The Local Government Act 1894 established parish councils for villages of more than 300 people. That Act followed a series of substantial late Victorian local government reforms. During the 108 years since then, parish councils and their urban equivalent of town councils have become established in every corner of the country. They have evolved over that time, but to their credit they have retained their distinctive character.

Effective local councils represent some of the best practice in good governance. First, they are part of the communities that they serve, which ensures accountability. Secondly, they are focused on the provision of local services and amenities, which is what people want. Thirdly, they are often independent of Whitehall and the political party machines. Fourthly, and perhaps most important, they are diverse: they genuinely reflect the different urban and rural communities for which they are responsible.

I am fortunate that in my constituency of Hertford and Stortford and the area covered by the East Hertfordshire district council we have some excellent parish and town councils. The four town councils represent from 8,000 people to about 31,000 people. The parish councils are similarly varied. Some represent one single village; others represent a series of villages and hamlets. All of them, however, share a common sense of public service and, in good times and bad, they have striven to do their best for their communities.

I take this opportunity to record my thanks to the hundreds of men and women who, down the years, have served as councillors, clerks or staff, and for the wonderful public service that they have provided. In a quiet manner—dare I say it, in a barely active way, but none the less effectively—parish and town councils have helped to shape the character of their communities. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will join me in extending their thanks for that public service. Indeed, as the very future of public service is in question, we should pay tribute to those who have given so freely of their time and talents.

The role and organisation of local councils are now changing. During the past two years, the Government have published a series of consultation papers and statutory documents on how our parish and town councils should operate. Those plans include changes in their powers, funding and organisation—and even on how councillors should conduct themselves. Taken together, those changes represent a significant redefinition of the role of the local council. That is why I was delighted to learn at the end of last week that I had secured today's debate. It is a shame that hon. Members from some political parties are not able to take part.

Mention them.

I wish to retain a degree of independence, but as my hon. Friend points out, it is a shame that the Labour party seems to be sleeping this morning.

Inactive.

Inactive; my hon. Friend is quite right.

Certainly not vibrant.

Certainly not.

I shall consider three aspects of the Government's plans. The first is the funding system known as quality councils; the next is the management system termed best value; the last is the code of conduct for councillors. Each aspect may seem minor—they may even sound dull—but together they represent a major change in how local councils will work, and therefore in how our local communities will develop.

I shall begin with quality councils. Initially, they sound great, do they not? Who could possibly object to encouraging higher standards among local councils? Yet when one examines the scheme in practice, one realises that the main means of promoting the higher standards that the Government propose is the hypothecation of funding. Local councils would therefore be forced to comply with Whitehall rules to be eligible for funds. The Government have remorselessly practised that classic Whitehall tactic in almost every aspect of our public services. The result has been less local decision making and more power vested in Whitehall.

That is not the way to encourage people to become involved in our local communities, because it sends the message that Whitehall knows best, and Ministers do not trust local people to make the right decisions for their communities. That is clear from the way in which the Government fund education, health and our police services, which are losing good people who feel that Ministers do not trust them to take decisions. The same will happen in our parish and town councils if the Minister pursues the policy that he has in mind.

The second of the Government's plans relates to the system known as best value. For those who are unfamiliar with it, I should explain that the best value management system is intended to raise performance standards through—I hope that hon. Members will excuse the ridiculous management jargon—continuous performance, performance planning and service reviews. Like many management consultancy fads, it turns a simple common-sense idea into complex bureaucratic language that all too often sounds like gibberish.

If I may, I shall give a brief example of that gibberish from the Government's consultation paper on quality in town and parish councils. In discussing the proposal's benefits, it says:

"In order to support the process of developing partnership arrangements for the improved delivery of services on behalf of principal authorities by local councils, our proposals need to be underpinned by the statutory performance management framework for principal authorities."

It is early in the morning, so I appreciate that that is not easy to comprehend, but I think that in English, it means that we must pass new laws to make the provisions work.

If such management waffle is bad enough in large multinationals, it is even worse when it is imposed on small local councils. That is not simply my view, but that of many of the respondents in the study that the Government recently published. The study was conducted by the Institute of Local Government Studies through the university of Birmingham. It examined 41 councils involved in the best value programme and took a detailed look at the first year. It stated:

"While, as indicated, there was broad acceptance of the basic principles of Best Value as representing good management, the overall experience to date has been mainly negative. In particular, the regime is perceived as being far too demanding, unduly rigid and insufficiently attuned to the specific circumstances and needs of local councils. Most respondents argued that, in their experience to date, the costs of Best Value had far outweighed the benefits gained. Furthermore, they saw little prospect of the costs being recouped through efficiency savings achieved through Best Value reviews."

The study went on to ask the councils detailed questions. One finding was that the yearly cost for the average council would be between £20,000 and £40,000. The respondents were somewhat more concerned about value for money. The study stated that in the six councils that were visited for follow-up purposes

"the argument was heard that the direct costs of compliance with Best Value requirements … had far exceeded the value of the service development benefits … Moreover, as indicated, equally widespread was the view that many of those service development benefits would mostly have been achieved anyway through less resource-demanding and more routine practices of good management."

I want to highlight the nature of the use of performance indicators, as they seemed to be especially unsuccessful. There is a case for using them in management, but they have to be selected carefully. They must be meaningful, in terms of what they measure, and of real help. Another important quotation from the report will show that, sadly, that is not always the case. The report states that

"there was no doubting a widespread scepticism about the value of performance indicators … at this level of local government … As one councillor said with regard to monitoring standards of upkeep in the local cemetery: 'when the grass is long, the paths need weeding or the graves are untidy people tell you in no uncertain terms. We make sure they don't have to tell us. I walk through that cemetery every day, every single day, so I can keep an eye on it. I don't have to measure it to know when the grass is too long'."

That summarises the way in which the system has gone mad. I hope that the Minister will explain what lessons the Government have learned from the study on a system that, far from providing best value, seems to have little or no value in the eyes of those asked to implement it.

The Government's plans to impose a code of conduct on local councillors are shortly to be debated elsewhere in the House. The code seems remarkably prescriptive. It introduces a register of parish councillors' interests that will include their employment, business and property. It will require them to register any gift or hospitality worth more than £25, so presumably raffle prizes at the local fete will be somewhat restricted. It also contains a requirement to disclose any personal interest, or interest of their spouse or relatives, and to withdraw from the room if those interests are discussed.

Everyone in the House seeks the highest standards of behaviour in public life, but those measures are clumsy and draconian when applied to local councillors. They are disproportionate to the budget involved, and fail to distinguish between major and minor breaches. Also, they could not work as drafted in many small parishes. If someone in a small community is asked to declare his interests and those of his spouse and all his family, I can envisage some parish councils having no one left in the room to discuss the issues. That is the silly nature of the proposal.

Perhaps worst of all, the code creates an enormous sense of disquiet among the vast majority of hardworking and law-abiding councillors. They feel that the Government no longer trust them.

Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the biggest problems with the code of conduct is that it is mandatory? It was originally envisaged that local councillors would have discretion as to which elements of the code of conduct they wanted to adopt locally for their own circumstances.

My hon. Friend is right. He has underlined the critical point, which is that under this Government, the days of discretion and variety are gone. The system is all about compulsion and imposition, and that is one of its weaknesses.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the plethora of reorganisation is causing a problem, in that many people are asking why they should bother giving up their time to serve the community and take all the hassle of being parish councillors? Indeed, is that not what the Government set out to bring about? I think that the Minister for the Environment recently asked what role parish councillors had. Under this Government, they have no role, and the code is an attempt to see them off.

As always, my hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. As a new Member, I might want to give Ministers the benefit of the doubt, but more experienced colleagues clearly understand the issues better than I do. There is a danger that what my hon. Friend described will be the result. I hope that the Minister will categorically state that it is neither the intention nor the wish of the Government to see that take place.

These examples of the Government's plans highlight how they seem to have chosen what my hon. Friends agree is a centralising and bureaucratic agenda that will curtail local freedom and destroy the diversity that makes our parish and town councils distinctive. That is the wrong approach. Instead of meddling in management systems, the Government should be improving local services. Instead of imposing a bureaucratic code of conduct, they should be tackling known offenders, and instead of enforcing conformity—as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has pointed out—they should be celebrating the diversity of our towns and parishes.

In the last 108 years, parish and town councils have become the foundation of many local communities. I hope that the Minister recognises that many of his initiatives have lost their way. It is time to give back to councils the freedom to build for the future and the confidence that that will engender.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) has done the House a service in calling for this debate. The more I look into the matter, the more fired up I get, and the more I have listened to my hon. Friend and thought about the Government's underhand surreptitious policy, the more angry I have become. I think that that is true of my hon. Friends as well.

It is a tragedy that the Government are sneakily trampling on the decency and traditions of organisations that do an enormous amount of good in the communities that they serve. The Government call for "community" and "voluntarism" and other aspects of good citizenship, yet they are destroying all that, and undermining much of the quality of life that we—particularly those of us who represent rural constituencies—value highly.

I have more than 100 parish councils in my constituency. Some of them have lovely, former Viking names—Thorpes, Byes and Little by the Rivers, and so on. These little organisations serve the genuine needs of people who live there, without the hassle—until now—and supervision of an overregulated governmental system. They are enormously valuable to the people on their doorsteps. After 10 years, I like to think that I know every corner of the 500 square miles of my constituency. However, the other day I discovered one that I had not realised existed—a hamlet of about 15 houses at the end of a cul de sac. It has a vibrant parish council that looks after the mundane things that most bother the residents about the community in which they live—the views that they see every day, the paths that they use and the fields in which they have always walked their dogs.

Parish councils, by their very nature, are varied—as my hon. Friend has said. They are diverse. They have value because they do not fit into the straitjacket of some theoretical governmental pattern. They have evolved to suit the needs of their communities. They can be tiddly or big, busy or dormant, and they can suddenly rise up and get angry when they need to because an issue affects them. They do not have to harass the Minister actively every day about this or that policy or consultation document. They are simply there to respond, when needed, to the demands, requirements and feelings of those who live in the area. They are small, cuddly, and harmless, but they are genuine community organisations that exist to serve their people. The more they are interfered with, the less effective they will be.

Let us consider what parish councils do. They have no executive authority and cannot set a budget, decide where a house is to be built, move a road or build a building. All that they can do is express an opinion, and act as a pressure valve for locals who want to express their opinion, who tend to get especially hot under the collar about planning matters. The most that they can do is to stick a tiny precept—a fiver or a tenner—on the borough or district council budget to fund things of particular concern to small communities, which have gained popular consent and approval. That money might go towards a flagpole on a village green, or to restore the wagon wash or an ancient wall that has crumbled over the past 50 years. It might be put towards repairing the local church—they lychgate, or a wall, for example. At any rate, it will go towards something that exercises the feelings and views of those who live in the parish.

What are those councils doing at the moment? Most are organising jubilee celebrations. They will probably not have a precept for that, because all the money coming into the celebrations will be voluntary, but the focal point for the expression of community enjoyment and party organisation—putting up the bunting and the lights at Christmas, for example—remains the parish.

The Minister does not seem to be interested in what I am saying, but I hope that he is listening.

Not only is the Minister apparently uninterested in what my hon. Friend is saying, but it is appalling that not a single Liberal Democrat Back Bencher is in this Chamber today. They claim to have an interest in local matters, but where are they? I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my concern.

Order. Hon. Members should not need to be reminded that we are debating a subject, rather than who is in the Chamber.

Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, but my hon. Friend is right, none the less. We can count, and on this occasion we do not even need all the fingers of one hand to count with.

Let me address another issue to which, this time, the Minister might pay some attention, which has affected my constituents and may have affected those of other hon. Members. I am talking about flooding, which has bedevilled so many local communities over the past three or four years. Surprising instances of flooding have occurred: suddenly springs start bubbling up through the tarmac, and a plain is flooded that has not been awash with water for decades.

Parish councils are the source of knowledge and understanding about the direct effects of water flows in their immediate vicinity. They are where the wisdom lies. Some old farmer who has been cutting the daisies—rather than pushing up the daisies-for decades, knows where the water goes and can explain to people imported into the planning authority the effects of different types of building.

My hon. Friend has hit on an important point. In Ashford in the Water, which is in my constituency and which suffered flooding last year, the main point of contact for people was a parish councillor, with whom the Environment Agency also corresponded. The parish council provided a useful contact point.

My hon. Friend is right. The combination of the diligence of a local Member of Parliament and the activity of a local parish will ensure that Ashford in the Water is not for ever Ashford under Water.

Parish councils provide valuable information and act both on things that might ruin the lives of people in the parish and on simple things. At this time of year, one walks into a village and sees the daffodils blooming under an oak. They did not come to be there because of some district council or Member of Parliament, but through the activity of a parish council, which cobbled together a few quid to make the village a lovelier place in which to reside.

My point is that all that work is at risk of being destroyed. What fires me up—and clearly fires up my hon. Friends too—is the Government's underhand policy of completely destroying the historic and useful activities of parish councils. Let us start with this putrid, stinky, disgusting little document, in which some civil servant has arbitrarily categorised every parish council in the land on the basis of no decent quality information whatever. The terminology of categorisation is designed to deride. Parish councils are described as "inactive", "dormant", "barely active" or, just occasionally, "vibrant".

I do not mind my parish council being slightly inactive or only half vibrant; what I want to know is that it will represent my interests as a resident efficiently and honestly when necessary. So if it is dormant but can rise when the need provokes it, that does not mean that it is less good as a parish council. This entire document—this vague and arbitrary, although supposedly specific, listing—is deeply offensive and insulting to many people. What would happen if I were to categorise Labour Members of Parliament as dormant, inactive, vibrant, or even thick? I could draw up a comprehensive list, based on far better information than we find in this document about our English parishes.

I want to take up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford about declarations of interest. One can argue that people who make executive decisions should declare their interests, whether those decisions are about planning, whether they enable people to put money in their pockets or whether their decisions may be misunderstood—

Especially in Doncaster.

In Doncaster, as my hon. Friend says, there is a track record of that sort of thing—but not in parish councils, because they do not have executive authority. They are glorified, but none the less helpful and valuable, residents associations—a useful but harmless safety valve for the expression and channeling of opinion. The suggestion that the local squire or former schoolteacher, who does his or her decent duty as chairman of the parish council, should have to list their assets and declare their interests, and those of their spouse, is obscene. That is a grave intrusion into privacy and an abuse of human rights. It shrouds the decent work of the entire community of parish councils in a cloud of suspicion that they do not deserve. It amounts almost to an assumption of guilt. I, and many people who serve on parish councils, find that offensive.

Thirdly, I want to say something about audit costs. We now have the absurd situation in which the little "residents association" parish council must submit audited accounts to the district auditor. In one case in Clipsham and Stretton, in eastern Rutland, the Audit Commission billed the council £250 for submitting the accounts, but the total balance in the accounts was £238.20. This ridiculous Government are telling parish councils that they must submit their audited accounts, but they do not need auditing. Does the parochial church council belfry account or kerbstone account need auditing? Cannot a local accountant just tick the box to certify that the accounts, set out on one page, are honest? Expenditure on daffodils, £5.50; cash in hand, £128; donation to the bell tower, £50. Do such accounts need auditing? They do not. The Minister is shaking his head, so we look forward to hearing him confirm that people who serve on parish councils will not be required to declare their interests, that no audit fees will be imposed to clobber parish councils, and that they will be left alone.

The Government's agenda, working from a socialist theoretical point of view, is to ensure that all the organs of government are tidily structured under one pattern of thought, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford said, Conservative Members value the diversity—and almost the inexplicability—of parish council structures. Whether they are tiddly or big, active or inactive, does not matter; they are a force for good.

I am suspicious that as the agenda for bigger and more regional government is pushed forward, and it is argued that anyone who has anything to do with public service must put their assets on the line for all to see, the people who will be destroyed are those who do their duty, as a public service, by serving local communities on parish councils. The hidden agenda of the Minister and his Government is to destroy the parish council as we know it. That is a crime. The parish council is of value, and is a force for good. Can the Minister confirm that it will be left alone to do what it has always done as well as it has always done it?

It is a great pleasure to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to speak on a rural issue for the second time in less than 24 hours. I do not want to cause offence to my friends in the hunting world, but this is probably a more important long-term issue than that which we were debating on the Floor of the House yesterday.

I ask the Minister to take the matter seriously. He has heard a characteristically passionate speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). I share his anger because what he described was right. I hope that the Minister will not conclude from the lack of support in the Chamber from his hon. Friends, or from the Liberal Democrats, that there is a lack of passion in the countryside on the issue. Genuine worry exists in the countryside. I do not know whether the Minister's constituency of Southampton, Test is arranged in parishes. [Interruption.] It is not. I am grateful to the Minister for admitting that.

One problem is that the Government do not understand parishes—that is not a criticism, but an observation. We have a necessarily urban policy-making elite in the civil service, and an urban-dominated Government. Such a Government should be careful about rushing into policy judgments on rural institutions that are not represented at policy-making or ministerial level.

Parish councils are strange and diverse animals; they are the small platoons about which Edmund Burke wrote, and they comprise the fabric of our community. I rely heavily on them for advice on a range of issues. I make it my point to write to the chairmen and clerks on a regular basis, and I listen carefully to what they say. When I am invited to take a role in a planning decision, I will do so only if the parish council confirms that it would be right for me to become involved. I visit parish councils as regularly as I can, and I celebrate their diversity—they are an extraordinary range of organisations. When my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton said that the Government were trying to fit them into a neat policy framework—a series of boxes—he hit the nail on the head. I am a charitable soul so I am inclined to believe that they are doing that out of ignorance, not malice, but perhaps I am too charitable.

If one did characterise parish councils, one could take four levels: the micro parish council, which is typically a parish meeting; the standard village parish council; the large village parish council; and the town council. I shall quote a letter from Abberton parish meeting that I received a couple of weeks ago. I have sent a copy to the Minister, who may not have received it yet. It is a response to the Countryside Agency's survey of parishes. The Minister will say that that survey was not of parish councils, but of parishes. However, parish councils see the survey as a measure of their effectiveness, and the vibrancy of parish councils is one of the indicators through contested elections. Therefore, although the Minister's legalistic defence may hold good in court on a point of law, it is not common sense. Parishes in my constituency are up in arms about the agency's analysis.

Abberton parish meeting is not up in arms, for the reasons stated in chairman Mr. James Taylor's letter. He writes:

"May I give you a brief picture of the parish of Abberton, which I hope will give you the background to our apparent somnambulant posture."

He goes on to describe the small, 999-acre hamlet of Abberton, which has not greatly changed over the past 40 to 50 years. He paints a picture of its two farms, which employ only seven people, two of whom travel in daily. He says that the parish meeting is called when required, and most recently that was to debate speed limits in the village—an important issue in several rural communities. He says that those at the meeting objected to the urbanisation implied in the speed limit system that the county council wanted to impose.

