I am grateful to have secured today's Adjournment debate on an area of the world that continues to demand the attention of the international community. Rwanda is a country that suffers from all the problems endemic throughout sub-Saharan Africa, but it also has to cope with the effects of one of the most horrendous incidents of genocide in the 20th century, in which more than 1 million of its population were massacred in about 100 days in 1994. The failures of the international community at that time are well documented, but the question now is how we are contributing today and what we shall do in future to ensure peace and justice for that troubled land.

In October this year, I was fortunate to be part of a cross-party delegation organised by the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I am delighted that several colleagues who were part of that delegation are here today—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), who so expertly led that delegation. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), who is chair of the all-party group on the great lakes region and genocide prevention and has done enormous work to highlight the problems facing Rwanda, is unable to be present. However, I am sure that hon. Members will recall from her address sponsoring the Queen's Speech this year that our delegation faced some unusual challenges, including a closer than expected encounter with a group of silver-backed gorillas who managed to instil more terror in our party than an invitation to a personal meeting with our Chief Whip.

I believe that I can speak for all members of the delegation when I say that our visit greatly increased our insight into the scale and depth of the challenges that face the Rwandan nation. I wish to concentrate on one particular day during our visit. It brought it home to me that the reconciliation that so many seek is not only a personal desire for justice, but essential to the survival of the nation. The day started with an unscheduled meeting with President Kagame, who answered our questions candidly. We focused on relations with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a matter to which I shall return.

We then travelled to the genocide site of Ntarama. The site was an abandoned Catholic church where terrified Tutsis and moderate Hutus had gathered, under the false belief that they would gain sanctuary from the rampaging mobs. Churches were often the site of horrendous massacres in 1994. More than 5,000 people—mostly women and children—were killed at that site alone. Their skulls and bones were laid out on shelves, a dreadful reminder of the legacy that the people of Rwanda have had to cope with as they struggle for survival. Even eight years on, the atmosphere of death and despair was overwhelming. That the survivors had deliberately left the remains of their families and friends where they fell was an accusation to the world that had abandoned them and a warning for the future. All they ask for is a proper memorial to the dead.

We continued our journey to one of the Gacaca courts that is made up of local lay justices. It was set up this year to deal with the outstanding backlog of cases—about 115,000—from the genocide period. At first glance, the scene seemed almost idyllic. Women in brightly coloured clothes sat on the ground in the shaded wooded area, along with numerous babies and toddlers. More women, together with men of the rural community, stood at the back or at the side of the loosely formed square—about 500 in all. On the other side of the square, perched on small wooden chairs, sat 18 men and women with a man sitting next to them, huddled over papers on an unstable wooden table. The sun streamed through the trees as the children of the local school ran up to stand behind the seated dignitaries. My eyes were then drawn to the four men sitting on the bench dressed in bright pink shirts and shorts—the prisoners.

After a short introduction from the president of the judges and a minute's silence in honour of the victims, the prisoners walked up to the desk in turn and were asked to identify the killers of two local people. They gave out a list of names dispassionately, and returned to sit on the bench. However, the president called back one of the prisoners, Martin. He looked as though he was only in his early 20s, which meant that at the time of the genocide he would have been in his early to mid teens.

Martin was asked to give an account of his actions on a particular day. He stated that he was part of a group that went out to look for and kill some of the local Tutsi population. The victims were put into an irrigation ditch and the group started to attack them with machetes. A local senator came along carrying a gun. He asked Martin whether he had ever used a gun before. Martin said no, at which point the senator suggested that he try it out in an attempt to kill off the remaining victims.

The assembled community heard the confession in silence. Suddenly, a woman who was sitting behind us walked up to the judges and stood beside the prisoner. Some of the women assembled gave her a quiet handclap of support. She asked how her father, one of the victims, was killed. Martin did not look at her but confirmed that a sword was used to kill him. Then she stated that the mob had cut off her sister's breasts before she was killed, and that her mother had been stripped of her clothes. Again, Martin did not deny the contention.

