure the effects of a serious condition and a constant barrage of scepticism, cynicism and disbelief from those who should have helped them. Since I co-founded the all-party group on CFS/ME in 1998, I have heard from many sufferers whom GPs, health professionals and others have disbelieved. Although those sufferers were lucky enough to receive a positive diagnosis, they had to wait for years before they got to see an ME specialist.

Many more sufferers have experienced protracted battles with their benefits agencies, as they tried to receive the benefits to which they are clearly entitled. Further problems have been experienced at the hands of private health insurance companies, social service agencies and unsympathetic employers. The response to the report has been overwhelmingly positive. People are genuinely relieved that at last the Government are taking their illness seriously and that the problems that they face may finally begin to be addressed. Thousands of people saw a bleak future stretching before them, in which their quality of life became gradually worse. Those people can now have a sense of hope and begin to believe that one day they will be better. It is a huge breakthrough to be able to say at last that we have official recognition that ME exists and is a serious condition.

I commend the Government for their work in getting this far. They have seriously tried to grapple with the issue and, as a result, have made important progress. However, this must be viewed as the start of the process, not its conclusion, and we must act with an urgency that has been absent so far. People with ME want that, and after years of neglect, that is the least that they deserve.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing the debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) for his contribution, and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) for his intervention. I welcome the debate, not least because it gives the Government the opportunity to state their response to the independent working group's report on CFS/ME. A group is also being established in Scotland to consider how best to take the report forward.

I want to start by recognising how distressing and debilitating the condition can be for individuals, their carers and their families. If the illness is not enough of a problem in itself, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth pointed out, the report makes it clear that some patients have found it difficult to get the treatment and care that they need to help them manage their illness and make a recovery. That is why the independent working group gave high priority to harnessing the views of patients, parents, families and carers to underpin the guidance. Two sounding board events were held to enable patients to participate in the development of the report, and were designed to capture some patient voices and to ensure that major stakeholders could identify issues that are pertinent to people who live with CFS/ME. Voluntary organisations also contributed to the independent working group by providing material and sponsored surveys that informed the report throughout.

Some patients have had a positive experience and have worked with health and social care professionals to manage their own care. The report gave the example of a patient who said that

"a diagnosis of CFS was made and I was advised how to manage my energy".

Another said:

"My GP was brilliant. He said he didn't know how to cure me, but we would work together to make me better."

We want everyone with CFS/ME to receive the treatment and care that they need, when and where they need them. Like the patients quoted in the report, we want those with CFS/ME at least to be listened to when decisions are being made about the type of treatment and care that would best meet their individual needs. I want to make it clear that we fully endorse the view of the independent working group that CFS/ME is a chronic illness. Health and social care professionals should recognise it as such, and the Government welcome the publication of the report as the start of the process of improving awareness and understanding of CFS/ME.

I acknowledge that the working group faced a difficult task. Widespread uncertainty surrounds the condition, along with disbelief and controversy about its existence and disagreement about the best way to treat it. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the working groups, including the children's and reference groups, who carried out such a difficult and complex task. I am confident that the report will act as a catalyst for improving care and treatment for people with the debilitating illness.

My right hon. and hon. Friends made an important point about the contribution that patients can and should make in determining the best way forward. Patients with a chronic illness have a wealth of experience in managing their condition, and the Government recognise that. The report entitled "The Expert Patient—a new approach to chronic disease management for the 21st century" sets out how the national health service will empower those with long-term illnesses to become key decision makers in their own care, and that is relevant to this subject.

Key challenges face clinicians who care for people with CFS/ME. First, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston outlined, there are no agreed diagnostic criteria. Diagnosis is often made by eliminating other conditions through a series oftests, and although it is agreed that overwhelming fatigue is one symptom that characterises CFS/ME, debate continues about which other factors should be taken into account when making the diagnosis. Secondly, we do not know the cause of CFS/ME, although there are many theories. Thirdly, no one form of treatment suits every patient, and it is for doctors, in partnership with their patients, to decide how to relieve the wide variety of symptoms that individuals can experience. Fourthly, we are aware that there is controversy about some approaches used for managing CFS/ME.

We must ask all the stakeholders to work together and establish the treatments, or combination of treatments, that will help patients to get better. One possible way forward would be to develop clinical learning networks that allow clinicians and patients to develop expertise. That is in line with the approach of using patients and users to develop expertise. Although most people receive treatment in the primary care sector, I recognise the concerns of my right hon. and hon. Friends about the tertiary and secondary care sectors, and there is potential to develop service networks between tertiary and secondary care. That is another matter that the Government must explore with strategic health authorities. It would improve access to the skills, experience and resources of secondary and tertiary centres, and incorporate the principles of stepped care.