Mr. Taylor explains that planning applications are circulated by hand to interested parties. When problems arise such as the flooding of the highway—my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton made a powerful point about the role of parish councils and flooding—direct contact is made by the parish council, there is no need to call a meeting, and matters are sorted out. He talks about the church, St. Edburga's, where the monthly service is all that it can manage. Members of the parish go to the neighbouring parish of Bishampton to take part in drama and choir activities. Those people are pretty vibrant, even if the parish meeting is not particularly so. A local choir comes to practice in the church, it is true, and there is an occasional bus service to Pershore and Stratford, although that causes some concern in the village because it apparently damages the kerbs. There was a bonfire in 2000 for the millennium and that will happen again for the Queen's golden jubilee.

Mr. Taylor says, at the end of his letter:

"I hope this gives you a flavour of our community. We do go to some LA meetings and receive large amounts of mail"—

I expect that most of that is from the Government—

"but if I judge my neighbours right, we as a parish are quite happy to be left asleep."

That is the point. Many such organisations are happy to do precisely that. To understand parish councils as a coherent entity is to misunderstand them when there is such a diverse range of them.

At the other end of the scale of villages is Broadway parish council, to which I shall return later in my remarks, and large town councils such as Evesham and Droitwich, each with a population of more than 20,000. Those are wildly different organisations, and to apply the same set of rules, whatever those are, to all those different types of organisation is a fundamental policy error. The Minister denies that he is doing so, but that is what the parishes see daily in the letters that they receive from the Government.

Is this problem not compounded because the Minister involved admitted that

"consultation was not done directly with the individual communities"?

Someone decided the nature of the parish remotely. Is that not insulting?

I have had a very detailed letter from the Minister and his colleague at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Minister for Rural Affairs, about that process. Reading between the lines, it is quite clear that they admit that it was deeply flawed. The Minister for Rural Affairs told me how many parishes in my constituency responded: only 22 out of 56. I have to say that of the 22 that he said responded, most do not remember responding and most do not remember having received a survey in the first place. I suspect that that was because the Government used an out-of-date list of parish council clerks—a real problem. The survey came at the height of the foot and mouth disease crisis, when the parishes in rural England were up to their necks, dealing with a whole range of problems. They did not have time for another Government survey. That was a barmy time to do that exercise.

The Minister for Rural Affairs, in a letter to me, highlighted three parish councils that had not responded, as if that was a criticism of them: Bishampton and Throckmorton, Hill and Moor and Wyre Piddle. The reason that they did not respond was that the Government had dumped on them a major foot and mouth disease burial site without any consultation with those parishes whatsoever. When I discovered belatedly that that was happening, at my suggestion they were invited to the press conference to have the details revealed. That is the attitude of the present Government to parish council—they just do not feature in the Government's thinking.

The Minister says that the Government are not treating all parish councils in the same way, but I have a letter in my hand from Nicky Holland, the clerk to Abbots Morton parish council. That is one of those small village parish councils, bigger than a parish meeting but smaller than the council of a large village like Broadway—a typical parish council. She says:

"Over the past two years, we feel that Abbots Morton Parish Council has become a vibrant Council. As the Clerk I have attended a year's course at Worcestershire College; the Chairman has attended various training courses along with other Parish Councillors. We have increased our meetings to six a year to cope with the extra workload from the White Paper, have adopted Standing Orders and dealt with employment issues. We have responded to comments regarding Government documents and other papers that have been brought to our attention."

Yet, of course, that was a parish council that was characterised as "sleeping" in the Government's analysis.

How can that be? The work load described there has come about because the council is being forced to respond to Government initiatives at a level that just does not concern parish councils. The Minister is probably being briefed by his officials, and I understand that. I have every sympathy for him—he does not understand parish councils and does not have them in his constituency—but I urge him to look at the reality and not the fine words that he gets from his officials. I urge him to open his eyes to the reality of what is going on.

I have already mentioned the Government's failure to consult parish councils at times of great crisis. I re-emphasise their failure to consult parish councils. Failing to consult Pinvin parish council at the time of foot and mouth disease when imposing a burial site in my constituency was a monstrous breach of their duty. Parish councils want to be consulted. Why have they not yet been given the power, for example, to be statutory objectors to the grant of operator licences to heavy goods vehicle companies? In the vale of Evesham, in south-east Worcestershire in my constituency, there is a huge problem with heavy goods vehicles. Yet when an operator licence is applied for and the parish council seeks to make its view known to the licensing authorities, it is not allowed to do so because it is not a statutory objector or consultee. Only an individual—not a parish council—who is adversely affected may express a view.

I raised the matter with the Government, probably two years ago, and was told that they would take steps to correct it. They have not yet done so. They find time to put all kinds of impositions on parish councils but not to give them what they want. I plead with the Minister to reconsider the role of parish councils in the HGV licensing process. They desperately want and need the power and would really appreciate having it.

We have talked about the Countryside Agency's analysis of parish councils, and I explained why the Government would defend it. However, it is wrong to defend it. It has caused huge offence. I write to my parish councils regularly, and I seek to be honest and straightforward with them. They are not party political animals. If the Minister thinks that members of parish councils are all Conservatives, he is wrong. Despite the absence of the Liberal Democrats today in Westminster Hall, they are a powerful force on many parish councils, as are Labour activists. Parish councils are not party-based organisations, and I try to deal with them in a non-partisan way, as one must. Their anger about the survey should not be understated.

I have a letter from Evesham town council, which shares the deep concerns about the issue. Very kindly, it sent me a copy of the March 2002 edition of a publication that I had not seen before, Clerks and Councils Direct, which is probably targeted at the larger councils. An article with the headline "Sleepy tag is `grave insult' explains the survey and indicates that councils know what it is all about and have not misunderstood it, as the Minister might think. It says:

"Community leaders are fuming as a result … many councils who have fallen into the first two categories"—sleeping or barely active—

"say the labels are nothing more than an insult because of the countless hours they spend working to improve their communities."

Although I am grateful to the Countryside Agency for its reassurance that more reliable methods will be used when the exercise is repeated—as it will be—to help the Government develop indicators of community vibrancy, it fails to understand that one does not need such indicators, for the reasons given in the excellent speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) and for Rutland and Melton. We do not need more bits of information and bureaucracy. Parish and town councils work as they are. They do not need to be tinkered with, nor do they need control from Whitehall. They just need to be left to get on with the job that they have done so effectively for so long.

The article continues:

"Windleston and Rushyford Parish Council, in the heart of Prime Minister Tony Blair's Sedgefield constituency in Durham, found itself described as dormant. Its members meet four times a year".

I think that the council will be a little insulted by the description. In fact, we know that it is, because the chairman has complained:

"Great Aycliffe Town Council serves 28,000 people, with a £2 million budget and employing 80 staff. Yet it is in the same third-tier category as parish councils such as Windlestone and Rushyford.

Deputy council leader Alan Grey said that the town council offered a variety of services, including recreational facilities, parks, a golf club and large sports complex, and play groups."

Its survey rating is absolutely extraordinary.

I accept that the exercise was trivial. I was told in a parliamentary answer that it was conducted in only two days, which is amazing, considering that there are 6,000 parish councils in it. However, the Minister must understand that, though trivial, it matters, because it has crystallised the concerns that have developed among parish councils during the past three or four years about the Government's attitude to them.

I am not often upset by letters from Ministers, because they are not often very robust. They are written by the same civil servants who brief Ministers, and they always try to avoid being too confrontational. However, I received an extraordinary letter from the Minister for Rural Affairs. It was written about three weeks after I issued a press release. To get a letter from a Minister in any Department, let alone DEFRA, within three weeks of a press release is surprising. I wait three months for parliamentary answers and three or four months for letters from DEFRA, which is one of the worst Departments in Whitehall for responding to parliamentary questions.

The Minister for Rural Affairs accused me of sending out a Conservative central office handout, which is simply not true. The document was entirely my own work—every single word of it. The Minister accused me of saying things that I had not said, and concluded:

"I hope you will now join me in supporting and promoting the role of parish and town councils. Their role is too important to be used as a political football, as indeed is the role of the Countryside Agency."

We are not using parish councils as political footballs but are desperately trying to stand up for their interests against an uncomprehending Government. Instead, we are using the Government and, to an extent, the Countryside Agency as political footballs.

I find the Minister's remarks deeply offensive and wrong. I have written a four-page letter to him in response, which I hope that he will personally read. I hope that he will apologise, but somehow I doubt it.

Parish and town councils are not adequately consulted. They have been insulted by the Countryside Agency and the Government and are being forced into a straitjacket through the quality initiative about which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford spoke so eloquently. I have asked all the parish councils in my constituency to show me their responses to the quality initiative. One or two of them are not particularly concerned about it, but the vast majority of them are profoundly worried. They regard the measure as a further encroachment on their traditions and on what they have been good at for so long. That spirit informs their responses. I urge the Minister to read them carefully and not rely on large national organisations for advice. He will be surprised by what he finds.

We all know the story about the boy who cried wolf, and I do not want to be accused of crying wolf today. The Minister points at my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, because the Government are beginning the process of disintegration of parish councils. The straw that broke the camel's back was the wretched document, the Parish Councils (Model Code of Conduct) Order 2000, which we shall debate in a statutory instrument Committee later today. I cannot believe that the Government really know what they are doing with such a document. The code is more prescriptive than that for Members of Parliament. If we compare what we and what parish councils are required to declare, we find that the order of magnitude for parish councils is worse. The Minister must first understand one practical consideration. Even if the declaration were required, let us consider the work load that will be placed on the poor, overworked clerks who do so much excellent work for local communities, often for low remuneration. It is extraordinary how much will be involved in keeping the code up to date.

The Minister explained in a letter that the duty to declare £25 gifts would apply only to those given during the course of parish council duties. That is not what the code says or how we interpret it. I repeat the warning that I made in a recent letter to him. There are often local disputes in parishes; people may not get on well. They are not always happy places. Parish council politics can be pretty brutal; those who listen to "The Archers" know that. By the way, the Minister may wish to know that that programme is set in my constituency and that of the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith).

There are often petty rivalries and jealousies at local level. I will not name names, although I am tempted to; but I can think of one or two rivalries in which the code will be a very powerful tool for vexatious constituents. People will take entirely spurious complaints to a new national body. The complaints will receive massive publicity in local newspapers but will then be dismissed at great cost to those involved. Such action will cause great stress to individuals who were falsely accused. The Minister will be ill-guided if he pursues the provisions under the code of conduct.

The Minister seems to consider that the code is reasonable and that, under the Nolan rules, matters should be transparent. As has been made clear, the budgets of parish councils are typically piddling or nonexistent. I accept that it is regrettable and wrong for someone to make a fiver out of the odd grass-cutting contract that is handed out, but does that justify such provisions? The communities would find out about such matters pretty damn quickly. Such networks do not need formalisation; they are informal. There have been cases of fraud, such as the one in my constituency in which a parish clerk ran off with a lot of money. I accept that some powers of control are needed, but in those circumstances public bodies had bent over backwards to lend her money without checking whether her applications were legitimate. The proposed audit requirements will not change that behaviour because it was how the money got there in the first place that should have been examined.

The Minister must know what is contained in the code. For example, never mind the declarations of

"any land in which he has a beneficial interest"

or whether a person has

"one hundredth of the total issued share capital";

never mind

"the name of any corporate body which has a place of business or land"

in the area, or

"the name of any firm in which he is a partner … the address or other description … of any land",

or any land in which the person has a licence

"(alone or jointly with others) to occupy for 28 days or longer";

the person must also declare

"his membership of or position of general control or management in any—

(a) body to which he has been appointed or nominated by the authority as its representative".

That will be in the minutes, so why does it have to be declared? It is more bureaucracy—there will be more forms to be filled out. What is a

"body exercising functions of a public nature"?

I do not know. People would also have to declare membership of any

"company, industrial and provident society, … charity, or body directed to charitable purposes"

and any

"body whose principal purposes include the influence of public opinion or policy".

What on earth are those? I do not know whether the Abberton parish meeting will know what they are. People must also declare membership of any

"(e) trade union … or professional association."

Anyone who joins or resigns from a trade union or professional association must register and unregister that within 28 days. A breach of that would be a solemn breach of the rules.

The Minister may think that none of that matters, but it does. The regulations are the straw that broke the camel's back. In the past few weeks, more and more parish council chairmen have said to me, "We're thinking of giving up." The first has now decided to do so. I have a letter from Salwarpe parish council. I appreciate that Salwarpe parish council might not seem very important to Whitehall, but it matters a lot to the people of Salwarpe and the surrounding area. In a formal letter to the monitoring officer at Wychavon district council, the parish council chairman says:

"I am writing to tell you therefore that, following extensive consultation and discussion on an individual and collective basis, no member of this Parish Council finds the provisions of the new code of conduct acceptable in its present form.

Salwarpe Parish Council accordingly passed a resolution unanimously at its meeting on 11th March that it does not intend to adopt the new code of conduct that comes into effect on the 5th May. In the circumstances it follows that no individual councillor will have given the written undertaking that is required by the deadline of two months after this date. We have received also three months notice of the resignation of our Parish Clerk."

The letter then says that Wychavon district council will have to take over the administration of Salwarpe. It continues:

"It is a matter of great sadness to all of us on Salwarpe Parish Council that this situation should have come about. We recognise the importance of the role of Parish Councils in the life of the community and in the maintenance of the most local form of democracy. The years of voluntary and unpaid service that we have given are evidence of this. We also recognise that all local Councils must operate to the highest standards of integrity. However the provisions of the new code of conduct, particularly in the form of the public disclosure of assets and the provisions of the complaints procedure, are such as to create a wholly unacceptable basis for our continued involvement as Parish Councillors."

I tell the Minister that there will be more such councils. I know of another—Broadway parish council—that is planning to do the same thing. In that case, some may take the place of those parish councillors who resign, but the parish council will become unrepresentative and will lose its power as a result. My constituency has been fully parished for as long as anyone can remember, and the Government have started ending that. I find that utterly unacceptable.

The Minister hears anger from us; that is because we feel angry for those parish councils. I urge him to think again. He is not getting an accurate picture of events on the ground. More parish councils will go, as Salwarpe has done, unless he changes his mind this afternoon in Committee. I beg him to withdraw the statutory instrument.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) on initiating this excellent debate.

Hon. Friends who have joined in the debate have put pressure on the Minister. I speak to him in the spirit of friendship; we have both spent much of our political life in Southampton. When I was a Local Government Minister, I represented Southampton, Itchen, which is a wholly urban constituency. I now represent a constituency that is largely parished and also has some town councils. I admit that when I was doing the Minister's job I had no understanding of what parish and town councils and their councillors contributed to our national life. The fact that he has come here with his brief does not mean that he understands the impact that the regulations that he is imposing will have on ordinary people who are doing their best for their community.

I have always taken the view that those in parish and town councils are the unsung heroes of local government, because they work voluntarily and know that they must raise every penny that they spend through their parish precept. They have absolute accountability—an accountability that does not extend to other areas of local government, in which it is distorted by the grant mechanism and by the lump sum awards given by various tiers of central Government. Local town and parish councillors know that there will be tight scrutiny of every pound that they spend. The consequence is that only the most responsible people and volunteers participate in town councils.

The code of conduct has given parish councils the impression that the Government do not appreciate their work, and that they think that they are all like Doncaster councillors and are on the make. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) keeps referring to a London councillor. I hope that he will not make the same mistake that the Deputy Prime Minister made the other day by slurring people who have not been convicted of criminal offences and tarring them with the same brush as those who have: the Labour councillors in Doncaster who have been convicted of criminal charges of corruption and who are now in prison. It is pointless to try to slur other unnamed councillors in the way that the hon. Gentleman is trying to do. The Government's agenda is driven by their understandable embarrassment about Doncaster. They say, "We must not allow Doncasters to occur elsewhere." Our parish and town councils are the last places in which such events might occur.

With almost a slip of the tongue, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) dealt with residents associations. Some town and parish councils will ask, "Why should we bother to be a town and parish council? Why don't we set ourselves up as a residents association? If we do, we shall be relieved of any requirement to conform to the code of conduct." That might be a consequence of the implementation of the code of conduct.

A further insult to town and parish councils came from the latest Green Paper on planning. The current edition of Local Council Review—the newspaper that is produced by, and for, local town and parish councillors—says that the Green Paper contains no reference to local councils' role in planning. However, we know that they play that valuable role. Such councils do not decide on planning cases, but they play an important consultative role. They can take the temperature of local opinion on planning, and refer that to the district council or county council that takes planning decisions. That role is fundamental to town and parish councils, but there is not a single line referring to it in the planning Green Paper. That is a further example of the Government's cavalier approach to people who operate in town and parish councils.

I ask the Minister to find out about the major contribution that town and parish councils make to the fabric of life in this country from his colleagues who have such councils in their areas. I give him a strong message to take from the debate: get your bureaucratic hands off our parish and town councils, and let them get on with the job that they are doing so well.

I am sorry that I spoilt the line of some Conservative Members who desperately hoped that no Labour Members would turn up.

You are on your own, mate.

I am on my own but I shall battle on.

There are more than 15 parish councils and one major town council in my constituency. I do not understand the picture that has been portrayed. Since the Labour Government came to power in 1997, a parish council has been set up in Allerton Bywater, which is the village that I live in, and the neighbouring village of Kippax is in the process of setting up another one. I am sure that the Minister will give us statistics that show that the number of parish councils has increased since 1997.

I value working closely with parish councils, as do some Conservative Members. Recently, I worked with Clifford parish council to oppose an unsuitable development in that village, and I hope that it will prepare a village design statement. The neighbouring East Keswick parish council recently won a national award for its village design statement, and the people who put in the work, which was voluntary, are certainly well regarded by me.

There are two model parish councils in Swillington and Micklefield, which are in the neighbourhood of Allerton Bywater. I support their work in running a host of activities for elderly and young people at Christmas and throughout the year to ensure that a village community is preserved in the parishes.

I shall now discuss the declaration of interest. I have spoken to local parish councillors, and I checked the matter with Mike Auty, who is the chairman of Micklefield parish council and represents the small area of parish councils on the Yorkshire association. He said that he would have no problem with the declaration of interest, and that he would not oppose it. He is well versed in the way in which the legislation is being developed. What is the Minister's response to the contrasting statement by Gerald Wilkinson, a Wetherby town councillor, who said that he wanted the register of interests to be kept not in Wetherby but 12 miles away, in the centre of Leeds, to keep busybodies from looking at it? Councillor Wilkinson said:

"This list of interests should not be held by the town clerk or parish clerk but by the city council's legal department … This will still be open to the public but they would be likely to view it only if they have a genuine reason and not out of idle curiosity. It should keep away the busybodies who want to go and look at the councillors' interests and perhaps … to stir up trouble."

It is laughable that someone in Wetherby who is interested in the status of Wetherby representatives must make a 24-mile round trip to Leeds for the necessary information. There is a paradox—if parishes are local, information should be gathered locally.

Although I welcome the debate and acknowledge the tremendous work done by many town and parish councillors, it is obvious that some claims of their impending doom and death are exaggerated.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) on securing this important debate. We have concentrated on parish councils. I will talk more about town councils, but I agree with much of what has been said about parish councils.