Still outwardly composed, the woman asked whether Martin had killed her three children. Due to a mix-up at that point, she was forced to hand the microphone directly to Martin. He stated without showing distress that he had murdered 13 people on that day, including her three children. She walked back to her seat, where she later broke down in tears. The clerk wrote a statement for Martin to sign and the president announced the end of the hearing—hearings are held weekly—and the crowd dispersed.

It is difficult to guess the feelings and reactions that must have been raised in the community by that stunning confession. Many are still deeply traumatised and find it difficult to discuss their loss. Many are afraid that the current peace will fail and that the country will again descend into violent revenge. Some who took part in the genocide but remain free are afraid of being identified by the prisoners. To us in the west, such a lack of outward emotion from both the victims and perpetrators seems incredible, but the courts are the first nationwide attempt since the genocide to recognise the truth and achieve some form of comprehensive reconciliation among the Rwandan people.

Two days later, we visited one of the country's prisons. Inside were gathered more than 700 prisoners—men, women and children—who were literally squashed in appallingly squalid and tiny accommodation. Even after only a few days' stay, it was glaringly apparent that the Government do not have the resources to maintain so many prisoners while such a large proportion of the population outside is living in abject poverty. That is the main reason why the Government have offered such a generous deal to those prisoners who agree to confess.

Martin's punishment will be determined not by the local Gacaca court, but by a superior district court. The maximum penalty for those who murdered under the direction of others and have confessed is 20 years, of which one half will be served in the prisoner's community. As Martin has been imprisoned for more than seven years, he can expect to return home in less than three years. In turn, the victims' families and the local community are encouraged to accept the confessions and, in a few short years, to allow the perpetrators to live among them again.

The United Kingdom Government have assisted in funding some independent research into the new system, and that research is being piloted in various areas throughout Rwanda. Although the initial reaction has been largely favourable, significant problems still exist in achieving consistency and implementation. It is clear that the meetings revive very painful memories that can lead to even more trauma for the witnesses, and the support offered to them is still weak. Prisoners can appear emotionless or even aggressive when giving evidence. In many cases, that is probably a symptom of traumatic stress, which many of them are experiencing in corning to terms with their participation in the killings and many years of brutal imprisonment.

In addition, many of the local judges are illiterate, and at present they receive a maximum training of only 36 hours in Gacaca law and the legal process. Understandably, their decisions are at times unsatisfactory, and they find it difficult to respond to complex questions about the process asked by members of their community.

The Rwandan Government have still to find much of the funding for the scheme, including the implementation of the community service programme. By contrast, this year the international community will contribute $177 million to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, which was established in 1995 at Arusha in Tanzania to try the leaders of the genocide. To date, only nine cases have been fully processed, although in a welcome step the United Nations agreed in August this year to treble the number of judges to speed up work on the backlog. It is unprecedented for the Gacaca system of justice to be applied on such a scale and the risk of failure is high. The necessity of establishing an international tribunal regarding the ringleaders is not in question, but there has been a weak response from the international community to the struggles of ordinary Rwandans in coping with the aftermath of the genocides.

The UK's record of assistance was consistently commended by everyone whom we met during our visit. I would, however, urge the Secretary of State to persuade our European colleagues to take greater heed of the need for justice. Despite the inherent risks of such a process, it has received widespread support and it is, at present, the only viable solution whereby reconciliation might be achieved. Time is not on the Rwandan Government's side. The transitional Government will come to an end next year and, for the first time since the genocide, there will be elections for both the Parliament and the President. There is growing cynicism in Rwanda about the work of the international tribunal, which is expressed at the highest levels from President Kagame down.

Last month, Carla del Ponte, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, visited Westminister. She reported that the Rwandan Government and their agencies were increasingly reluctant to co-operate with the tribunal's investigations, particularly with those that related to inquiries into crimes of retribution by forces that are loyal to the Administration. There is mounting speculation that the Rwandan military are putting pressure on the President and his Government to block inquiries.