Services for people with CFS/ME have been too patchy. We expect that the report and any further research that may be commissioned will help health professionals feel more confident about caring for patients. The fact that the report has been published should help to increase awareness of CFS/ME, throughout both the medical profession and the public. The report is not intended to provide a comprehensive clinical guideline and has not been developed as such, and a referral to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to provide guidance on management and treatment is being considered. Thought must be given to what is the most appropriate clinical tool for helping patients with the condition. It may be that an audit, referral protocol or guideline best meets the needs of the patients with CFS/ME, and those matters must be discussed in some detail with NICE. It would be better to consider all the evidence rather than to rush in and develop something that is inappropriate.

As was outlined, we will ensure that the external reference groups who are developing the national service framework for both long-term conditions and children's services consider the report and its recommendations for improving treatment and care. Although CFS/ME may not be examined as a specific condition in those NSFs, they will address some generic issues that affect the management of illness in childhood and adolescence and long-term medical conditions in adults. NSFs set out standards for treatment and care and provide support to health and social care professionals to deliver high quality services. Although they may span over 10 years, they do not take 10 years to make an impact.

On research, it is clear from what I said about the challenges facing clinicians that we agree with the working group that the evidence base is poor. We fully support the need for more research on a wide range of aspects of CFS/ME and have asked the Medical Research Council to develop a broad strategy for advancing biomedical and health services research. To do this, the MRC will appoint an independent scientific advisory group. The terms of reference and timetable will be agreed in the spring of 2002. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that it is a long-standing, important principle of successive Governments not to prescribe to—

Order. I must tell the Minister that time is up. I regret that I must cut off her reply. We now move on to the final debate, initiated by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable).

I express my appreciation for the opportunity to raise this Adjournment debate. Normally, I would not seek an Adjournment debate for an individual case, but the history of this case is one of almost monumental incompetence. The lack of humanity demonstrated by Government Departments has been so gross and protracted that I felt that I had to pursue the matter to this stage.

Before I go any further, I should mention that this morning I received a letter from the Under-Secretary on the matter. The letter is courteous and helpful, and she apologised graciously on behalf of the Department for the way in which the case has been conducted. She has accelerated an appeal and given dates. Indeed, she has anticipated the outcome of the debate; the letter may foreshorten our proceedings somewhat. I wish to thank her publicly for responding in this way and being helpful to the family.

None the less, the case has many lessons. It would be right to review the history, simply to place on the record what has happened. In essence, the problems arose from nothing more complicated than the transmission of papers for an immigration appeal from the Senegal embassy to the appellate authority in the UK. The transmission of papers has taken three years and involved seven Ministers—two from the Foreign Office, three from the Home Office and two from the Lord Chancellor's Department—and correspondence with 10 Downing street. Today, it appears that we finally have a resolution to the problem. It is not the final resolution, because I do not know and cannot anticipate the appeal decision, but at least the bureaucratic procedures have been dealt with.

I also wish to raise the issue publicly, rather than leave it with the Minister's letter, because it involves a wider foreign policy issue. The Prime Minister is going to Sierra Leone on Saturday. In general, the Government and the Prime Minister have acquitted themselves with enormous credit on the Sierra Leone crisis, in which British troops have been involved. In many ways, it has been a success story for British foreign policy. However, a dark underside is the way in which the British Government have dealt with the cases of individuals from Sierra Leone. This particularly appalling case must be set against the highly creditable role that the Government and, in particular, the Prime Minister have played.

Let me explain how the problem arose. The Mason family lived in Freetown, Sierra Leone, where Mr. Mason was a prison officer. About three years ago, the family went into the interior on a business trip. That was a time when the Revolutionary United Front rebels were gathering strength. On the way back, the family were stopped by the rebels, who took their car and their possessions and left them destitute by the roadside. They had to walk for two days to get back to Freetown.

On the way back, Mr. Mason's daughter Victoria, then 18 or 19, was raped by RUF rebels. Unfortunately that seems to have been standard procedure in Sierra Leone during the civil war; it was something many young women experienced. When the family arrived back in Freetown there was disorder in the township. Some of the rebels and their friends gathered around the house of the Mason family because they knew of Mr. Mason's background in the prison service. He was called out into the street. He refused to come, knowing the fate that awaited him. He was then burnt alive in front of his family.