In the 1890s, the citizens of London alone elected 12,000 people to local boards, committees and councils. Today, approximately the same number serve on boards that oversee local services in London. However, little more than 1,900 of them are elected—the vast majority are appointed by central Government.

We seem to be moving away from local provision. In the 1940s, health care, electricity, gas and social security were nationalised. Today, education, housing and policing are becoming more centralised, and the people who make up the centralised bodies are generally given their positions by the Government of the day and are not elected by, or accountable to, the people affected by their decisions. That has resulted in a democratic deficit. The best way to correct that is to put power back into the hands of those in the best position to exercise it with understanding and accountability—government at the lowest possible level. It makes sense for local issues to be dealt with by those directly affected by, and most knowledgeable about them.

There are approximately 70,000 councillors serving on England's 8,159 town and parish councils, and approximately 14 million people come under the auspices of those councils, which vary widely based on unique local circumstances. Although people may associate town and parish councils with small rural villages, the benefits of that grass-roots democratic network are enjoyed in many larger towns and suburbs. It should not stop there. Such councils encourage community involvement and are as relevant in larger cities as small towns.

The need for parish and town councils has become greater with the creation of unitary authorities, which represent wider areas with fewer councillors. They are increasingly unable to take into account the specialised characteristics and needs of communities under their governance, which is why we should extend the network of town and parish councils so that everyone has access to them. At the same time, the power of such councils must be augmented. Local bodies should not be so tightly bound by limitations in jurisdiction and expenditure, as some currently are and as the Government appear to be proposing with recent initiatives. Our view is to let the ballot box be the arbiter, using a proportional voting system, rather than the Secretary of State.

Parish and town councils have an important role to play in liaising with other groups, such as local authorities, voluntary organisations, community bodies, the highways authorities, the police and the health services—in short, all the other agencies that deliver services to the citizens who live in the parishes and the areas that are covered by the town councils.

There are cases in which it would be more efficient for parishes to undertake some of the tasks that are currently carried out by higher-tier authorities. The goal should be to further the principle of subsidiarity, and to ensure that higher tiers of government undertake only the duties that the lower tiers cannot—or do not wish to—carry out on their own. To achieve that goal, it is important to branch out and find new ways for parish and town councils to provide services for their communities; sometimes they will do so independently, and at other times they will do it in collaboration with voluntary organisations or local businesses, or in partnership with the higher authority.

Town and parish councils do not face capping and, generally, do not receive grants from the Government. Thus, they often have more freedom with regard to spending than do the local authorities above them, as the Government have less direct financial control over them. However, parish spending is considered to be part of the expenditure of the district council. That can result in a district council that is struggling financially pressurising the parish to cut back on its spending. Additionally, some parishes receive a grant from their district council, and that limits their independence.

There is also the issue of double rating. That occurs when the council tax collected by the district council is not properly abated to account for the tasks that are done by the parish or town council and paid for by the parish precept. The Liberal Democrats would like the parish to levy its own precept, as that would lead to greater control over what it is spent on. Of course, where parishes are taking on duties from other bodies, they should receive the appropriate reimbursement for their work directly from those bodies. We are aiming to achieve transparency.

Parishes should actively promote community participation. All decisions should be taken at meetings that are open to the public, well advertised and held in an accessible meeting place. That is often the case with regard to the meetings of parish and town councils, and I do not see the harm in central Government's setting a guideline that says that that is how it should always be done. Citizens should have the opportunity to make representations directly to the council and any of its committees, and all meetings should include a period for public questions.

There is a need for a nationwide basic standard of service that is offered by all parish and town councils. However, too much Government prescription defeats the purpose of devolution, and it is important that parishes have the flexibility to tailor their services to local needs and wants. They also need the leeway to make innovations, to ensure that services are provided in the most appropriate and effective ways. Therefore, we are arguing for diversity with regard to local government: no single, clear model should be forced to suit all.

Some parish councils have been termed "sleeping". That has offended many councils, as the criteria for evaluation were crude, and no constructive suggestions for improvement were offered. It is important to ensure that parish and town councils are doing their jobs well and efficiently, but they should be accountable to the people that they represent: having the Government breathing down their necks is not conducive to making improvements in the way that they conduct their business.

Whether parish and town councils should be included within the best value regime is questionable, even where they have an annual budgeted income of over £500,000. We should also question whether they should be included within the new ethical framework, the main elements of which are now in place. That framework includes a code of conduct that all parish councillors must sign up to, and a new independent body, the standards board, which will investigate breaches of the code.

On the face of it, how could anyone object to that framework? However, subjecting parish councillors to standards that are higher than those that Members of Parliament are expected to meet is either going too far or—some hon. Members may hold this view—not going far enough. I think that we are going too far with regard to parish and town councils.

The Liberal Democrats believe that parish government at its best is true grass-roots government and facilitates active participation by individuals from all sections of the community. It helps to articulate the needs and aspirations of that community, especially to other 'service providers. It contributes strongly to the development and improvement of the area, and can support or deliver well targeted services with high value added and at low cost. Management-speak is not needed to see that that is the case where councils have taken on such responsibilities.

We believe that anything of concern to or that has an impact on the local community is the business of town and parish councils. They are the bedrock of our democracy and the foundation stone of civilised communities.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) on securing a vital debate, and all my colleagues on the powerful arguments that they deployed. It is unfortunate that the Minister will not have that much time to answer all the excellent points made. However, the debate is the first of two bites at the cherry, as the statutory instrument on codes of conduct will be dealt with in Committee this afternoon. The issue is much larger than the Government realise, and they may have totally miscalculated their policy on the relevant level of local government. The code of conduct is completely misguided, but I shall come to that later.

At the heart of the matter, the Government do not seem to understand and appreciate the importance and value to communities of the lowest tier of local government, which parish councils represent. Their heavy-handed approach to the issue—their control freakery of wanting to micromanage everything from the centre—overlooks the public service that individuals are prepared to contribute to their local communities, unpaid. The Government do not seem to understand that politics is not an issue at that level. We are talking about the independent voices of individuals in a local community who are prepared to stand up, be counted and serve their community out of a sense of duty.

Labour's record on promoting the interests of parish councils is poor, and various forms of Government rhetoric have been used over the years. In 1999, they talked about neighbourhood forums replacing parish councils, and then went on to consider appointed officials and neighbourhood managers rather than voluntary representatives elected by local people. They backtracked on all that. Today, various pieces of legislation threaten parish councils, which have to cope with a barrage of Whitehall regulation, interference and increasing red tape.

We believe that that could be the first step of a Government hidden agenda to do away with parish councils altogether. It is important that the Minister answers that claim, which has been made by many Members today, certainly all those from the Opposition. We do not know what the Government intend to replace parish councils with, but the Minister should come clean and tell us their long-term agenda.

If the hidden agenda is not to bring about the demise of parish councils by putting pressure on them, how will the Government respond if parish councillors resign in huge numbers as a result of the imposition of the legislation? That would effectively render that tier of government useless. Are the Government prepared to face that? Letters from parish council chairmen and clerks provide evidence to suggest that they are not prepared to serve further under the duress that the legislation, certainly that on the code of conduct, appears to impose on them.

We believe that the hoops through which parish councillors have to jump should be removed entirely. Councils should be given freedom automatically, rather than having to earn it, because earned autonomy is a bad concept. Only if they fail should their freedoms be curtailed.

Colleagues have mentioned the performance grading done by the Countryside Agency, which is a Government quango that will have done the work under the aegis of the Government. That demonstrates yet again their lack of openness on the issue. The Minister for Rural Affairs wrote to colleagues to say that

"it is juvenile and irresponsible to suggest that the Countryside Agency is 'secretly' measuring the effectiveness of parish councils".

Yet he admitted in answer to parliamentary questions that

"the list had not been previously published",

consultation

"was not done directly with individual communities"

and individual

"parish scores were not intended to be published"—[Official Report, 24 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 1033–34W.]

Pretty secret.

Absolutely. That demonstrates a considerable lack of openness across the board.

This afternoon, hon. Members will debate the statutory instrument that implements the code of conduct, and every aspect of the legislation is draconian. It introduces a register of parish councillors' interests, which should include details of their employment and their business and property dealings. Councillors are required to register any gift or hospitality worth more than just £25, disclose any personal interest or interest of their spouse or relatives and withdraw from any proceedings where such interests are discussed. It has been put to me that the interpretation of the code of conduct is such that parish councillors who work higher up in local government, particularly at district or county level, are told to leave the room and to take no part in debates pertaining to district and county responsibility. I am not sure whether that is true, and it would be helpful if the Minister said unequivocally that councillors will not be precluded from debating issues that relate to the other council tiers that they represent.

The code of conduct is seriously flawed and should, at the very least, be redrafted. We would expect extensive consultation with parish councils across England before that happened. The statutory instrument that implements the code is due to come into force on 27 May, six months after it was laid, so we are close to the date on which the code trips in. Twenty-eight days after that, all councillors must sign up to it. Like those of us in the shadow Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions team, the Minister has no doubt received letters that provide mounting evidence that many parish councillors are not prepared to do so. That would render many parish councils inactive, and I cannot believe for a moment that that is what the Government intend.

When parish councillors stood for election two, three or four years ago, they did so under the terms that pertained at the time. For those in the middle of their period in office, the whole ball game has changed, and they strongly resent that. The Minister should, at the very least, say that the completely different regulations that pertained when some parish councillors were elected are to remain in force until new elections are held.

Overwhelmingly, we believe, parish councillors are well intentioned and honest, but the code of conduct implies that many have ulterior motives for involving themselves in council work. The implication of that for their integrity has angered many people; it could be the reason for a number of resignations as we approach 27 May.

Many important points have been raised on that issue, which strikes at the heart of democracy in local government. It should be debated on the Floor of the House, rather than for an hour and a half here and another hour and a half in Committee. The scandal is that the statutory instrument was intended for negative resolution. If we had not prayed against it, it would have sailed through without debate. That shows the insulting way in which the Government treat local government at all levels—in this instance, those who serve on parish councils.

I concur with the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) that it is a shame that we have only a relatively short time for this debate and that I have little time in which to respond, because I would like to comment on a number of issues.

I thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) for initiating this important debate. Opposition Members made a number of interesting and important points about the current and future roles of parish and town councils, challenging the Government's attitude to them. Of course we have no hidden agenda. On the contrary, our policy is clear: town and parish councils are an essential part of the structure of local democracy, and they will continue to play a key role in many towns and villages.

Our rural White Paper, "Our Countryside: The Future—A Fair Deal for Rural England", set out how local councils can become equipped to take on a stronger role as representatives of all parts of their communities. It contained a number of significant new proposals, including the creation of quality parishes, which will involve principal authorities and dynamic parish councils working together better to meet the needs of their communities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) drew attention to the increase in the number of parish councils. Since the Government came to power, 82 have been created and we are considering proposals that could result in the creation of a further 22. The accusation that the Government are stifling parish councils, or attempting to remove them, is erroneous.

Further to indicate the Government's concern that parish and town councils should play a substantial role in local democracy, we are putting money into grants, training and support for them—for example, £15 million over three years in community services grants, £15 million over three years for parish transport fund grants of up to £10,000 towards the cost of local transport projects, £5 million over three years to help about 1,000 rural communities to prepare parish plans and £2 million to establish a national training and support strategy.

I must put to bed the canard that the Government have a secret agenda for parish councils. It is absolutely untrue that the Countryside Agency vibrancy indicators are to be used to stifle parishes or to downgrade them; the opposite is the case.

Will the Minister give way?

If the hon. Gentleman wants to hear my responses to the points that have been raised, I should not give way to any great extent. However, I do so briefly.

The Minister said that the study was worth while. Does he not understand that undertaking it without consulting local communities insulted those communities? The nature of the process seems bizarre. Can he explain the purpose of a further study?

Yes. Community vibrancy is one of 15 headline indicators that were established to measure progress in implementing commitments made in the rural White Paper. That is why that indicator was included and why that research was undertaken. There are no implications for the future of parishes or suggestions that the Government have a hidden agenda in measuring developments in the role of parishes and setting other indicators of local vibrancy in rural areas.

Despite its being clear that parishes are diverse—there are large parishes, small parishes and town councils—this debate has been dogged by some hon. Members speaking as if all parishes are the same and of the sort described in the ridiculous speech of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). Of course, there are several large parish councils, but the suggestion that all parishes are being subjected to the best value regime is untrue.

There are 41 best value parishes—the largest town councils—with a turnover of £500,000. Parishes are not being subjected to the quality parish initiative, but they can take part if they wish. The aim is to help them to strengthen the work that they are doing. Indeed, benefits will accrue from quality parish status.

It is true that parishes are diverse and have a varied role to play in the life of our communities. Some do the sort of work that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton suggested; others are involved in a wider range of activities, so it is important to acknowledge their diversity.

Audit requirements?

The Government acknowledge that several different audits should apply to parishes and recognise that it is inappropriate for the same scrutiny to apply to parish councils and principal authorities—scrutiny should relate to the risk identified. We are, therefore, working closely with the Audit Commission to introduce a lighter-touch audit regime for parish and town councils. The commission has already undertaken extensive consultation on proposed changes to parish council audits and the intention is that the majority of parish councils will undergo a basic audit relying on self-certification. That should lead to lower audit fees for most parish councils.

With our agreement, the commission has put in hand amendments to its code of audit practice to implement that lighter-touch regime. Where changes to parish council conduct are necessary to implement the new regime, we will consider amendments to the Accounts and Audit Regulations 1996. We plan to consult extensively on proposals to amend those regulations later this year. That is in addition to the announcement that we made last October to increase from £5,000 to £50,000 the financial threshold above which parish councils are required to prepare income and expenditure accounts.

Hon. Members raised concerns about the model code of conduct—as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said, we shall debate the matter further this afternoon—but several of those suggestions are wrong. Indeed, the suggestion in a recent article in The Sunday Telegraph that people should declare a good dinner with a good claret is quite erroneous. Clause 1 of the model code shows that the requirement for declarations relates to business carried out by the parish council.

Hon. Members are labouring under a misapprehension about registration. Members will have to declare interests relevant to any debate, but that will not preclude them from taking part in the debate, and is no different from the declaration by the last Conservative Government that requires pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests to be declared, and on occasions requires members to leave the chamber when things are being discussed.

Chamber?

Order.

I am referring to the chamber in the parish council, when things are being discussed that relate to the conduct of the parish council. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire is incorrect in suggesting that members of other authorities will be required to leave the parish council meeting if certain business is discussed.

Parish councils should be at the forefront of identifying their communities' needs.

Order. I am afraid that time is up. We must now move to the next debate. I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) has just made it for that debate, as he initiated it. Several hon. Members from various parties have said that they would like to participate, and if hon. Members are disciplined, I shall be able to call all those who want to speak.

This is the third debate that we have had in this place about the New Partnership for Africa's Development. I was fortunate to secure a short debate on the subject last July, and the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who is here today, secured a debate six weeks ago. We have the opportunity for a longer debate today, because many hon. Members requested that we should discuss the new partnership in the run-up to the G8 meeting in Canada in June. It is appropriate that Back Benchers should be able to guide the Government on the issues that we should like them to discuss at the meeting.

This debate was originally supposed to be called "New African Initiative", but may I ask Hansard to retitle it, "New Partnership for Africa's Development", because the new African initiative has been renamed in that way?

There are many reasons to be pessimistic about the development prospects for Africa. The burden of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa and the prospects of overcoming the causes of poverty are matters of real concern. Many African countries are poorer in real terms than they were decades ago, and the value of aid has fallen in real terms over the past 10 years, from about $19 billion a year 10 years ago to some $11 billion today. However, I shall not waste time repeating figures, as all the hon. Members in the Chamber are experts on the subject, and the figures are familiar to us all.

There are many reasons to be optimistic, however. Botswana has the world's highest growth rate, for example. Diversification in the economies of sub-Saharan African countries is an important factor. For too long they have been reliant on primary products whose prices have fallen on the world market. Non-traditional exports from Uganda have been growing at some 70 per cent. per year. There has also been strong growth in non-traditional exports from Ghana, Mozambique, Madagascar and other countries. That underlines the point that not all African countries are in the same situation, and that a one-size-fits-all development strategy is simply inappropriate. Development strategies need to be tailored to the needs of each country to capitalise on the natural resources and strengths of individual African states.

There are political as well as economic reasons for optimism. The New Partnership for Africa's Development comes from African leaders, who recognise that they and their countries must change. In an address to the South African National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces in October last year, Thabo Mbeki, the South African President, had this to say about the New Partnership for Africa's Development:

"This programme is premised on African ownership, African control of the projects and programmes, with African leaders accepting openly and unequivocally that they will play their part in ending poverty and bringing about sustainable development. We are agreed that we must strengthen democracy on the continent; we must entrench a human rights culture; we must end existing conflicts and prevent new conflicts. We have to deal with corruption and be accountable to one another for all our actions."

Does Thabo Mbeki's endorsement of Mugabe's rigged election last week, and the hon. Gentleman's experience of corruption in Nigeria last week, when we both visited that country with the International Development Committee, lead him to greater optimism or less?

The hon. Gentleman raises issues that must be tackled if the partnership is to work. There must be change in Africa, as there must be in the policy response of developed countries. I would have mentioned Zimbabwe in a moment, but as the hon. Gentleman has raised the subject, and as it is clearly in our minds because of today's talks in London, now is a good time to mention it.

The Commonwealth observers' report highlighted serious flaws in that election. However, our response, which the media have emphasised and underlined, is a response that Africans are all too weary of hearing. That is because we have taken up the case of white farmers but have forgotten that the vast majority of Mugabe's victims are black Africans.

Who has forgotten that?

Seventy thousand farm workers have been affected by the evictions and violence in the countryside. The denial of human rights that affected journalists, which we read about in our newspapers, also denied many black Zimbabweans their vote, denied opposition organisations the right to organise and express their views, and denied employees the right to organise trade unions or strike. Those are human rights issues for black Africans, and we must take up the cudgels on their behalf just as much as on behalf of white farmers. We must consider human rights, not only the arguments of kith and kin.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me on another point. For most sub-Saharan African countries, it is 40 years since independence. During that time, Europe's former Asian colonies have thrown off the dependency culture and forged ahead economically, but too many African countries are still ready to blame colonialism for their present difficulties. One of the encouraging things about NEPAD is that it states clearly that Africans are in the driving seat. They are responsible for their countries, and for their countries' policies and development. Yes, they need partnership with people from outside Africa on trade, aid and conflict resolution—but they are the primary movers.

Another reason for optimism is that the leaders of the developed world are now taking a greater interest in Africa. It is decades since a British Prime Minister has made Africa a major foreign policy priority. To find a Prime Minister with an interest in development similar to that of our present Prime Minister, we would need to go back to Harold Wilson, who set up War on Want. It is also a long time since a Chancellor has taken such a lead on such issues as has the present Chancellor, who has made proposals on debt relief, and, in response to the Zedillo report, proposed to the Federal Reserve bank in New York in November 2001 that a global development fund should be created. Indeed, last year our Prime Minister was the key person responsible for persuading the G8 to invite the African authors of the new partnership to come to the G8 summit and explain what they were proposing. As a result, the G8 commissioned work to enable it to respond to the NEPAD proposals at this year's summit.