Carla del Ponte rightly mentioned the old maxim that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is closely followed by the Serbian population, but there is little access to television in Rwanda. Accordingly, most of the people there are unaware of the extent of the complex and expensive work that is carried out by the tribunal and of the scale of the evidence against the genocide ringleaders. Despite the criticisms, the tribunal has achieved the first finding in international law of the crime of genocide. Anyone who meets Miss del Ponte will quickly become aware of her professionalism and her determination to fulfil her remit. She herself acknowledged the inherent weakness of instituting such proceedings many hundreds of miles away from the nation, and from the victims who suffered the dreadful crimes.

I am concerned that the remit of the UN regarding the tribunal and the scope of the inquiries should take some account of next year's political changes, because at the end of the current, transitional Government a new constitution will go to a referendum for approval. This is not to suggest that any person should escape justice, but to accept that it is important that none of the international agencies provide—even inadvertently—causes for destabilisation in this sensitive and vital period of change. The Secretary of State might want to comment on whether she would consider it appropriate for the UN to suspend direct investigations in Rwanda for a short, defined period until all elections are complete and then to propose that all further hearings of the tribunal be moved to Rwanda, wherever possible.

Internally, the Rwandan Administration must become sensitive to avoiding a build-up of tension and mistrust among their own population. The restrictions on political and civil liberty, which are to some extent understandable in view of the fragile security situation following the aftermath of the genocide, are radicalising opposition in such a way as to stifle reconciliation and hinder the transition to democracy. It is counterproductive and even dangerous to clamp down on institutions of common ground, where both Hutus and Tutsis can meet, talk and, hopefully, agree on their nation's future.

I would refer to the independent monitoring document that was commissioned by the Department for International Development last year, which commented that the law on non-profit associations, the press law and severe constraints on important political parties limited the scope for genuine political dissent. We must bear it in mind that 115,000 prisoners will be released into the community in the next three to four years, and it is also anticipated that there will be an influx of demobilised soldiers. It would be disastrous if those people were the focus of recruitment into an aggressive anti-Government sect. It would be preferable for the current Rwandan Patriotic Front regime to permit more peaceful public criticism and debate. I hope that the Secretary of State will use her best endeavours to encourage the Rwandan Government to permit a more open political system.

Another important aspect of long-term peace is the cessation of conflict in the neighbouring Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Rwandan Government are to be commended for the prompt withdrawal of their troops following the agreement that was reached between the two countries earlier this year in South Africa. Yesterday's announcement of a new peace deal between the warring factions within the DRC is very welcome and to the tremendous credit of the South African negotiators. However, as President Kagame made clear to us at our meeting, the eastern DRC has not been an effective state for many years. It will take time to address the root causes of that situation. If the militias that are operating in that part of the DRC are not disarmed, and if they continue to pose a threat, the President says that there is a strong likelihood that Rwandan forces will have to re-enter to secure their own borders. That may be understandable, but the consequence is likely to be a collapse of the Pretoria peace process and renewed conflict.

Despite yesterday's announcement, and contrary to the pronouncement of the DRC Minister of Information, I believe that the continued presence of an international peacekeeping force is vital to facilitate an effective disarmament. The recent UN decision substantially to increase the MONUC force is very welcome; but as the Secretary of State well knows, the current force is under strength and there will be great difficulty in persuading neighbouring states to provide further forces unless the richer nations of the world—including our nation—are prepared to provide the appropriate finance. The UK is in a strong position to influence decisions in the area and I am pleased to note that the UN recently considered providing finance for a peacekeeping force in neighbouring Burundi. I hope that our Government can argue a similar case for forces in the DRC.

Sadly, the humanitarian situation in eastern DRC has not improved. There is an urgent need to address the political vacuum and protect the civilian population. The conflict has claimed the lives of 3 million people since 1998. The suffering continues. Most commentators feel that there will not be sustainable peace in the region until economic factors, such as mineral exploitation, are taken into account.