Over the next few hours and days the family witnessed some appalling scenes. The RUF rebels were in the habit of taking people and cutting off either their whole arm or half of it. Many of the Masons' friends and neighbours suffered this experience. During that terrible period an elderly mother died of shock. The rest of the family managed to escape to the football stadium where they at least had refuge and some food to keep them alive. They then fled to Guinea, the neighbouring country, which refused to accept them. From there they went to Dakar in Senegal, where they took refuge in a slum colony in the early months of 1999.

At that point the family consisted of Mrs. Mason, her three sons, ranging in age from early twenties to a young boy of seven, who is now nine, and the daughter who was raped and was by now carrying the rapist's child. They sought help from the UNHCR and the British Red Cross to survive in Senegal. That is where I came in and it became a matter for the British Government, because Mrs. Mason's sister, Etha Brace, is one of my constituents. She runs a successful, well-known restaurant serving west African food in Twickenham, and she received a message from her sister asking for help. They had not seen each other for many years but they were very close during childhood.

The sister did what she could to help. She said, "Why not come to Twickenham? We have a restaurant which is only operating at half capacity because we don't have any staff." There is virtually no unemployment in my constituency and there are certainly no unemployed people with a speciality in west African cooking. She told her sister, "Come to my restaurant. We will give your family work so you won't be dependent on benefits. There is work here and I have a spare flat. We have plenty of accommodation and we can look after you".

The family were encouraged to apply to the British embassy for visas to settle with the Brace family in Twickenham and did so. At this point the story becomes complicated because of the turbulence in that environment. Although a democratic country, Senegal was then in the early stages of an election campaign in which there was a lot of violence and intimidation, and extortion of refugees. The environment was exceedingly unsettled. When the Brace family sent £1,000 to pay for visas, the Masons were tricked by a Member of Parliament in Senegal who presented himself as having been particularly close to the embassy; he turned out to be a confidence trickster. The Masons then had their passports and money stolen, and they were offered their passports back for a large bribe. Their whole experience was horrific.

Eventually, after some weeks they managed to apply to the embassy for settlement visas and were turned down by the entry clearance officer, a Mr. Sean Burns. Two arguments were advanced; first, that he was not satisfied that there were exceptional personal circumstances. In view of their history that struck me as extraordinary. Throughout the correspondence over three years, Ministers have kept repeating that phrase; they are not satisfied that exceptional circumstances apply to this family. That seems bizarre to me and almost insulting. Secondly, the embassy would not accept that the family could be solely dependent on the sister in Twickenham, although this could demonstrably be shown to be true.

I became involved and asked for the case to be re-examined. That was done, and my appeal was rejected by the entry clearance officer at the embassy in Senegal in early 1999. The family appealed and asked to have its visa rejection heard through the proper appellate process, under which the entry clearance officer has to send to the appeal directorate in London an explanatory note that will form the basis of the appeal. However, nothing happened. After six months, the documents had not appeared in London. The members of the family in Twickenham were by now so distraught that they went to Senegal to find out what was happening there and to explain the position to the British embassy.

What the Brace family found horrified them. First, the entry clearance officer showed no sense of urgency and put the six-month delay in sending the documents down to the fact that he was busy. They found that their relatives were utterly destitute. The three boys were sharing a pair of shoes, trousers and a shirt so they could not all go out at the same time. The situation was desperate. The Braces tried to provide the Masons with money and help and appealed to the embassy to speed up the processing of the papers.

Months went by and, again, nothing happened. The message from the embassy was that the official was too busy to deal with the problem. As far as I can establish, the papers did not progress beyond the desk of the entry clearance officer in Senegal for the best part of a year, although some of the facts are a little murky. I became sufficiently concerned that in May 2000—over a year after the original application—I got in touch with the then Minister, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) at the Foreign Office, and asked him to intervene. Although this is a sorry tale, he showed great courtesy and efficiency and genuine compassion. I know that he is in trouble in the House for other reasons, but the way in which he dealt with this matter was exemplary and reflected considerable credit on the Government. He wrote to the Lord Chancellor's Department to ask whether the appeal process could not be moved on more quickly. It was then discovered that the papers had still not reached there. Were they in Senegal or somewhere else?

After a long search, it was established in August 2000—eighteen months after the original application—that the papers were neither in Senegal nor in the Lord Chancellor's Department; they were in the Immigration and Nationality Department of the Home Office. I received a letter from the then Minister, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), who was both apologetic and gracious. She accepted that mistakes had been made and that there had been unacceptable delays. She also said that the matter would be dealt with urgently. However, nothing happened.