What do I think are the ingredients for the partnership's success? First, Africa must use its own resources to the full. The International Development Committee returned on Saturday from a visit to west Africa, and I give one example of what we did there. In Kintampo, Ghana, we visited a health research centre working in partnership with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, John Hopkins university and Harvard in the United States, and other universities around the world, to lead high-quality clinical trials. Those have established that vitamin A supplements for pre-school children aged up to five can reduce deaths and morbidity from infectious diseases by some 30 per cent.

That has now been picked up by the Department for International Development and international aid agencies in their health policies. I pay tribute to Dr. Paul Arthur, the director of that institute, an inspired and talented doctor who, sadly, died just days after we met him. People such as Paul Arthur are absolutely vital to African development, and something that we can do is talk to the vast diaspora of African professionals and intellectuals who live in Europe and other parts of the developed world and encourage them to return home to provide support for their countries' development programmes.

It is important to encourage stronger domestic saving and investment. In Nigeria we met several commercial bankers. The private sector has a role, but African Governments must promote investment and revenue collection. We discovered in Nigeria that 92 per cent. of the state's revenues come from levies on oil extraction. Oil has been a blessing to Nigeria in many ways, but also a curse, because the rest of its revenue collection has all but disappeared since. Nigerian Members of Parliament whom we met asked us to increase aid to Nigeria. In certain circumstances, we should do so. The Department for International Development is spending £22 million this year on development assistance to Nigeria, which will rise to some £35 million next year—and I applaud that. However, we must also ask Nigerians and the Government of Nigeria what they are doing to raise resources themselves.

There are many poor people in Nigeria for whom paying tax is not a possibility, but people in this country start paying tax when they earn about £4,000 a year. I can make the case for people in my constituency to pay slightly more tax to enable our Government to increase the resources going to development, but it is extremely difficult for me to argue that people on £4,000, £5,000 or £6,000 a year in the United Kingdom should pay more tax for development, when people on £40,000, £50,000 or £60,000 a year in Nigeria pay no income tax at all. We must raise such questions directly and clearly with the developing countries in which a proportion of the population are in a position to make contributions through taxation to their own country's development.

We also need greater transparency. Before we consider the case that the Nigerians are making for the relief of debt, we should clearly know where their oil revenues are going. We should also know that, were we to relieve some of the debt burden, the resources released would be used to help poor people in Nigeria. There is a strong onus on the Nigerian Government to do that.

There is also a large role for private investment. In Enugu we saw vast investments by the brewery companies Heineken and Guinness. Such investment can be encouraged by the rule of law, so that outside investors know that if they invest, their assets will be safe and respected.

Our half of the partnership requires substantial change in the rules on trade by the Governments of rich countries. Had Africa maintained its share of trade from the late 1960s, its income would be about $70 billion a year more than it is today. NEPAD identifies a resource gap of some $64 billion, which would not exist if Africa had the same share of world trade that it had 35 years ago.

At the World Economic Forum in New York last month, Niall Fitzgerald, the chairman of Unilever, called on G8 Governments to respond immediately and open their markets to African products. When we were in Ghana, we learnt that raw cocoa beans could be imported to this country with no tariff, but that manufactured chocolate imported from Ghana to the EU carries a 70 per cent. tariff. It is not surprising that it is extremely difficult for Africa to sell its products in Europe.

The Quad countries, comprising the EU member states, Canada, the United States and Japan, have food and agriculture subsidies worth more than the gross national product of every country in sub-Saharan African put together, so the commodities that Africa could most easily export—agricultural produce—are locked out of the developed world. That must change, and I hope that the G8 meeting will address the matter.

Alone among G8 countries, the United Kingdom is increasing the proportion of its gross domestic product that is given to aid, albeit from the low base that was inherited from our predecessors. For NEPAD to work, there must be greater aid resources. The United States announced an intention to increase aid by $5 billion a year. It is important that we talk to their Government about how much of that will go to Africa, and how much will be used for the alleviation of poverty and the achievement of the millennium development goals.

During the first Africa-Europe ministerial meeting in Brussels last October, the ministerial communiqué said:

"The Ministers welcomed the new African initiative as a partnership programme which should be one of the bases for future co-operation between Europe and Africa."

If the European Union wants that to happen, it must reallocate aid from the near abroad, particularly central and eastern Europe, to sub-Saharan Africa.

Hear, hear.

Indeed; just six weeks ago in the Chamber the hon. Gentleman made a case about the 10 largest recipients of EU aid. If I remember his figures rightly, seven are in eastern and central Europe, and only one—Uganda—is a sub-Saharan African country.

The EU also needs to focus more on using aid to achieve the millennium development goals of targeting aid on poverty alleviation and it must improve the efficiency with which EU aid is applied in the field. For example, we were not impressed by the efficiency with which the EU office in Nigeria operated.

It is important that EU aid is used efficiently, and is targeted on places in which it will have the greatest impact on poverty alleviation. Aid donors must therefore make choices. In Nigeria, the Department for International Development made choices about which four Nigerian states would be partner states for UK aid. That was done to prevent our aid from being spread too thinly. We looked for partners that were seriously committed to reform, and we organised a competition in which different states made proposals to us. Four states were successful at the end of the competition. I would like the Government to consider the merits of allocating more aid on the basis of competition, because the method emphasises to the recipients of aid their responsibilities to use it to achieve agreed poverty alleviation goals.

I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that self-discipline means five minutes.

Or less.

Very briefly, the debate is timely, against the backdrop of Monterrey, and I congratulate the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) on securing it. I entirely agree with everything that he said and particularly endorse his final comments about competition. There is a lot to be said for a structure in which people do not think that development aid is a right but something that they must demonstrate can be put to the best possible use. I do not intend to repeat all that I said on 6 February but just wish quickly to share some impressions from the Select Committee's visit to west Africa.

Partnership involves both sides meeting obligations. We have had much discussion in the Chamber about the obligations of the rich north, the rich west and the developed countries. We had some good news last week when the Chancellor announced that increased development aid will be forthcoming in the Budget. We look forward to learning whether the increase will be in real terms or just cash terms. It was also good news that the Council of Ministers announced in Barcelona that the EU states would seek to achieve 0.39 per cent. of gross domestic product for development aid as soon as possible. Those are steps in the right direction.

However, our African colleagues also have obligations under the partnership: they must be realistic about debt, encourage democracy, bear down on corruption and promote enterprise economies. From a meeting with members of the Nigerian National Assembly, we learned that there is not a realistic attitude about mutuality on debt relief. Debt relief, which we all encourage, does not remove the need for countries to follow sensible fiscal policies and recognise their obligations. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, much Nigerian debt is guaranteed by the Export Credits Guarantee Department. People have borrowed money on commercial contracts for commercial purposes, but there seems to be no acknowledgment that our taxpayers will have to pick up the tab for contracts that fail. We must ensure that colleagues in Africa understand that debt relief involves obligations on them as well.

On encouraging democracy—setting aside countries such as Zimbabwe, where the facts speak for themselves—it seemed to us that in Ghana and Nigeria the democratic system was very much one of patronage, with money coming down, and petitioning, without the accountability that we have. There is a role for us as Members of Parliament to play. We must remember that Nigeria has been ruled by a military dictatorship for much of the past 40 years. Many members of its National Assembly have been in office for only two years.

When the Berlin wall fell, we in this place did an enormous amount through the Westminster Foundation for Democracy to help colleagues in eastern Europe acquire skills to become effective parliamentarians. We may need to do more through organisations such as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to help Commonwealth colleagues in Africa to develop skills as parliamentarians so that they can hold governments to account, work out their relationships with their constituents and participate in functioning democracies. All six of us who participated in the Select Committee visit have indicated that we would be willing to support individual members of the Nigerian National Assembly who come here, to help them in the way in which the Westminster Foundation for Democracy helped parliamentarians from eastern Europe.

On bearing down on corruption, we met the Nigerian commission that has been set up to tackle corruption. It is well intentioned but very slow, having been affected by two years of constitutional wrangling as to whether legislation is consistent with the Nigerian constitution. We must continue to send the message to colleagues in Africa that corruption is not only insidious in its own right but frightens off inward investment. The continent of Africa receives a tiny amount of direct inward investment; I suspect that part of the reason for that is concern about corruption.

On encouraging enterprise economies, we were all struck by the fact that in Nigeria, apart from oil, and in Ghana, apart from cocoa and gold, there seemed to be little new enterprise. We came across factories that had closed down because, people said, of a combination of Government interference and management incompetence. Most of the companies that made money in Nigeria were parastatals.

Through our aid policies and so forth, we must find ways of encouraging greater enterprise in such countries if they are not simply to become aid dependent. Partnership involves both sides meeting obligations. We must encourage our colleagues in Africa to see that the New Partnership for Africa's Development involves meeting their obligations on debt, democracy, bearing down on corruption and encouraging enterprise.

Again, I make a plea for very short speeches.

It was short, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Only five minutes.

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) on securing this debate on a subject that has concerned him for many years. I join him in congratulating the Government, especially the Prime Minister, on showing such a strong commitment to the New Partnership for Africa's Development.

The significance of the new partnership should not be underestimated and although the importance of the initiative for African countries is clear, it also has wider significance. The principle underpinning the partnership is that only through enhanced forms of co-operation and mutual dependence between states can sustainable and secure development be achieved. That principle has a global resonance, so it is essential that G8 countries give the initiative the type of practical backing necessary to make it a reality.

I should like the Minister's response on two issues that trouble some non-governmental organisations about the new partnership. First, I understand—and hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the G8 timetable for the continuing implementation of the new partnership is in advance of that currently taking place in Africa. The G8 discussions are due to be finalised by the end of April, whereas discussions within African states will in no sense be complete by then. The danger is that the processes in G8 and African states could be decoupled, which would not be in the interests of a successful partnership.

Secondly, the NGOs are concerned about the apparent lack of involvement of African civil society in the process. At the recent African development forum in Addis Ababa, a fear was expressed that the new partnership was too donor driven. If it is to stay true to its original aim of improving the lot of ordinary Africans, we should quickly formalise the participation of civil societies within Africa and G8 countries. There has been little opportunity for such consultation to date; I hope that the position will be remedied before the G8 formulates its official position next month.

The need for the new partnership to mean something to wider African civil society is illustrated by recent developments in Zimbabwe. As hon. Members are aware, some people suggest that events in Zimbabwe undermine the case for a new partnership. I argue that we should reach a different conclusion. We should not let the actions of an increasingly isolated despot such as Mugabe undermine what has ambitiously but rightly been described as the relaunch of Africa. Zimbabwe shows us precisely the need to achieve reforms in governance if potential for growth and development in Africa are to be achieved.

We are right to call for Africa's leaders to demonstrate in their approach to Zimbabwe the seriousness of their intention to change Africa for the better. I was pleased to see reports in today's papers about the tougher line that the South African and Nigerian Governments appear to be taking. Let us put pressure on those Governments and support opposition movements and civil society in Zimbabwe, but let us not write off what is meant to be a long-term initiative just because of the current and, let us hope, short-term difficulties in Zimbabwe.

Africa faces a huge development challenge but, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of York said, it has enormous potential for growth and development. There are countries in Africa with growth rates that are well above the world average. G8 countries have a common interest in the peoples in Africa and in promoting development and stability in that continent. I welcome the Government's support for the process to date, and I urge them to make further advances in the ways that I have described.

I would like to bring everybody back to the first of the four core elements of the new African initiative, which is:

"First and foremost, there is a clear awareness that peace, democracy, and good governance are preconditions for investment, growth, and the reduction of poverty."

I applaud that, and I am sure that we all would. However, are the Presidents of Algeria, South Africa and Nigeria serious? They put the initiative together and are the leaders of it.

We have heard about Zimbabwe. Was there peace in Zimbabwe? Was democracy exercised in Zimbabwe? I do not think so, and nor does the SADC observer mission that said:

"The climate of insecurity in Zimbabwe since the 2000 parliamentary elections was such that the electoral process could not be said to adequately comply with the norms and standards for elections in the SADC region."

That is pretty clear. Unfortunately, President Mbeki would rather placate the tyrant Mugabe than stand up for the poor Africans who are being oppressed, intimidated and killed in Zimbabwe. That leaves aside the question of peace and what on earth the Zimbabwean army is doing in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Mbeki has ignored that, and unless he is willing to stand up on it, I do not put much store by the great words that he put into the New Partnership for Africa's Development.

As we have heard, the International Development Committee was in Nigeria last week. That was the most depressing African country that I have visited; I was deeply depressed when I returned. Today, President Obasanjo is seeing whether he can get reconciliation in Zimbabwe.

According to Transparency International, Nigeria is the second most corrupt country in the world. We saw that—God, did we see it. Allegedly, $100 billion has been looted from oil revenues. The country is largely run by a kleptocracy. President Babangida, as he then was, who led the military dictatorship for eight years, is still living in tremendous comfort and enjoys enormous wealth that was looted from his country of Nigeria. No action is being taken against him. President, or General, Abacha, who died famously four years ago, was condemned out of hand as a corrupt dictator—even the Commonwealth condemned him. However, his portrait still hangs at Abuja airport. That also speaks reams.

The hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), with whom I agree largely about what we saw in Nigeria, put the case for tax extremely well. Nigeria's external debt is about $28 billion. No tax is levied on the rich, although $100 billion has been looted. Its annual oil revenue is something like $18 billion, but the people to whom we spoke had no concept that they, rather than the international community, should do something about that.

I echo the hon. Member for City of York—I should call him my friend—by asking why poorish people in the United Kingdom should pay tax to allow bigger rip-offs by that klepocracy, where members of the National Assembly recently voted themselves a tax-free pay increase of up to about £50,000 or £60,000, in addition to a free car and a house in Abuja.

I give an example. A large new stadium is being built in Abuja. The cost of that is spiralling out of control in a way that makes the dome look well organised. It is absolutely astonishing. There is no transparency and nobody knows where the money is going. However, everyone talks about it because they can make a pretty good guess.

There is a stench of corruption around that and everything else. Will the Minister write to me, rather than responding in the debate, about the position of Julius Berger, which is a German company? Germany is our ally and partner in Europe. According to everyone whom I met in Nigeria, the company is closely associated with infrastructure contracts in a way that gives cause for concern—I shall say no more than that.

Corruption—the stench of which is everywhere—is institutionalised throughout Nigeria. If Obasanjo is to be serious, he must tackle it. I applaud the fact that he has set up a commission, but I am not left with any optimism that it will take on such serious issues.

I thought that the Department for International Development was doing well in aid. Its two focuses on AIDS and governance are good. I have already stated my position on governance in Nigeria and, candidly, it is probably the Government's position, too, although I would not necessarily expect them to say so. Everyone knows that AIDS is the terrifying black death that is stalking Africa. Nigeria has a HIV infection rate of more than 5 per cent., yet 95 per cent. of people use no contraception. That will seriously hit Nigeria. We all wish the New Partnership for Africa's Development well. It is the only game in town. I want Africans to take control of, and responsibility for, their own destiny. However, last week left me with the belief that I should like to see positive action in order to justify optimism.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) on securing the debate and on setting such an optimistic tone for our discussions. It is easy to become depressed when we hear such evidence and statistics.

I wish to make four points. First, what has been happening in Zimbabwe, however depressing it may be, must not be allowed to derail the New Partnership for Africa's Development. Its progress depends on good governance and the behaviour of Mugabe is the exact opposite of that. It would be wrong if a mood of pessimism among the G8 countries or a difference of opinion between African and non-African members of the Commonwealth were to reduce support for the new partnership. My strong message to the Minister is that, whatever has happened in Zimbabwe, support for the new partnership must continue if we are to deal with the half of Africa's people, who still live on less than $1 a day. The nub of the issue is that, if Mugabe's re-election was a defeat for democracy, it must not be allowed to become a further defeat for the poor people of Africa.

Secondly, if good governance is an essential aspect of the new partnership so, too, is the need for more generous development assistance. In 1994, that assistance formed 11 per cent. of Africa's gross national product and, by 1997, it had fallen to 5 per cent. I welcome President Bush's announcement of an extra $5 billion for the United States aid budget. It is not an uncritical welcome, however, because we have yet to see that strings are attached to it and the United States starts from an appallingly low level of just 0.1 per cent. of gross national product. None the less, the announcement is an encouraging sign of a new understanding of the need to tackle not only terror, but global poverty.

I was also pleased, as were other hon. Members, to hear of the agreement in Barcelona with the new commitment for all European Union countries to reach an average of 0.39 per cent. by 2006. As a signatory to early-day motion 386, I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will confirm that the United Kingdom's contribution to that effort will be at least 0.4 per cent. of GNP by 2006 on the way to 0.7 per cent. by 2012. As the Chancellor has confirmed, unless we take such action, we will not meet the millennium development goals by 2015.

My third point is that aid alone is not enough. We need deeper debt relief. Thirty-four of the 42 highly indebted poor countries are African. Although considerable progress has been made over the past four or five years, lower growth rates and the fall in the value of exports have clearly hit some African countries hard. There is a need to review the HIPC initiative constantly in the light of that. Of course, debt relief should not be unconditional, but far too much is still repaid in interest that should be going into the development of education and health in the poorest countries.

My fourth point relates to that made strongly by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). The United Nations estimates that 16.3 million people have died from AIDS in Africa, and that more than 3 million of them were children. It also estimates that 28 million people in Africa are living with the disease, and that in some southern African states the infection rate is perhaps as high as 25 per cent. I am appalled by that figure, and I often wonder what our constituencies would be like if we were faced with such an infection rate for HIV.

It is clear that something must be done. The time, energy and resources that poor people in Africa are spending on combating AIDS are time, energy and resources that are not being spent on combating poverty. Therefore, I hope that the G8 will support better preventative and care programmes, particularly for children who have been orphaned as a result of AIDS. I also want to see an increase in the global health fund to improve the health infrastructure.

Many other issues have been touched on, such as conflict resolution, the need for trade reform and the need to reform the arms trade. However, my final point is that—whatever the G8 decides with regard to aid, debt, peacekeeping or trade—the most important aspect of the new partnership is the shift that it is effecting in the balance of power and responsibility. The situation is no longer about what the rich countries can do for the poor countries; it is now about what we can do together. That new situation is based on a plan that has been owned and shaped by a new generation of African leaders, and I believe that it will be their leadership—as much as the resources of the rich world—that will determine the outcome of the ambitious partnership project.

I make a further plea for speeches to be as brief as possible.

This has been a useful debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) on securing it and on making such a thoughtful contribution. He was right to point out that the New Partnership for Africa's Development has lots of positive aspects, and we hope that they will be developed.

None of the Labour Members who are present has quoted from the Prime Minister's speech at the Labour party conference of autumn 2001, but I will not apologise for quoting from it. He said:

"The state of Africa is a scar on the conscience of the world. But if the world as a community focused on it, we could heal it. And if we don't, it will become deeper and angrier."

That is true, and all the statistics, trends and arguments that we have heard this morning reinforce the points that the Prime Minister was making.

Many hon. Members who are present have personally witnessed the state of the economy and the politics in different African countries. I recently visited South Africa with my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), where I saw the sharp contrast between the wealth of Cape Town and the poverty of surrounding areas, and when I visited Kenya with the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), we saw the wealth of parts of Nairobi sitting cheek by jowl with the horrors of the slums of Kebira.

The entire situation is grim. For generations, things have tended to be done to Africa, rather than with it, and that has happened with regard to a variety of subjects, such as humanitarian aid, development assistance and international capitalism in the raw.

As many hon. Members have said, recently there has been a welcome shift of emphasis in politics in southern Africa—and that change has been especially marked in South Africa. That has been a key development; it has led to a growing self-confidence and a recognition that Africa's future should be about self-determination and taking charge of the agenda. The clearest manifestation of that is the new partnership, and it is welcome that the Government have been supportive of it.

The Prime Minister backed up his conference speech with his tour of Africa in February, but how such enthusiasm sits with arms exports and support for Tanzanian air traffic control is unclear. Perhaps the Minister can square that circle, when he responds?

Since the meeting in Genoa in 2001, the G8 has also been enthusiastic. Just a couple of months ago, at the world economic forum, half a billion US dollars were committed to a fund to support the new partnership.

There is such enthusiasm that one might think that some kind of backpackers' convention for world leaders could be organised in Africa. The continent is certainly receiving a lot of attention. The need is there and the international will is clear, and, therefore, the circumstances should be right for a major push. However, at this very moment, the political conditions in Africa are crumbling. As the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) pointed out, NEPAD depends on key conditions—peace, security, democracy and good political governance. The situation in Zimbabwe is surely crucial, and the reaction to it perhaps more so. As Walter Kansteiner, the US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, memorably said:

"The road to NEPAD runs through Harare".

Like the voters before them, the evangelists for NEPAD now find that the road is blocked. The international community is either dazzled by the blinding activities of the election process or deliberately turning its back.

The judgment on Zimbabwe will surely be key to the success of NEPAD, but we are getting confused signals. Observers witnessing the same events somehow saw different things. The European Union talks about tightening smart sanctions, and the Commonwealth—well, what exactly is it doing? The timeliness of the debate is uncanny and perhaps rare for an event in this place. The troika of Nigeria, Australia and South Africa meets in London today. Those countries have a huge responsibility to themselves and the wider African community. Not that Commonwealth suspension is the worst threat on earth; it is unlikely to topple Mugabe. Surely what is more important is the signal that it will send out.

President Mbeki is in a particularly tight spot. The African National Congress may have supported the election result, but the President has so far been silent—judiciously so. He knows that the crisis has already laid waste to the South African economy. If a wrong decision is made now, the situation will be exacerbated. The intensity of his diplomatic initiatives in the past 24 hours is to be welcomed and shows how seriously he is taking the issue. Beyond this crisis, the future of NEPAD could be at stake. Its credibility is on the line, and although the G8 is unlikely to withdraw support as a result of what is happening in Zimbabwe, it will send out very damaging signals.

The reaction of private investors is surely of more significance. It is most alarming. No big-bang sanctions are contemplated; that is not at issue. It would be damaging if investors and traders in Africa starved the country of funds. That would undermine the initiative before it got much further. If southern Africa fails the test, what of the east? In Kenya, which has elections this year, the economy is in tatters and the prospects are grim. If Zimbabwe is tolerated, what message would it send to the leadership in Kenya?

We can—and, rightly, do—agonise over our role in all this. However, even in the short debate on the issue this morning, it has become clear where the focus must lie. The United Kingdom and the Commonwealth can make their points of view clear and can protest vigorously, but it is southern Africa that counts. Mbeki is key. NEPAD is rightly about Africa taking the lead. Never has that been more necessary than now.

As we meet, the G8 conference on financing for development is taking place in Monterrey. It is vital that the G8 increases the resources provided. Otherwise, the millennium declaration—under which the rich countries pledged themselves to halving poverty, providing primary education for all children everywhere and reducing infant mortality by two thirds by 2015—will be unattainable and more than 50 million children, mainly in Africa, will die of hunger and preventable diseases by 2015.

I welcome the American President's extra $5 billion announced this week, but it is worth noting that that is less than a tenth of the latest annual increase in America's defence spending. Egypt and Israel receive three times the aid that America gives to all sub-Saharan Africa. I do not wish to mention only America; I want our country and all the G8 countries to do more. However, I want to focus not on the G8 and resources from the top, but on what can be done to build strategies from the base, rethinking the process of development and what the word "partnership" might mean.

Take the example of Ghana. Some 40 per cent. of the population are poor, a third are in extreme poverty and more than half of those living in northern Ghana are classed as the rural poor. The scale of poverty in northern Nigeria, too, is shocking, and the standard of living in that increasingly semi-arid desert land is pre-biblical. People are trying to scratch a living on the face of the earth in areas where streams have dried up. I mention that because the Department for International Development strategy papers on those countries are encouraging in their radical analysis. Disempowerment, of the poor in particular, is a key focus, and other issues include lack of knowledge, skills and resources and unfair global trading policies.

I shall focus on the disempowerment of poor people. The DFID country strategies for Nigeria and elsewhere refer to tackling extreme poverty in rural areas. In such places, agricultural policies have fluctuated or been variably implemented so that there is policy confusion, as DFID puts it. There are multiple, overlapping institutions with conflicting mandates. Environmental and common property resources—pastoral lands, water and forests—have been squandered. How does one get a grip on all that? There will be a political accountability gap where new Governments make the transition from military rule to democracy, but elected Assembly Members are not the only ones who do not know their real democratic powers. The people themselves do not know their role in the process.

What shift can we see from primary capital development projects to the development of participatory techniques that engage the poor? We cannot simply build capital projects; I have seen clinics in Africa standing empty because there are no revenue resources to keep them running. We must, of course, face the challenge of what to do about countries that do not have enough staff because those people have come to Britain, and that is particularly true of Ghana. That aside, however, clinics are useless if villages do not have the resources to keep them running, even if the governor thinks that building a clinic is the best option for the area.

In other words, economic growth alone will not help, and we must introduce local administration, distribution and control systems that engage the people. We should target action for change at the local level, where there is still a strong tendency towards self-help. Some people build their own villages, and the tiny Birni Gwiri village in the Kaduna national park in Nigeria built its own clinic without any outside resources whatever.

I should briefly mention how DFID can do more—not by helping as such, but by using the radical and far-sighted process that it is developing. How can the voices of the poor be included to a greater extent so that the poverty reduction process is theirs? The challenge is to develop a vibrant civil society in which the poor can properly engage in poverty reduction, and the key is to involve them in a structured way in developing the strategy so that they own it at local level. There are signs of hope in Rwanda, for example. The Ubudehe process, which takes its name from a local word, builds on the local devolution of power, engagement and resources to the micro level of 100 families. That radical strategy has been built from the base.

DFID has worked with the World Bank on community involvement strategies in Nigeria, and it has also worked on such strategies in Ghana. The way forward is to build from the base—the development of local participation and local governance is the key to the future. Why? We are developing a real partnership and a real sense of mutuality. We are not helping the poor so much as finding out how they can work on their own circumstances.

The DFID officials whom I have met around the world are superb and have a far-sighted, radical outlook. They are doing pioneering work on pro-poor civil organisations and on developing participation strategies to enable the voices of the poor to be heard. In that, they are perhaps building on the work of the university of Bath centre for development economics.

All that work can help to illuminate what we need to do on basic community development in our inner cities. In other words, it is not one-way traffic and not simply a question of us helping Africa. Community development initiatives and the participation of the poor in rural villages in Africa can show us how to engage people here so that, even in my city of Leeds, they do not see the single regeneration budget as a middle management project that is being imposed on them. Good, well-intentioned officials come along to help, but the people do not own the process.

We can learn from Africa. That will help us to make sense of the expression "new partnership for development", because I am not convinced that we are all that developed in Britain.

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) on securing the debate; I endorse much of what he said. It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), whose contribution is particularly important with regard to support for local initiative rather than the imposition of top-down solutions that might not be received in the way in which the donors patronisingly expect them to be.

I, too, welcome the New Partnership for Africa's Development. The choice that faces the Secretary of State and the Department—the Minister might allude to it—is whether to give good governance the incentive and encouragement that it needs to be rewarded. The hon. Member for City of York touched on the point when he talked about aid competition. Good governance is patently an essential element of trust for those who wish to help the heavily indebted poor countries, and examples of it should be preferred pour encourager les autres. Many such countries do not have perfect systems; many are as poor as the countries under tyrannical regimes.

That is a hard choice for the Department and one that I have raised with the Secretary of State on the Floor of the House. In considering it, we must accept that it involves a complex series of issues—aid, trade, good governance, health and debt relief must ride together in a package. I couple my remarks with those of the hon. Member for Leeds, West. Pump priming for education and health programmes, particularly in relation to AIDS, must concentrate on people at ground level. The importance of training and skills has been mentioned, but I urge hon. Members to focus on malaria, because it is killing off both old and young, leaving a sterile and static "middle" population, often blighted by AIDS. That is one of the most difficult economic challenges that such countries face.

If we focus only on education, health and poverty eradication, all of which are important and necessary, we risk losing what is, ultimately, the greatest asset in boosting poverty eradication—trade. Aid can do much, but trade is the ultimate solution. Getting those countries to participate in the global economy in a way that is real for them is one of the biggest challenges. We must be able to trust each other on peace and security and the eradication of international terrorism, which allow good governance and democratic traditions to flourish.

As chairman of the all-party Tanzania group, and having been involved in third world debt relief, not least because I was born in Tanzania, it is fair to say that no hon. Member or party has a monopoly on compassion, concern or interest in those matters. While we can debate the precise percentages of aid given by this and previous Governments—I do not make the point pejoratively—having a realistic and sustainable commitment that is supported across the House is what matters.

Like everybody, I am disturbed by the endorsement given by the leaders of South Africa, Nigeria and Tanzania to the so-called deserved victory in Zimbabwe. That is disappointing, but it could be said that there was not perfect good governance in the United Kingdom given the problems in Northern Ireland over many years, so we must be careful not to be purist.

I shall take Tanzania as an example; it does not have perfect good governance, as there are problems in Zanzibar. The serious issue of the air traffic control system has been raised on the Floor of the House. I have tried to look into it in detail, because it seems to generate a lot more heat than light. There are tensions, which I can understand, and, quite properly, there have been discussions in the Government. I welcome that, because it is proper to have the debate.

The Tanzanian Government went through what they consider to be a perfectly good due diligence process. They put out to international tender, obtained a preliminary export licence from the Ministry of Defence for the preferred bidders and consulted the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund on a dual civil and security system. I could have used the word "military", but in Tanzania the military aspect is irrelevant, because it does not have the military capability to respond to a threat. The greatest difficulty is smuggling, because smugglers export 15 tonnes of gold from Tanzania each year.

It would have been better if Tanzania had paid for the civilian aspect of the air traffic control project, costing £9 million, and the international community had paid the other £18 million. Such a dual approach would have offered a solution, but I was happy to see jobs secured for this country's manufacturing industry.

I apologise for having gone over my time by a minute. I urge support for the package approach of looking carefully at aid and we must consider the organic initiatives on health and the threats to it that were mentioned earlier. We must continue debt relief and, above all, in celebrating good governance, we should take an organic-plus approach to developing countries and poverty relief, rather than adopt a patronising approach of granting aid downwards, which is counterproductive.

If the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) gives me an unofficial assurance that she will not speak for more than three minutes, I am happy for her to contribute before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman to wind up.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As chair of the all-party group on third-world debt, I was recently invited to the Netherlands to meet parliamentarians and representatives of non-governmental organisations from Africa and elsewhere. We debated debt relief and the new partnership for Africa. I may need to declare an interest, because I have not yet refunded the cost of my accommodation, although I am in the process of doing so.

I welcome the new partnership for Africa, but, like other speakers, I believe that the civil society issue must be recognised. The partnership document was not translated from English into other languages until last month, four months after publication of the original. Furthermore, it is important that we do not raise expectations. The document refers to one voice for Africa, but Britain and France cannot agree on the great lakes, so it is unrealistic to expect African countries to agree on everything.

I hope that the Minister will answer a few questions about debt relief. There is increasing recognition that the heavily indebted poor countries initiative is not good enough and will not by itself achieve the millennium goals on debt. If that is the case, why does the new partnership document refer to going through the HIPC and Paris Club process first? It may be appropriate to pursue that process concurrently, but much more needs to be done if we are to achieve those important goals.

How are we to get help to Ethiopia, which needs to spend $2.5 billion on health to achieve its goals, but is currently spending less than $100 million? How will we deal with the situation in Malawi? The HIPC programme sets a growth rate of 6 per cent., but Malawi's growth rate is about 3 per cent. and getting worse. There is a massive famine there and people are dying right now, but deaths could be avoided if we got more help to such countries.

Will the Minister confirm that the reference in the partnership to a long-term objective, linking debt reduction to costed poverty reduction outcomes, is the same as linking debt reduction to the millennium development goals? If so, why can that not be confirmed at Monterrey to eradicate current concerns about the goal being watered down?

There has been much talk about Nigeria and recognition that we could and should do more, but something needs to happen on both sides. Although we should not underestimate the power of civil society and parliamentarians, we need information. I have been pressing for specific answers for some time. My hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) has given us some of the most useful information about taxing people. Nigeria is talked of as oil rich, but it receives less than 27 cents a day per person—less than a dollar a day—and about 90 per cent. of the population have no access to essential drugs. Nigeria is still owed ecological debts, although many debts were paid under military rule.

The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) referred to loans being given for bad projects. There is responsibility on both sides, however, as people here should have known that we were giving loans for bad projects. We must play our part.

The stadium in Nigeria was mentioned. Senators in that country oppose building it and we must support them if they are to be able to talk out loud. Unquestionably, much more needs to be done and we must continue to consider the matter closely. We should also tackle the problem of money that is stashed away in western banks and do more on money laundering so that we can return the money that is owed to Nigeria and other countries.

I trust that the three Front Benchers will divide the remaining time equally.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) on securing the debate. The timing could not be more fortuitous, with President Obasanjo of Nigeria, John Howard of Australia and Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa, meeting today in London to decide the Commonwealth response to the fraudulent election in Zimbabwe.

I note the comments of the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) about not allowing what happened in that country to derail the process, but the judgment that those leaders reach will have profound implications for the achievement of goals by the New Partnership for Africa's Development. The two issues are inextricably linked, which presents President Mbeki with an enormous dilemma, as he has championed the concept of an Africa-led recovery programme. Failure to show leadership now, when the principles underlying NEPAD face such a stark challenge, could leave the process stillborn and destroy the credibility of a necessary element of securing inward investment.

Of course, Zimbabwe is not alone on the continent in failing to follow the principles of democracy and indulging in corruption. There is a danger of the west striking a hypocritical note if we do not challenge other countries, which are regarded as our friends, where democracy has been woefully lacking.

Why should we regard the continent's reaction to this election as so important? First, change is so badly needed in Zimbabwe. So many people in Africa are offended not only by the flawed election, but by the hopelessly corrupt economic mismanagement and the vicious crushing of dissent over so many years, which have brought that country to its knees. Once a proud exporter of food, it now relies on food aid to feed hundreds of thousands of its citizens, with 500,000 in danger of starvation.

Secondly, we regard the election as important because of its timing. As NEPAD struggles to take off, Mbeki and others simply must meet the challenge to give the project credibility. This is its first big test. There is no doubt that Mbeki recognises that challenge; the only question is, has he the will and ability to act?

As the hon. Member for City of York said, Mbeki's speech last October was impressively clear on NEPAD's potential value as the best and, indeed, only available framework for development in Africa. He stressed that the essential precondition of any renaissance in Africa is that the programme be led by Africa. I shall not repeat the quotes used by the hon. Gentleman, but Mbeki also said:

"Clearly, these measures of ensuring democracy, good governance and the absence of wars and conflicts, are important both for the well-being of the people of Africa and for the creation of positive conditions for investment, economic growth and development."

Mbeki recognises the essential link between democracy and good governance as well as the creation of positive conditions for investment. If the wrong message is sent out now, those conditions will simply not exist.

It is suggested that Mbeki is pursuing a policy of engagement and softly-softly diplomacy because he fears a collapse in Zimbabwe that might tumble over the borders of South Africa, bringing in tens of thousands of refugees, and the impact of that on the South African economy. However, it is plain for all to see that prevarication and lack of leadership might themselves destroy the South African economy.

Africa getting its act together will not be enough for NEPAD to succeed, because it involves partnership with the developed world. The G8 is already engaged in the process, but a massive challenge faces the developed world as well as Africa. Too often, our approach to Africa has been characterised by cynicism and hypocrisy. We must take a more transparent, more honest and more intelligent approach to fulfil our side of the bargain.

The level and purpose of aid for Africa have too often damaged development rather than helped it. It has been tied to trade, and it has been paid to our friends rather than given where it was most needed. Aid for low-income countries with policies that are better than average according to World Bank criteria fell from 1.9 per cent. of recipients' gross domestic product in 1991–95 to 1.2 per cent. in 1996–99. The role of the United States and the European Union in payment of aid moneys to Africa has been lamentable.

Arms sales feed conflict in Africa, which in turn makes escape from poverty impossible. Simon Jenkins recently wrote a powerful article in The Times, pointing out that UK arms exports to Africa increased from £52 million in 1999 to £125 million in 2000, and are likely to rise to more than £200 million next year. How is that paid for? By increasing those countries' debts. The shocking case of Tanzania, and the sale of the £28 million air traffic control system, is the latest shameful example. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for International Development and the Chancellor for making a stand against that.

The combination of US and EU tariffs and subsidies is effectively a massive barrier to Africa selling its goods on the world market. So much needs to change on our side for NEPAD to be given a fair wind, but why should we bother? We have to bother because of the moral case for engaging in Africa, but a case can also be made that is based on intelligent self-interest. A massive challenge lies ahead and it is essential that the G8 remains engaged, but both sides must recognise what is needed for this important initiative to have any chance of success.

It has been an interesting debate. Like other hon. Members, I congratulate the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), who has always taken a great interest in these matters. Fortunately, many hon. Members have been able to contribute to the debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who does a distinguished job as Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development. I pay tribute also to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), whose powerful remarks I shall return to in a moment, the hon. Members for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) and for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) and the hon. Members for South Swindon (Ms Drown) and for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). In a short debate, we have managed to pack in a variety of speakers and a wide range of views.

When we look at the way in which the New Partnership for Africa's Development is supposed to work, we are bound to consider the first test of it. Sadly, I agree with the pessimism expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby; those of us who have been watching the sad but all too predictable events in Zimbabwe are bound to say that the aspirations for NEPAD have not been borne out. My hon. Friend spoke about his experiences when he and the hon. Member for City of York visited Africa as members of the International Development Committee a week or so ago. He said that he came back more depressed than he had ever been about the prospects for the development of good governance.