Time passed. Nine months later, in April 2001, a letter was received from Lord Bassam at the Home Office, saying that the papers had been lost there, but not explaining how or why, and that nothing further could be done because there were no papers. I wrote to follow that up. Five months later, in August 2001, I received a reply from a person who had clearly not bothered to look at the file and was completely misinformed about the background to the case. At that point, I wrote to the present Minister. I might have over-egged the pudding a little in that I wrote an extremely rude letter drawing her attention to the whole sorry history, with which she has only been involved at a late stage. That is why we are here today.

I am aware that the story has moved on and that the Minister has acted, but it is important to have the story on the record. It reflects appallingly on different bits of the British Government—particularly on the embassy in Senegal and its officials, who were callous and inefficient in equal measure. The Home Office was also inefficient. At least it had the excuse that it was dealing with files rather than with real people, but, none the less, its inefficiency was inexcusable.

Three years on, we are dealing with the prospect of an appeal against a visa decision. I realise that the situation in Sierra Leone has now moved on, but the family are still terrified after what happened to them and are clinging to the possibility that they may be able to come and stay with their family in Twickenham. I acknowledge that that is not something for the Minister to decide because there is an appeals process, but I am grateful to have had the opportunity to put on record that sorry tale.

I am extremely grateful that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) wrote me a rude letter because it helped me to realise that something very wrong was happening with this case, which is one of many thousands that cross my desk. It also enabled me to examine closely what had happened.

I begin by offering my unreserved apologies to the applicant and her family for the delay and distress that has been caused, and to apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the fact that some of his inquiries about the progress of the case received inaccurate replies from my predecessors and, initially, from me in my letter of 14 December.

I and my officials in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate are deeply embarrassed at the string of errors that have made these apologies so necessary. The mistakes were not made deliberately, as the hon. Gentleman was gracious enough to accept, but unfortunately, it was one of those cases, among the hundreds of thousands that we deal with every year, in which everything that can go wrong does, not only at the embassy but, subsequently, in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. For that I am very sorry.

The only thing to do in such cases is to apologise, which I have done, and to do everything possible to try to put things right. We also need to learn lessons for the future. The first of those actions has already been taken, as the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to acknowledge. The appeal papers are now with the Immigration Appellate Authority, where they should have been a long time ago, and dates have been set for a preliminary hearing this month and a substantive hearing in April. Of course, that in no way compensates for the delays that the applicant has experienced or the additional stress that must have been caused.

I should also say that the examination of what went wrong in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate has highlighted several problems involving entry clearance officers in particular. Some have already been addressed and will not occur in subsequent cases and others are being addressed now. I hope that that sort of oversight will never happen again. As a Minister, it is especially difficult to discover that one's replies to other Members of Parliament, signed in good faith, have not been acted on. The loophole in the Department, whereby there is no system for ensuring that ministerial replies are acted on, is being closed.

I do not want to spend time on the details of the case, as the hon. Member for Twickenham has already outlined it. None of that is in doubt or an issue between us. He is right to say that the process of appeals against entry clearance decisions from overseas is that they are lodged with the entry clearance officer and passed to the IND for the papers to be checked, copied and assembled into an appeal bundle and passed to the appellate authority, with a copy to the appellant's legal representative. The appellate authority then lists the case for hearing. Both the delays at the embassy and the unfortunate delays at IND meant that this case was not progressed.

I hope that the hon. Member for Twickenham will accept my apology and my reassurances that I am doing all that I can to ensure that this loophole for entry clearance cases is closed. I can assure him that I will not be signing any other letter to an hon. Member on an entry clearance case before I have checked that the matter has been actioned by officials in my Department.

The case has been unacceptable in many respects. I did my best, as soon as it came to my close attention, to ensure that progress was made. The hon. Gentleman has been quite gracious and correct in saying that I cannot influence the outcome of the case, but at least we have ensured that action is taken. Although that does not compensate for what happened, we will at least be in a position for a decision to be made on the case in the not-too-distant future.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we will ensure that it does not happen again in other cases. I also hope that he will accept not only my apologies but my congratulations, first for writing me a nasty letter and secondly for raising the issue in Westminster Hall, which has given me an opportunity to explain what went wrong and set out what we are doing to ensure that it will not happen again.

I am sure that hon. Members are grateful to the Minister for that fulsome response to this important matter.