One concern shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby and the hon. Member for City of York was the view of the British taxpayer. The hon. Gentleman said that he was quite happy to make a case for his constituents to pay more tax in order to have more money for overseas aid, but that the case would be more difficult to make if his constituents knew that some people in Nigeria earned £40,000, £50,000 or £60,000 and paid no tax at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby suggested that there was no real understanding among the elected politicians that he met in Nigeria of a need to tackle that problem and move to a system of democratic accountability and proper taxation. That is not only depressing, but all too familiar to those of us who have seen how so many countries in sub-Saharan Africa have descended into virtual countries, as a constituent of mine who has great experience in Kenya described them.

Although Her Majesty's Opposition want to see the underlying aspirations of NEPAD succeed—who could not wish something with genuine good intentions well?—we worry that the concerns that we have expressed about NEPAD's emphasis on Government-to-Government aid, rather than support for reputable non-governmental organisations, have not been listened to. As we have said, when the Department for International Development considers its future contribution to initiatives such as NEPAD, there should be much more clear support for NGOs and charities. Those are more accountable and cost-effective, and less corrupt, and they often have greater experience of working on the ground. Almost every speaker in the debate has talked about the extent of corruption. We know that when aid is given Government-to-Government, what happens to it when it reaches the recipient Government is, sadly, the problem.

There must be a much greater commitment from African countries to good governance if any of the targets or aspirations that underlie NEPAD are to be met. I have spent some time in South Africa, and have seen the contrasts that the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale rightly mentioned between grinding poverty in some areas and wealth in others. If we are to tackle those contrasts, we must wish the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, well. Also, it would be reassuring if the leadership of sub-Saharan African countries were prepared to condemn the appalling recent abuses of democracy in Zimbabwe. I share the pessimism of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby, who said that one cannot take aspirational statements seriously if, faced with that first test, all we see are expressions of support for the rigged Zimbabwe election.

The Foreign Secretary said that

"there has been every sign of ZANU-PF-backed violence and intimidation, right up to the close of polling, as well as many reports of irregularities, including a shortage of polling booths in urban areas, and harassment of opposition election agents in rural areas."—[Official Report, 12 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 740.]

Sadly, it appears that many African countries pretend, at least publicly, that they do not agree with that assessment. There is great concern that the Government of South Africa have been reluctant to criticise the tyrant of Zimbabwe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby rightly called him. That Government are thought to have put pressure on their official election observers to declare the election free and fair. The South African Minister with responsibility for the police, Steve Tshwete, tried to persuade observers that the elections in Zimbabwe were "credible" and "legitimate". A South African observer was quoted in our national press on 11 March as saying:

"We feel uncomfortable. The pressures are going to be enormous".

Aziz Pahad, the deputy Foreign Minister, has called on South Africa's press to stop "demonising" President Mugabe. One member of the South African election observation team said that the media had exaggerated the violence, and that the notion of a free and fair election was

"a product of Western liberal political processes".

What hope for a move towards good governance if real democracy is traduced in that way?

President Obasanjo of Nigeria is, as many hon. Members have said, closely linked to NEPAD as one of its chief backers. Before the close of voting, the head of the Nigerian observer team of the Zimbabwean elections, Ernest Shonekan, said that he was "particularly impressed" by the conduct of the election, despite some "skirmishes".

He said:

"It will be very difficult for anyone to come and tell us that it was not free and fair".

Senior aides to President Obasanjo were quoted by the press as saying that the Nigerian leader was unlikely to back the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth.

Nigeria exhibits the difficulties inherent in NEPAD. President Obasanjo is the first civilian head of state in more than 15 years, but has struggled to implement even the basic tenets of NEPAD in his country. Nigerians are still caught up in the worst cycle of ethnic, tribal and religious violence since the civil war in the 1960s. Thousands have died. At the start of last month, at least 100 people were killed in the commercial capital, Lagos, after three days of ethnic clashes.

Although we recognise the aspirations underlying NEPAD, as I have said, and should like it to succeed, in the light of the failure of its first test in Zimbabwe we are bound to be very pessimistic. I hope that the Minister will say at least that he is prepared to put much more effort into supporting the work of NGOs and charities on the ground in Africa, which might be a better way of causing NEPAD's real underlying concepts to succeed in future.

May I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) on having secured the debate and on the clarity with which he analysed the challenge? I genuinely welcome the fact that I have a short time in which to respond to the debate, because that is a product of so many hon. Members' wishing to participate. All contributions have added something to our understanding of the challenge that Africa faces.

We know that half those living in sub-Saharan Africa live on less than a dollar a day and that one in five have their lives blighted by conflict. Conflict is the scar on the back of the continent. We know that 25 million people live with AIDS, a disaster for Africa. My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) was absolutely right about that. It is a disaster not least because, in some countries, it is causing the wiping out of almost all that was gained in life expectancy during the past generation.

Economically, Africa is the only continent that has gone backwards. Its share of world trade has halved in the past generation. Some 40 per cent. of the savings generated within the continent of Africa leave it every year, and it is not the case that Africa has been overexploited by trade and foreign investment. The truth is that it has had too little of either. The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) rightly and forcefully made that point.

As if all that was not enough, there is also corruption, poor governance and unfinished, or in many cases unstarted, reform. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), reflecting on the recent visit to Nigeria, spoke with enormous passion about the sheer scale of corruption. I can add to what he said only by pointing out that during the period of General Abacha's regime, the international community put $1.1 billion of aid into Nigeria, while he and his family looted $6 billion from that country.

I think that we are all agreed that Africa is, quite simply, the greatest regeneration challenge that we currently face in the world. It is all too easy to be transfixed by the headlights of the statistics on the state of Africa. I am glad that several hon. Members have referred as well to the beacons of hope in the continent, including the progress made on reducing poverty in Uganda. We could also mention the growth rates in Botswana and Mozambique, which offer us hope. The New Partnership for Africa's Development offers us a chance to build on those successes for the future.

The most important things about NEPAD, an initiative made in Africa for Africa, are: first, as hon. Members have said, that it represents a commitment to solve the continent's problems; secondly, that it recognises the need to take a regional approach to poverty reduction and greater equality; and thirdly, that it is an approach that works with the international community in forming what is, in essence, a deal. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) was absolutely right in saying that it is a deal with obligations on both sides. The deal is that Africa will seek to resolve its problems, particularly in areas of conflict and governance, and in return the international community will respond with support for NEPAD's priorities, with increased resources that are better targeted and with trade reform.

NEPAD is a long-term initiative. I understand completely the impatience that several hon. Members expressed in their contributions and their concerns that early tests may indicate a cause for pessimism. However, if we are to respond to the challenges that Africa faces we cannot afford pessimism. We must put it to one side, renew our optimism—even in the face of adversity—and recognise that we will have to give the partnership time to fulfil its potential.

The UK's development aid to Africa is rising; it has nearly doubled since 1997. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in Monterrey at the G8 conference on financing for development, which is a real test of the world's response to poverty alleviation in general, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) said. Aware that aid to Africa has actually declined in recent years, we have worked hard to encourage other donors to increase the aid that they give.

We have seen some progress. Under pressure of the advent of the Monterrey conference, the EU recently agreed to raise its average overseas development assistance gross national income figure from the current 0.32 per cent. to 0.39 per cent. by 2006, which represents an increase of about $7 billion a year. The United States has announced an increase in its aid budget of $5 billion during the next three years although, as my hon. Friend and others pointed out, that is still a very small share of its national wealth.

On debt relief, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) that it is delivering progress: 25 countries have benefited—Ghana is the latest—from $50 billion worth of debt relief. The biggest single obstacle to the remaining countries in Africa accessing the relief for highly indebted poor countries is conflict.

I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) about the timetable. The G8 plan for Africa will be launched at the summit in June and will be followed by the African Union summit in July. Much effort is being made to ensure that the two processes work in parallel, because each must support the other.

Money is part of what is needed, but it is not everything. We must try to build peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan and Angola. The news from Angola over the weekend gives some cause for hope. We must open up trade opportunities, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) said, particularly by giving the African countries access to G8 markets.

Governance has dominated the debate, and the issue of Zimbabwe has been raised. All of us are deeply worried by what has occurred but, in truth, the outcome is unlikely to reverse the desperate economic and social decline in that country, which is greatly affecting the poor. However, I share the view of those who have said that, although Zimbabwe is an important test for Africa, it is not the sole test against which we should judge the success of the New Partnership for Africa's Development, because the issue of governance will remain important.

Several issues have been raised. On patronage, the hon. Member for Banbury was absolutely right about the culture that exists in some countries. However, let us be honest: it was part of our culture not all that many years ago, and we should try to remember how we moved to where we are today. The hon. Gentleman spoke forcefully about the need to support elected representatives in making the transition from one way of doing business to another.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) mentioned tax. I can only say "hear, hear" to his suggestion that the well-off should pay more tax. His comments were a particularly pleasant feature of the debate.

I am not sure that I would go as far as agreeing with the suggestion about bidding that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of York. However, we should take account of those who are committed to reform in deciding where to put our money and our priorities.

I heartily endorse the passionate comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West about regeneration. If we want to regenerate successfully—be it in an inner-city ward, a country or a continent—ownership must come from the bottom up. We need a long-term commitment. NEPAD represents a commitment on the part of Africa, but we need action rather than words.

Order.

High up in the Blackdown hills, an area of outstanding natural beauty in my constituency, Dunkeswell airfield, which was built during the second world war, is still used today by light aircraft. It has a small museum that is funded and supported by local people. I pay tribute to the museum chairman, Mr. Claude Caple, and many local residents for their tireless support. For the past few years, the museum trust has been trying to acquire some of the remaining buildings on the site, so that the museum can be extended to include the important buildings that are part of its history.

The anti-submarine operations centre at Dunkeswell played a pivotal role in the second world war during one of the momentous events in European history. It was the only United States navy administration base and antisubmarine bomber command centre in the United Kingdom. It kept open the vital sea lanes to England, protecting the convoys from attack by Hitler's U-boats during the dark days of the war. Today, the historic operations centre is testimony to the valour of the airmen of the US navy fleet air wing 7 who were stationed at the former Royal Air Force airfield, which became known as Air Facility Dunkeswell, US Atlantic fleet. Those airmen flew 6,424 hazardous bomber missions, day and night, far out into the Atlantic ocean, between September 1942 and June 1945.

In recent years, there has been concern about the future of the buildings, particularly the operations block. I have sought the support of Defence Ministers, who have been very helpful. However, we seem to be at an impasse. Genuine concern is felt in my constituency that Defence Estates is running out of patience. It needs to dispose of land assets. It is waiting for English Heritage to decide whether to list some of the buildings on the site and has said that some of them may not be safe on the grounds of health and safety. My worry is that the bulldozers will roll in and deprive the museum of its opportunity to create a permanent visitor centre, which will be of historical and educational benefit to United Kingdom citizens, as well as a fitting tribute to the many United States veterans and their relatives who visit or contact the museum each year.

I wish to outline some of the key points in my correspondence with Ministers at the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in recent years. In 1996, a report by Paul Francis, entitled "The Blackdown Hills Airfield Survey", was produced for Devon county council and East Devon district council, which commended the retention of, among others, the operations block. The report is substantive and its high quality is still relevant today. In February 1998, the museum's trustees alerted me to the possible threat to the buildings on the site. I telephoned the Ministry of Defence and was informed that the buildings were considered unsafe under health and safety rules. I raised with Ministers the request on behalf of the museum's trustees to pass the title of the buildings to the museum trust, a registered charity. The then Under-Secretary of State for Defence, now the Minister for Transport, sent me a helpful letter dated 18 March 1998 inviting me to outline the museum's concerns.

At the request of the MOD, the museum set about producing a feasibility study on how the buildings would be used as part of the museum site. The Minister agreed to a site meeting with officials from both the Ministry of Defence and English Heritage.

The meeting, which I attended, was held on 6 July 1998 and it was very positive. The principal conservation architect for Defence Estates explained that a national military aviation thematic study was being carried out, and, at the time, I understood that about 150 sites would be considered for preservation as part of the study. That was part of English Heritage's monuments protection programme and it was scheduled for completion by the end of 1998.

Following the site meeting, Mr. Lake of English Heritage, who had not seen the buildings before, wrote:

"Personally I thought the site meeting was a positive and useful event, and I was very impressed by the determined enthusiasm of the Museums members. On behalf of the MoD, I remain available to provide assistance as required."

By 14 December 1998, a representative of Defence Estates had written to the museum saying:

"I can confirm that the Royal Marines would be willing to sell the WW2 Command Centre (Ops Bldg) to your Museum. However, in order to achieve such a sale which would be on a private treaty basis, it would be necessary to obtain our Headquarters and Ministerial approval to a private treaty purchaser without offering the site for sale on the open market. Should our Headquarters and Ministerial approval be given to a sale, it would be necessary for us to make a joint submission to the District Valuer to assess the value (if any). I am unable to pre-empt a Ministers decision in this case and therefore could not give you an unequivocal letter of intent as indicated. However, I would be prepared to take the case up to Ministers if you could provide me with a detailed case for purchase. Such a case should include details about the Museum and its objectives together with its future plans and reasons for wishing to purchase the Ops Buildings at Dunkeswell. It would also be useful to include a letter of support from your local MP and Council Authorities supporting your purchase. I believe we should restrict our action to the Ops building at this stage."

I confirm that the museum had not only my support, but that of Devon county council, East Devon district council, the Blackdown hills joint advisory committee, Dunkeswell parish council and, of course, the many veterans who are in contact with the museum. Over 500 of them are alive today and receive regularly the FAW7 newsletter.

By 7 January 1999, Tony Whitehead, the principal conservation architect, had written to the museum saying:

"I have been enormously impressed by the dedication of the members of the Museum Project supported by the local community in developing an active memorial for the actions of the US Navy's anti-submarine Bomber Command. Finding sympathetic new uses for historical buildings remains one of the most important challenges facing Government Departments such as the Ministry of Defence. We are therefore very grateful for the initiative shown by organizations such as yourselves in championing imaginative projects which in addition will afford social end educational benefits derived from historically significant sites.

The timing of your initiative is particularly notable, in that it coincides with the English Heritage Aviation Thematic Study. Whilst there are many surviving buildings from WW2, their future can only be sustained through the enthusiasm and commitment of organizations such as yourselves. Without local backing, prevailing but often fragile WW2 sites will inevitably decline and disappear. Commitment such as yours acts as an insurance policy to ensure future generations do not forget the sacrifices made at a crucial part in the nation's history.

You have important challenges ahead, and in my capacity as MoD's building conservation specialist, I remain available to assist in seeing this project through to fruition."

On 12 January 1999, Jeremy Lake of English Heritage wrote:

"Thank you for your letter … Our thematic survey of military aviation sites and structures has drawn our attention to the special significance of this site."

He continued:

"Our work is largely focused on a very small number of the best preserved sites, but association with the three principal air battles of the second World War (the Battle of Britain, the Battle of the Atlantic and, to a lesser extent, Strategic Bomber Offensive), is enabling us to identify substantially complete examples of key building types on the most historically significant sites. Dunkeswell is one of this very small number, due to its unique role as the only US Navy airfield in the United Kingdom and close association with the crucial battle of the Atlantic. I am, therefore writing to confirm our support based on an extensive programme of documentary research and fieldwork, for the historical importance of this site."

On 15 February 1999, the museum alerted me to the fact that the marines from Lympstone, who had operational access to the site, were inspecting it for future demolition. Again, a different Minister was in charge at the time—I was on to my second Ministry of Defence Minister about the matter. Late one Saturday night, a telephone call to the duty officer, who was based in Belfast at the time, prevented the demolition and the museum set up an appeal fund to acquire the buildings. Admiral William Crowe, the former US ambassador who had attended the site meeting with us, became the patron.

On 11 June 1999, the Minister wrote to me saying:

"The Royal Marines, having now completed an internal review of their training requirements at Dunkeswell, have concluded … the site is potentially surplus to their requirements. This clearly has an impact on the future operation of Dunkeswell".

So, from what had started in hope, especially following that useful, important and constructive site meeting, things were again going wrong and there were constant worries that the buildings were somehow going to be removed. The need to list the buildings and the thematic review seemed to slip down the timetable. I realise that a different Government Department is now dealing with the issue, but one would hope that different Departments talk to each other. As I wrote to MOD Ministers, I automatically copied my correspondence to the DCMS. It wrote and told me that the thematic review would not end until the end of 2001 when the listing would be considered.

In the meantime, Defence Estates in Plymouth pressed the case that it wished to dispose of the site. The reply that I received from DCMS on 17 September 2001 was not terribly helpful. At one stage, Baroness Blackstone, the Minister, explained that she could not understand why the museum trust could not start an appeal for new money to buy the buildings. Obviously, it is difficult to raise public funds without a commitment that the buildings can be bought. There is a lot of interest in supporting an appeal, especially in the US, but there must be some recognition that the trust would be able to acquire the buildings in the first place.

I have seen a letter dated 10 February 2002 to the DCMS from Defence Estates, south-west region, that concludes, among other things, that

"English Heritage have already acknowledged the difficulties for the MOD and a conclusion to the Dunkeswell Management strategy is now imperative. I would refer to Tony Whitehead's letter to Eleanor Hodge dated 3rd September 2001. To that end, I will be discussing a timetable for the partial demolition with the Service Authority to coincide with the existing planned works for the remainder of the airfield."

I understand that partial demolition means taking the buildings down to a height of 3 ft.

"I will advise that no action be taken prior to 1st April to afford interested parties a further opportunity to photograph, survey and record the buildings".

That sounds to me, as it does to the people in Dunkeswell, as though a photographic record of what was there is suggested. However, there is a clear indication that unless matters are quickly resolved, there is a deadline of 1 April, only a fortnight away, when action and authorisation may be taken for the buildings to disappear altogether.

As the Minister will be aware, the site and the museum epitomise all that was best about those who served there more than half a century ago. Today, people in the local community of Dunkeswell, many of whom never met those brave young men, have given of their efforts to ensure that Dunkeswell is remembered. All too often in political life, bureaucracy, delay and poor communications between Departments mean that things fall through the net. With the 1 April deadline just round the corner, I ask the Minister to use this opportunity to ensure that good progress can be made. If there is a political will, that can be achieved. As the newsletter of the veterans states:

"Many returned home, Some stayed forever, None shall be forgotten."

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on securing the debate. For reasons that I shall explain later, I welcome the chance to talk on the subject. There is no doubt that Dunkeswell airfield is an important part of our heritage from the second world war and the defence of the Atlantic seaways. One of my great regrets about my job is that although I am responsible for defence estates, I do not get the chance to visit as many sites as I would like to.

I cannot resist. I must offer the Minister a personal invitation to come and see Dunkeswell airfield for himself. A visit to the airfield is a lovely day out.

I had a feeling that I was leading with my chin on that one. I hesitate to say that I will come in the very near future, but I promise the hon. Lady that, given the opportunity, I shall attempt to visit the airfield and see it for myself.

The hon. Lady raised concerns about proposed work that is to be carried out at Dunkeswell airfield. We have exchanged correspondence on the subject in the past; indeed, as she recognises in her speech, she has exchanged extensive correspondence with quite a few defence Ministers and others on this matter. I hope that my remarks will serve to reassure her that it remains the case that nothing will be done on the airfield without continued, close and careful liaison with all the interested parties.

We in the Ministry of Defence take our responsibilities for historic and heritage properties seriously. My Department has responsibility for more such sites than any other Department. We have in excess of 650 statutorily protected historic buildings on our estate. That number includes both listed buildings and scheduled monuments. We strive to maintain those to the highest standards that we can, and to build on Government-wide good practice. The "2001 Annual Report on Historic Buildings" published late last year illustrates that commitment. To that end, we maintain close contact with English Heritage and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

When buildings are retained, we try to devise ways of using them that are both sympathetic and practical. If there are no other practical options and we have to dispose of buildings, we work closely with public and voluntary organisations to try to ensure that their future is secure. I have spoken of the strong partnership and liaison that exists between my Department and others and the statutory bodies concerned. When we can, we go further than that, and take into account as far as possible the interests of more general stakeholders. I fully recognise how much an airfield like Dunkeswell means to a wide range of people who live locally or have served on the base.

As the hon. Lady said, the airfield, near Honiton, was constructed during the last war, and was used as a base from which coastal-command aircraft could counter the submarine threat. In 1943 it was transferred to the United States air force and then to the US navy fleet air wing before flying operations ceased in 1946, although we used it as a satellite for RAF Merryfield until 1955. Most of the airfield, including the majority of its runways, was sold in the 1980s. Private aircraft operate from a section of the old runway and several industrial units have been constructed on what was the technical site. The retained area, known as the Dunkeswell airfield training area, is now surplus to requirements, and is being prepared for disposal. The Dunkeswell Memorial museum resides in a temporary building at the entrance to the airfield, and I understand the concerns of the museum's chairman, Mr. Claude Caple, for the future of the site, and his wish to preserve as much as possible of the historical environment. Indeed, the hon. Lady will be pleased to know that I am supportive of the museum's aspiration to acquire some of the buildings.

The site also forms part of the military aviation thematic study by English Heritage, which commenced several years ago. We await a decision from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on two groups of buildings that were proposed for listing—the control tower complex and the operations block.

Defence Estates has formally expressed concern about the operations block, and its potential for sustained use in the future. I can tell the hon. Lady that the Dunkeswell case was discussed by Defence Estates—the Ministry of Defence agency that is responsible for the defence estate—and English Heritage at a liaison meeting as recently as 12 March. I also understand that officials of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are currently considering whether a listing decision is required on the control tower complex and the operations block in advance of the final report of English Heritage on the military aviation thematic study.

I understand that the Dunkeswell buildings are being considered as part of a nationwide review of similar sites, and I accept the difficulties that that poses for determining a particular case in advance of the main review, unless there is an immediate threat to the buildings.

I understand that when this review started there was consideration of 150 airfields, and that that has been reduced to 100 as a result not of what is on the airfields, but of the necessity to dispose of more of them.

Is it true that there is pressure from the Treasury? I do not suppose that the Minister will give me a clear answer to that, but if he were to wink or nod, that would be good enough for me. Have they reduced the number from 150 to 100, and if that is the case, does that put a question mark against Dunkeswell? When we talked about it three years ago, we were not so concerned that it might be at risk.

I am happy to say that I have no great wish that the Ministry of Defence should retain ownership of land for which we have no need. It is up to English Heritage to recognise which of the historic sites associated with the second world war are worth preserving. I do not think that there should, a priori, be an assumption that because something is of historical interest it should be preserved for all time, but a full and representative sample of those sites should be preserved, and, from what I know of the Dunkeswell site, it would appear to fit that category. That is a personal view.

Such sites are being considered as part of the nationwide survey, and as the hon. Lady knows, national surveys can take an inordinately long time to deal properly with matters. That is not meant to imply any criticism of colleagues in other Departments. It is simply the case that such surveys take a long time to resolve matters, and that is why I am happy that the Dunkeswell case is being looked at as a matter of urgency.

I turn to recent communications from Defence Estates about our intentions with regard to the site. I can assure the hon. Lady that we have no intention of demolishing the control tower. What is proposed is that certain dangerous structures associated with the operations block should be removed to permit explosive ordnance clearance to be carried out. At the moment, health and safety concerns prevent the relevant experts from entering the block to carry out that work, which is essential if we are to be able to dispose of the site. Ironically, because we cannot give an assurance that the block is clear of explosive ordnance, even contractors employed to make the block safe would have to work from the outside. That clearly indicates the problem that we have.

I am particularly pleased to hear that the control tower is safe, because I said that I would chain myself to it if I did not get a satisfactory answer, as the Minister knows. I understand that a certificate is needed for explosive ordnance clearance in the operations block and that other health and safety matters must be tackled. When those issues are dealt with, however, will it be necessary to demolish just one wall or will the whole building be razed to just 3ft above the ground, which is virtually the same as demolishing it?

If I can proceed, I believe that I shall refer to that. If I do not, I shall certainly give the hon. Lady a detailed response later.

We are sensitive to the issues involved and have refrained from taking action until the views of all stakeholders have been taken into account. That does not, of course, mean that action is not urgently required. My officials have made representations to DCMS, highlighting the precarious state of the operations block and the fact that an early decision is required on whether it is to be listed. The museum has been kept fully informed about that correspondence and about developments that might affect its interests.

None of the parties involved has objected to our proposals to date, but despite the passage of time, we are still not in a position to move forward. For that reason—and because we are conscious of our health and safety responsibilities, which cannot be taken any less lightly than our responsibility for preserving heritage—my officials proposed a reasonable time scale within which they believed action needed to be taken. They gave 1 April as the date on which we would commence contractual procedures to effect vital health and safety work.

Health and safety considerations and our duty of care to members of the public who visit the airfield mean that we must consider the future of several other buildings and structures, which are not included in the thematic study. The hon. Lady will appreciate that those were put up in haste during the second world war and that their construction is very basic. Those temporary structures were intended for the duration of the conflict and have, consequently, declined to a very poor state of repair; indeed, some of them can be described only as dangerous.

I regret any undue alarm to which our proposals may have given rise, but I cannot apologise for seeking to resolve a difficult issue. Doing nothing is not an option that we can sustain for much longer. We could put up fences around the dangerous structures, but our experience elsewhere shows that they cannot be guaranteed to keep out the inquisitive. Sadly, such an approach would not discharge my Department's heath and safety responsibilities or significantly reduce the risk to the public, including trespassers. Nevertheless, I assure the hon. Lady that it was never our intention to take unilateral action on the commencement of demolition. I am therefore happy to confirm that no action will be taken until all interested parties, including the hon. Lady, have had the opportunity to attend an on-site briefing, at which my officials will explain the proposals and demonstrate why they are necessary.

I recognise that it is not easy to strike a balance between heritage and health and safety, but if my Department is to act responsibly, it must consider how such a balance is to be struck. Were an accident to happen, it would hardly be excusable to say we were waiting for guidance. Equally, we cannot sell or transfer the site and its heritage buildings to another owner until the essential explosive ordnance checks have been carried out, which cannot be done while the current risks exist. We are in contact with DCMS and English Heritage on those important issues, and I hope that we can move rapidly to resolve the issues that affect Dunkeswell.

As the hon. Lady confirmed in her speech, my Department has striven over the past three or four years to meet the various demands that have been put on it as regards Dunkeswell. We have involved all the key Departments, bodies and parties that have an interest, we have taken active steps to keep the museum aware of how matters were developing and we have tried to be sympathetic to all the aspirations that have been expressed. We have, however, also had to recognise and meet our obligations as regards health and safety and explosive ordnance clearance. That said, I give an assurance that we will take no action on demolition until I am satisfied that it is the correct approach. It is, however, essential that action is taken soon, because the present position cannot be maintained indefinitely, and the risks mount with each passing day.

I will take a personal interest in the issue, and I shall be happy to speak to the hon. Lady again if she wants to raise concerns with me. I welcome this debate and very much hope that it will be the catalyst that allows us to make speedy progress at Dunkeswell.

Let me say at the beginning of my speech how helpful my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) has been. I commend him for all the work that he has done on the issue.

A year after Chester Street Insurance Holdings collapsed we appear to be no closer to meeting the needs of those who were affected—and that includes people who do not yet know that they have been affected. At business questions on 7 March I asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether he knew that companies that had agreed to pay compensation to asbestos-related disease sufferers, and to future sufferers, were now reneging on the deal. My right hon. Friend replied:

"I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to pursue the matter and make full use of the facilities of the House to do so."—[Official Report, 7 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 433.]

That I have done, in part, by securing this debate. I intend to do whatever else I can to ensure that people suffering because of asbestos will receive the money to which they are entitled.

Asbestos dust is responsible for more work-related deaths than any other cause. Doctors have warned that the number of deaths has not yet reached its peak. Use of asbestos has been widespread since the mid-19th century. As a result, victims are not confined to one industry but are spread through many industries, including and particularly shipbuilding, construction and energy. Asbestos-related disease creates a chronic respiratory problem for sufferers, resulting in impaired mobility, and the dust can also cause mesothelioma, a cancer for which there is no cure.

It is known that 90 per cent. of mesothelioma cases in the United Kingdom—some 1,500 a year—follow asbestos exposure. Years can pass before the effects on those exposed to asbestos become apparent. Because of that latent period, cases of asbestos-related disease will continue to rise. Furthermore, although the delay between first exposure to asbestos and the development of the cancer is likely to be 10 or 15 years, the cancer is usually fatal within two years.

Because of that it is vital that claims for compensation are settled speedily and in a straightforward manner. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), said in a debate in this Chamber on 16 January:

"There is a need to ensure that compensation, where it is required, is delivered speedily and effectively to those who have contracted those awful diseases as a result of their work, or … as a result simply of being in a certain neighbourhood where an industrial process is taking place."

In other words, delays to claims for compensation are not acceptable if time is of the essence.

People are now doubly victims. They are exposed to asbestos by their employer and then let down by the failure of insurance companies to compensate them. Thousands of people who worked at Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, John Brown in Clydebank or Fairfields had taken out policies, together worth up to £400 million, with Chester Street Insurance Holdings. When Chester Street became insolvent and Iron Trades was sold off, hundreds of pre-1972 cases were left in limbo. A scheme was worked out with the insurance industry covering the pre-1972 cases left by the collapse of Chester Street. However, solicitors representing my constituents who are seeking compensation tell me that people who suffered as a result of the Chester Street collapse have not received a penny from the scheme.

The debacle raises several questions. I am concerned because the Financial Services Authority approved the Chester Street restructuring when it was quite clear that the company was heading for collapse. The FSA interpreted its duty as protecting the company and its shareholders, not the ultimate victims. How many times have we heard that in the last 20 years?

Cases such as Chester Street and Turner and Newell have highlighted what happens when things go wrong. Sufferers of asbestos-related disease endured a major blow in the Court of Appeal on 11 December 2001 as a result of the Fairchild case. The Court of Appeal stated that if two defendants had exposed a claimant to asbestos equally, the "guilty" fibres could not be identified, so both defendants escaped liability. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) said in an earlier debate on the issue, that is like saying that if two people shoot someone and we cannot tell which bullet the victim died from, both those people are innocent of murder.

Shipyard and building workers often work for a number of employers. Under that ruling, it is impossible to prove the source of the disease. As a result, such people have nowhere to go under current legislation. They stand no chance of receiving compensation unless a national compensation scheme is put together by national Government. What has happened to natural justice? Will the Secretary of State put pressure on her colleagues to introduce such a scheme?

The Court of Appeal's decision effectively overturned the principle that the courts have applied in such cases for many years. Previously, and in my opinion correctly, defendants were joined and liability was apportioned according to the time for which the person had worked with each employer. In the previous debate that I have already mentioned, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions also said:

"The Court of Appeal commented that for the claimants not to receive compensation was a major injustice—it said that its own judgment was a major injustice—and that it was one that should be remedied by express statutory provision or by an agreed insurance industry compensation scheme."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 16 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 87–88WH.]

Sadly, I feel the former will have to be the case.

I have seen no evidence of insurance companies hurrying to pay people compensation for catching any asbestos-related disease.

The move to ensure that one employer does not suffer unduly because of the negligence of another means that the victims have no protection; thus thousands of victims of fatal disease have been deprived of compensation. It is crucial that the Government introduce a national policy of compensation for asbestos workers. Again, I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that this happens.

It is time that someone in Government stood up for the victims, not the perpetrators of the crime—the companies and those who work so hard at not paying up. The ruling has left those seeking compensation in limbo; some lawyers in the insurance industry are working not to seek justice for the defendants but to find a route around the industry's liabilities and responsibilities towards its asbestos victims. I understand that the House of Lords is to hear an appeal in two cases relating to Fairchild on 22 and 23 April. I shall be interested to see the outcome; I hope that sanity will prevail and that the decision will be overturned.

I should also like to raise the issue of British Shipbuilders, which is very important to my constituents. British Shipbuilders is a public corporation, and it has concluded that it should not accept liability from other limited companies. I appreciate that the DTI does not intervene in legal cases, but we must ask whether the Department should hold an inquiry—or would that slow things down even further? I wonder whether that is what the insurance companies want; it fits their modus operandi.

The Government's pneumoconiosis scheme provides for the payment of compensation to sufferers of certain dust-related diseases who are unable to obtain redress in the courts because their employer has gone out of business so there is no one at whom they can direct a legal action.

I understand that in the light of the Fairchild case, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has announced that the Government's compensation scheme will apply to Scotland. That is helpful, but the Fairchild judgment has manifold implications for that scheme. Is it right that as a first step, action should be taken against former employers of people who have contracted one of those diseases, and only when it is not possible to establish whether the employer is liable, or if a liable employer cannot be found, will the pneumoconiosis scheme take over? During that time, of course, the asbestos sufferer is dying.

I agree that the Government scheme should not allow companies to walk away from their liabilities, but in that limbo stage, what else can we do for the victims?

Does my hon. Friend agree with me that one of the bugbears for the 1997 Labour Government concerning compensation was the small payment of £2,500, which did not carry the clawback tag? When we abolished that small payment, we gave those who suffered from pleural plaque, mesothelioma and asbestosis the opportunity to claim much larger sums.

I thank my hon. Friend for that information. He is much more experienced and knowledgeable in such matters than I am. Those small payments must have helped at the time, but they do not help people today, and it is those people whom we need to consider.

Insurance is about taking risks, and making payments when things go wrong. Some companies have already gone into liquidation, but others are using such tactics as going into voluntary liquidation in order to avoid their liabilities. Turner and Newall and Federal-Mogul took that route to escape their responsibilities. The Government must consider what needs to be done to deal with that problem. We do not want the insurance industry to be able to abandon its responsibilities and leave them with the taxpayer. When considering compensation, we must remember that lump sums and periodic payments should be the equivalent of the compensation payments that courts award in negligence cases.

Almost 1,000 claims were made during the last complete year of the scheme, whereas fewer than 10,000 payments were made during the 20 years from 1980. Clearly, those payments are increasing annually. Considering the rise in the number of cases and in the number of claims for compensation, that could cost the Treasury tens of millions of pounds. The amount of money, however, is small compared with human life.

I end by asking a few more questions of the Secretary of State—questions that are of prime concern to my constituents and to those of the other hon. Members here today, and possibly throughout the country. What is being done in Scotland to allay fears that the Scottish courts may deal less favourably with asbestos sufferers? What action is being taken to safeguard the interests of asbestos suffers, who have seen Turner and Newall go into administration? We should collate a "name and shame" list, which would at least let the people know whom to trust when doing business with insurance companies. Why should the people of Scotland—or even the people of Britain—keep them in business? Honour would appear to matter only when money is not involved—but asbestos sufferers are not interested in honour, only in justice.

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) on securing this debate. It raises a number of issues of considerable concern to people in the west of Scotland. I too associate myself with his remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington), who led the campaign to get justice for the victims of asbestos.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland, I feel a deep sense of grievance about the events surrounding Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd. Chester Street, formerly known as Iron Trades Holdings Ltd., had significant exposure to employers' liability insurance, and almost all the shipbuilding firms that had used asbestos were insured through Chester Street. The circumstances surrounding the company's failure are interesting, in that two companies were formed, one with the assets and another with the liabilities. Guess which one was left with responsibility for the victims of asbestosis? When Chester Street failed, former employees were faced with a defunct manufacturing company and a defunct insurance company.

There was particular uncertainty for people employed before 1972. Employers' liability insurance became compulsory in Great Britain only from that year, and it was initially unclear whether any pre-1972 claims against Chester Street would be met. After careful examination of the company's assets and liabilities, the Chester Street administrators set the initial dividend for creditors at 5 per cent.—5p in the pound.

As an MP for the west of Scotland, I have received representations from several asbestos victims. Like many of those who had to challenge the insurance industry, they found that they had no voice. I am delighted that so many of my hon. Friends have taken it upon themselves to act as the voice of those innocent victims. I have some form in dealing with the insurance industry, as I dealt with issues relating to personal pensions mis-selling when the Government were elected in 1997, and the situation grieves me because I regard the insurance industry as a major contributor to the financial services industry, and such behaviour by rogue companies gives the whole industry a bad name.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Association of British Insurers, to leaders in the insurance industry and to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury who, when the Chester Street situation became apparent, immediately took action with a view to securing some means of compensation for the victims. I am speaking to members of the Chartered Insurance Institute this evening and I shall reiterate those points in my speech.

I was absolutely delighted when I heard that we had arranged a compensation deal for victims. I know some of the victims, and some of the widows of victims, who are dealing with difficult financial circumstances, and it was a source of great irritation to me to discover that payments were not being made in a timeous manner. I know that there are complications in ensuring that payment will be made to the victims. The Government have responsibilities through their involvement with British Shipbuilders, and we are meeting our liabilities towards former public sector employees, but where a private sector company still exists, it is expected to meet its liabilities. Where the company no longer exists, the ABI and the financial services compensation scheme will meet those liabilities at 100 per cent. in respect of post-1972 employment, and at 90 per cent. for earlier periods.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time taken by the ABI to get the money to the people who need it is now bordering on the extreme? The victims need the money now. Unfortunately, next year will be too late for some of them.

I could not agree more. My hon. Friend has just made what is probably the most important point of all. Indeed, the High Court has already approved the scheme, and I can see no reason why there should not be progress in making payments. I accept that the administrator has a legal obligation to be fair to all the creditors, but I feel that one of the best ways of doing that is to get the payments made as rapidly as possible.

Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?

This is my hon. Friend's debate, and I am duty bound to reply to his points. If I have time near the end, I shall take the hon. Lady's intervention then.

The administrator has said that he is doing his best to keep fees and expenses to a minimum. I accept that, but we shall not see much progress until we see the actual cheques in the post to people.

I have received representations about delays in making payments through the Chester Street arrangements. I met my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, Frank Maguire of Thompsons solicitors, Phyllis Craig of Clydeside Action on Asbestos and Tommy Gorman of Clydebank Asbestos Group to discuss that and related matters. Following that meeting, I was so appalled at the stories that I had been told that I invited to Dover house various organisations involved in dealing with the claims, including Iron Trades Management Services, the service company that deals with the validation of claims and with settlement documents. It works for the Chester Street administrators PricewaterhouseCoopers. Other groups involved are the Association of British Insurers and the financial services compensation scheme.

The first point made was about the complexity of the process. I accept that it is a complex process. I have some experience of complex processes, having just had to deal with coal-related health compensation, with something like 200,000 claimants; the Government are currently paying out £1,000 a minute in compensation. I am receptive to points made about complexity, but not to people who try to hide behind the complexity of the process. The bottom line is very straightforward, and human beings are suffering from terrible diseases as a result of their former employment. They are right to look for the quick payment of compensation, and I see no reason why there should be a delay at all.

I have been given assurances that everyone in the claims process, including lawyers, will ensure that their procedures are as efficient as possible. I make the point again that not only those administering the scheme but the lawyers handling the claims must make sure that they are on top of things, and moving as rapidly as possible.

My right hon. Friend has just hit the nail on the head: part of the problem is that there is no communication from those people. Lawyers are not communicating with the people who are suffering, and there is no communication from PricewaterhouseCoopers. They must talk together. The people at the sharp end are those who are left to come to my surgeries to ask me what is happening—and I have to arrange a debate on the subject. That should not happen.

I take my hon. Friend's point. At that meeting two weeks ago, I told those concerned that I wanted to see them in six weeks—that is, four weeks from now—for an explanation of the progress being made and the action that they had taken. I take on board the fact that we must have concrete information. I want to see progress in paying claims, but I also want hard statistics on the number of claims and the outstanding claims. Iron Trades, PricewaterhouseCoopers, ABI and the financial services compensation scheme have agreed to produce a newsletter about the claims process. I shall ensure that my office distributes that to hon. Members with an interest in asbestos issues, so that they can ensure that the victims are given the information they require, and also so that those Members are on hand to let me know as rapidly as possible where there are pitfalls in individual cases of which I have not been made aware.

I make the point again that my constituents, and those of other hon. Members, do not want to receive a newsletter. They want something personal. They do not want their personal cases in a newsletter; they want to know what is happening themselves. I accept what my right hon. Friend says, which will be useful for me as an MP, but sufferers have to get personal letters before they see their case in a newsletter.

I agree with my right hon. Friend. There must be no question of personal details appearing in a newsletter—but as a constituency MP, I know that it is often useful to have routes for getting answers on individual cases. Hon. Members found that, in coal health compensation, helplines and access to lawyers proved extremely useful for speeding things up in complex cases. We have a responsibility and a role, which we willingly accept, to batter down the doors of bureaucracy to ensure that our constituents get a rapid response.

I shall respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland on personalised information by asking for a helpline to be established so that hon. Members and claimants have ready access to information on the status of claims.

My hon. Friend asked a number of other specific questions, which I am happy to answer. There have been past worries about Scottish court procedures when dealing with asbestos claims. However, the Lord President of the Court of Session recently appointed Lord Mackay of Drumadoon to oversee asbestos-related cases in the court. That has resulted in expediting cases. It is a devolved matter, and Richard Simpson, the Deputy Minister for Justice in the Scottish Executive, keeps a close eye on it. I am sure that he would not be averse to receiving requests from hon. Members for information.

My hon. Friend also asked about Turner and Newall, which is a difficult case that causes great frustration to hon. Members. There was a meeting of the Turner and Newall creditors on 11 February at which the administrators approved a proposal to continue to manage the business, assets and affairs of the company, and to work towards the development of a reorganisation plan. It is expected that that will provide a mechanism for managing asbestos liabilities. Creditors' committees have been established, and the interests of people suffering from asbestos-related diseases are represented on them. Administrators are trying to establish the employers' liability insurance that Turner and Newall had. Once that is established, they will consider whether consent should be given to enable former employees to prove their claims against the company. I give my hon. Friend my personal guarantee to monitor such progress.

My hon. Friend also asked me to name and shame laggards. If that proves necessary, I will not hesitate to do so, but I hope that it does not come to that. I would rather congratulate companies on rapid progress than make it plain, especially to those who are considering doing business with them, that they have been laggards in paying out much needed compensation.

The legacy of asbestos is serious and tragic for many individuals and families in Scotland. The Government, who are working with the Scottish Executive, are taking steps to tackle the problem, and I assure hon. Members that it is top of my priorities. He is right that the clock is ticking for many victims, and that some of them will not see compensation. We must continue to apply pressure to ensure that they receive fair and rapid compensation.

I should like to ask about the interim payments that are made to people—I mean substantial interim payments, not a few hundred pounds. Perhaps the Minister has some ballpark figures from the ABI. We need money from it right away. Surely that can be done.

I am not aware of procedures for interim payments, but I shall raise them with the ABI, the financial services compensation scheme and PricewaterhouseCoopers. That is a good idea, which should be seriously considered.

I take on board my hon. Friend's point about channels of communication. I shall ensure that a channel of communication exists between the Government and asbestos groups in Scotland, and ensure that it is fast and efficient. I shall do everything in my power to ensure that we do not forget about the people who are suffering from those diseases. The Government will act in a co-ordinated manner to keep the spotlight on all the parties involved so that just compensation is paid as quickly as possible.

All of us remember clearly what we were doing last year when aeroplanes crashed into various buildings in the United States of America. I remember only too well: I was at home, listening to the radio. Our house was being redecorated and I was amateurishly helping. When I heard the breaking news, I first thought that it was some sort of stunt—it was so unreal. I went downstairs to turn on the television and witnessed what I thought at the time was a remake of a Hollywood movie, so incredible were the scenes. Little did I realise that the terrible events that took place would affect several of our constituents, particularly those of my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois).

As politicians, we know that it is possible to forget such events too quickly. The terrible attack last year was undoubtedly the result of failure in all sorts of areas. If the world were in a good state, the planes would not have crashed into those buildings in the United States. I hope that people in all countries will never forget the events of last year, but will continue to work towards recreating the world order so that such a thing can never, ever happen again. That will not be easy to achieve, but it is something that politicians in the UK Parliament should not forget.

It is easy to forget the loved ones of the victims. I had no idea how closely we in Essex were involved in the matter until I received a letter just a few weeks ago from Mrs. Berenice Gould, who is the mother of Mrs. Gilbey. Mrs. Gilbey, the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh, contacted him some considerable time ago.

I am in total command of the correspondence in which my hon. Friend has been engaged and wish to pay tribute to his efforts. He has done a magnificent job in bringing the circumstances of the widowed Mrs. Gilbey to the attention of the American authorities and in trying to get the British Government to do all that they possibly can to help her. I make no criticism whatsoever of the British Government's role in supporting the victims.

My hon. Friend and I spoke to Mrs. Gilbey last night on the telephone for more than an hour, so we are in a position to give the House an accurate account of how she feels at present. It was moving to hear her two small children aged three and seven in the background as we spoke with her. In one sense, she is entirely on her own, because her husband has no relatives at all. However, the local community has given her wonderful support. Her own circumstances were not particularly well managed. A short time after the tragedy, she was told to leave by the American authorities. Not only was she told that, but she was given no financial support. Even now, she has been given no financial support by the firm, Euro Brokers, for which her husband worked. She advised me last night that the only money that she has received has been from the Red Cross and United Way. Each week, she reports to them along with the other widows, giving them her bills. It is humiliating. I am not sure that there is any easy way around the problem, but her circumstances are dire.

Unless Mrs. Gilbey becomes an American citizen, her life policy on her husband will be taxed at 60 per cent. Not only that, but the compensation will be taxed at 60 per cent. She wants to become an American citizen; it is what she wants for her children and, indeed, it is what she believes her husband, Paul, would have wanted. She said last night that she had spent the past nine years in America building a home that she believed would be a future for her family. The memories of her husband are still very clear in her heart. Her children, Max and Mason, were born in the United States of America. It is the only way of life that they know. Mrs. Gilbey believes that her little family have suffered enough. They deserve the issue to be resolved quickly.

The gentleman, Paul, was a hero. He could have got out of the building. He did, but he was told by the security people that it was safe to return. He was working on the 84th floor. The second plane hit that floor. However, we have first-hand evidence from his secretary that, during the 10-minute interval, he went to the fast elevator on the 78th floor and, together with a colleague, organised that the men went down the stairs and the women and the disabled went in the elevator. As a result of helping American citizens out of the building, he lost his life.

We can all imagine how devastated Deena Gilbey was when she spoke to her husband on the mobile telephone from the building, when he had given the impression that all was well and that he was just about to see people out of the building. Mrs. Gilbey received another telephone call and heard a man's voice before the caller rang off. She thought that her husband was safe. In fact, the voice was not that of her husband, but of her husband's friend who had also been in the building. He was telephoning the home of the Gilbeys to find out if Mr. Gilbey was safe. I end with the plea from Mrs. Gilbey. She said:

"Paul's body has not been found and is unlikely to be. His grave site will always be the World Trade Centre. My children and I are experiencing a genuine longing to reach out and be close to Paul, even if the only way to do that is by visiting his grave site. I simply cannot imagine not living in the country where my husband and father of my children is buried.

I realize that nobody can give me back my husband or my children their father, but in offering me citizenship it will enable me to start to pick up the pieces of our lives."

Mrs. Gilbey also said that, for her sons to heal

"or even begin to heal, they need to be surrounded by the wonderful support system that's come out of this tragedy. People back in England keep asking, 'Why don't you just come home?' I've said I am home. I've been home for a very long time."

I congratulate my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), on securing this important debate. I express my thanks to him and the Minister for allowing me to contribute.

My involvement in the matter is that Deena and her late husband Paul come from Hockley, which is in my Essex constituency of Rayleigh. Although Deena Gilbey has lived in the United States for nine years, she is still a British citizen and therefore, in effect, I am her Member of Parliament. My hon. Friend has approached the case from the viewpoint of Deena's mother—his constituent—but I am approaching it on behalf of Deena Gilbey herself.

The case was first brought to my attention last autumn by people who live in Hockley, including June and Roy Mills, and also by press coverage, not least in the local Evening Echo newspaper. I wrote to Deena Gilbey in November last year to offer any assistance that I could and we have remained in contact since. I wrote to the Prime Minister last week about her case and, not unreasonably, I am still waiting for a reply.

As we have heard, Deena's husband Paul worked in the financial markets and was murdered by terrorists on 11 September. According to several eye witnesses, he had helped to evacuate people, many of whom were American citizens, from the stricken towers before he lost his life. He left behind his widow Deena and their two sons: Max, who is aged seven, and Mason who is turning four. Both sons were born in the United States and have American citizenship. Although their parents had applied for residency under the American green card system, their application had not been finalised when Paul Gilbey was murdered. Consequently, the United States' immigration authorities argue that because Deena's husband died before the application was finalised, Deena Gilbey will have to leave the United States, even though her US-born children would be permitted to remain. It is perverse that after all the support that the United Kingdom has rightly given to the United States in the war against terror, the US authorities should place Deena Gilbey in such an invidious position six months later.

The Patriot Act, which was passed in America in the aftermath of 11 September, relates to the case. It provides for a grace period of one year for people in Deena's situation—the period expires this September. It also provides for the facility to exercise discretion in special cases to allow people to remain beyond that period. However, as things stand, officials of the US Immigration and Naturalisation Service refuse to interpret the discretionary clause in Deena Gilbey's favour.

Deena Gilbey has nothing in writing from the INS—or anyone else—to assure her that she will be allowed to remain in the United States beyond September 2002. My hon. Friend and I personally double checked that with her by telephone last night. She told me that she had been given endless warm words but that no one would give her a definitive letter to guarantee her right to remain in the United States. Moreover, even if she were given a temporary extension under the Patriot Act, she fears that the INS could revoke that at a later date because the power is discretionary.

Deena is still living in Chatham, New Jersey, and Senator John Corzine, who is a Democrat from that state, has taken up her case. He is trying to resolve the issue on Deena's behalf once and for all. He plans to introduce what is, in effect, a private Member's Bill in the US Senate to allow Deena Gilbey to be naturalised as a US citizen and, thus, to remain in the United States indefinitely without relying on the whim of the INS. That would give the additional advantage of clarifying her personal financial and tax position, which would allow her to be taxed more advantageously as a US citizen along the same lines as the other US widows of the attack.

I have been in touch with Senator Corzine's office for some time about the draft Bill. If it is to stand a chance of becoming law under US procedures, it requires the initial sponsorship of 12 Senators. It currently has five sponsors—both Democrat and Republican—including Senator Corzine and Senator Hillary Clinton from New York. Deena has strong support from local residents in Chatham, including US families who lost relatives on 11 September. The mayor and the local chamber of commerce have written to US senators in support and 500 local schoolchildren have written to President Bush asking him to help.

Deena Gilbey has done nothing wrong. Her husband was a brave man, arguably a hero, who died trying to help others—mainly US citizens—to live. As a result, she is now a widow with two small children, caught in a bureaucratic trap that is not of her making. Her husband intended to raise their children in America as US citizens and she wants to carry out his wish.

The United Kingdom has stood shoulder to shoulder with the US in support of the war against terror. I therefore ask the Minister if anything can be done through diplomatic channels to support Deena Gilbey and, ideally, to back Senator Corzine's Bill to settle the matter once and for all. I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West for helping to raise this crucial issue and I look forward with great interest to the Minister's reply.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on securing this debate and the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) on his contribution. Both have a personal as well as constituency interest and they put their cases extremely forcefully. As both hon. Gentlemen know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was asked by the Prime Minister to oversee the co-ordination of appropriate support arrangements for the families of British victims of the terrible tragedy. She was keen to take part in this debate, but unfortunately had to fulfil a previous engagement outside London, so she asked me to respond on her behalf.

It is six months since the tragic events of 11 September that were so graphically illustrated, and we can all remember where we watched those appalling images unfold on the television—they were surreal. After the initial shock, when the numbness was beginning to wear off, we quickly moved into action, and the hon. Member for Southend, West congratulated the British Government on the action taken. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State went to the US and set up a network of support mechanisms for the families and victims. We took every possible step, which has now been recognised. Although we will never return those families to how they were before 11 September, most people acknowledge that the steps that we took were effective and provided some form of help.

On the question of Mrs. Gilbey's request for US citizenship, I have been in contact with the hon. Member for Southend, West because of the personal nature of the case and I understand that other hon. Members have also written to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and to the Prime Minister. All of the letters will receive a full reply and, in the best interests of hon. Members, copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Last night, the British consulate in New York spoke to the Immigration and Naturalisation Service, which offered this statement:

"Mrs Gilbey has been invited to file for permanent residence under the Patriot's Act. Filing a written application will result in the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (INS) offering a written decision either granting or not granting her application based on the facts and evidence she produces. This has long been the agency's policy, and this is the procedure provided for by the Patriot's Act. Policy guidelines explaining the application process were faxed to Mrs Gilbey's attorney on 8th March 2002. They have also been faxed to the British Consulate-General, New York, on the 18th March 2002. The INS look forward to assisting Mrs Gilbey once she has taken the pro-active steps provided for her by the Patriot's Act".

The British embassy in Washington has worked with the White House, the State Department and Congress to ensure that Mrs. Gilbey and other British family members whose immigration or resident status in the US may have been affected by the terrorist attack are treated fairly and sympathetically. The British ambassador in Washington raised that and other cases with the chairman of the US Senate Judiciary Committee on 9 October 2001. Following that, the US Congress passed, and President Bush signed, antiterrorist legislation—the Patriot Act—which allows all British family members affected by 11 September to continue living and working in the US.

The US Immigration and Naturalisation Service has assured Mrs. Gilbey that she does not face deportation. The British consulate general office in New York, which is in close touch with the INS and Mrs. Gilbey, has confirmed that she has not been served with a deportation notice. However, as the statement makes clear, she has been invited to make an application for permanent residency under the Patriot Act. I understand that papers about that were forwarded to her attorney on 8 March 2002. Once she has submitted her application, it will be up to the INS to make its decision. The British consulate general continues to monitor the situation closely to ensure that she and others like her do not have to suffer any further.

We will take up the points made by the hon. Member for Southend, West with both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our representatives in New York. I cannot give answers to some of the points raised this afternoon, but I shall make sure that responses are made to hon. Members and put in the Library for public scrutiny. In conclusion, our sympathies are with such families, both in the US and the UK, and we will do everything that we can to make sure that their circumstances are regularised as quickly as possible.

We have heard that some further checking needs to be done now that the full facts are available. The Minister says that he will follow that up both with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our people in New York. We are grateful for that. However, does he appreciate that the best way to round off the issue and close off all the anomalies would be for Deena Gilbey to be allowed to become a US citizen?

That may well be the resolution to the matter. As I said, I am not sure what "permanent residency" means in its legal context, and whether it brings the security that the hon. Gentlemen have asked about. They raised questions about life policies and 60 per cent. taxation. I cannot answer those technical questions now, but I will make sure that we get answers to them. I shall also ensure that we raise the matter with the companies that had responsibility, as the hon. Gentlemen mentioned. If the case is as the hon. Gentlemen say it is, the issue of short to medium-term support should be revisited, and we will take it up with those companies.

I would like to thank the Minister for his courtesy on that matter. Perhaps he will pass on our thanks to the ambassador and all those who have worked so hard. Will he also bear in mind—he will not be aware of this—that the Patriot Act allows some leeway that, as Mrs. Gilbey explained last night, was included to deal with undesirables. She was a little concerned that, because of the personalities of those dealing with the matter, her case was being focused in an inappropriate direction.

I hope that the Minister will keep up the pressure, and that Mrs. Gilbey becomes an American citizen. Finally, I hope that Paul Gilbey is awarded a medal by the US Government.

I am sure that those points will be taken up. I have no doubt that many people will read the Hansard report of the proceedings, will take those points and sentiments to heart, and will be able to act on them. The points made in this debate will be forwarded to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thanks to those who worked so hard in the US—they went beyond the call of duty in trying to ensure that everything was done for the families and victims in a way that is commensurate with what we expect of our diplomatic service.

I thank the Minister again for his courtesy. Time will now be spent double checking some of the things that the Minister agreed to undertake. He agreed to inform my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West and me of the outcome of his investigations. I would like to remain in touch with him because the problem will not be resolved overnight. Without wishing to become a pest on his diary, I wish to remain in touch as the situation develops, as does my hon. Friend.

I have absolutely no problem with that. The overall policy of looking after the concerns of and facilitating support for the British families of the victims falls to my Department, but the specific issue of Mrs. Gilbey's citizenship is a question for the FCO. To be honest, when the debate was tabled, we were not sure what the hon. Gentlemen were seeking, so we took it in the round, so to speak. When the issue became specific, it became a focus for the FCO rather than the DCMS. However, if the hon. Gentlemen write to my Department we are more than willing to answer their questions, and, if we do not have the information, we shall get it from the FCO.