The recent report by the UN panel of experts—about which the Secretary of State has reservations—and last month's report by the all-party great lakes group, provide disturbing evidence of the involvement of Rwandan-backed military groups and companies in large-scale mineral exploitation that provides no benefit for the local population. For example, in recent years there have been noticeable increases in production and export figures in Rwanda for certain minerals that are not found in large quantities in Rwanda itself. It is alleged that such economic interests have been funding as much as 80 per cent. of the Rwandan army's operating expenditure. There is also strong evidence of the involvement of a number of European Union companies in that type of exploitation. That involvement is in clear breach of the guidelines of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for multinational enterprises. In the light of the reports, will my right hon. Friend tell us how her Department intends to respond to the recent recommendations? What assessment has she made of the reports?

Given the recent history of the great lakes region, does my right hon. Friend agree that none of the problems faced by any one country can be assessed in isolation? Should the Government not now be taking a more integrated, regional perspective by producing a regional policy paper? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the current memorandum of understanding with the Rwandan Government should be strengthened in the area of conflict resolution to cover human rights issues and mineral exploitation? With a lack of local, national and international regulatory bodies in the DRC, certain western companies have paid little or no regard to the rights and concerns of the local community.

The most recent report from the UN panel of experts named 12 UK businesses that are considered to be in breach of the OECD guidelines. I urge the Government to carry out a review of those businesses and to contact them to remind them of their corporate responsibilities and the need to abide by the OECD guidelines and the UN declaration of human rights. We must not forget that there has been a mass of human rights abuses by all sides in the current conflict. As in Rwanda itself, the right to justice must be addressed if reconciliation is to be achieved.

Carla del Ponte suggested that such issues might properly be investigated by the new permanent International Criminal Court. I hope that the UK Government, and the Secretary of State, will take an active role in setting up an appropriate international mechanism to bring the culprits to justice.

The UK Government—and my right hon. Friend in particular—have taken a commendably pragmatic view in assisting the Rwandan Administration to develop essential public services. The UK has made a major contribution to its reconstruction. However, the approach of the European Union, which has major influence in that part of the African continent, has been disjointed and slow.

Not only does Rwanda suffer from all the major problems that afflict sub-Saharan Africa, but the overwhelming majority of its adult population witnessed acts of violence during the genocide. Their scars are deep, and unless the global community—and the west, in particular—is prepared to support with substantial measures their search for peace, democracy and justice, the possibility of further genocide cannot be discounted.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) on securing the debate. I failed to secure it last week, but she has succeeded this week. We applied for it for the same reason; we were both part of the group to which she referred. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the way in which she expounded on many of the various issues that we learned about in Rwanda and the rest of the great lakes region.

It is a testament to the importance of the debate that the Secretary of State herself is replying to it, because that is not the usual practice in this Room. She has visited Rwanda several times, and she has probably seen far more of it than the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill, the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) and me. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill has comprehensively explained the situation as we found it and as it has developed since our visit, I will not speak for long.

Unlike a couple of other members of our delegation, I had never been to Rwanda before and I had not taken a great deal of interest in its affairs, so I was on a very steep learning curve. I was quickly struck by one thing: there is a recognition that one does not talk about Tutsis and Hutus because Rwandans are trying to blot out the tribal distinctions as part of the reconciliation process. It was also regularly pointed out to us that people from both backgrounds were actively involved in that process.

There was a great deal of discussion about the origins of the denomination of Tutsis and Hutus. It frequently referred back to when Rwanda was controlled by the Belgians, who issued all Rwandans with identity cards on which their race was stipulated. The story goes that the designation of their race depended entirely on how many cows they had, which was a measure of wealth. I do not know whether that is true, or whether—as others would argue—the origins of that distinction can be traced back to tribal movements in Africa many hundreds of years earlier.

One of my first impressions of Rwanda was that it is very different from anywhere else in Africa that I have visited: I do not pretend to be very widely travelled, but I have been to several countries. Like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill, I was astonished by what we saw of the Gacaca system of justice. It looked as though it might have a chance of working, and I hope that it does. The memory of that man admitting to the slaughter of so many people, including the children of a lady who was present, is seared on my mind, and her deportment as she simply turned and went back to her seat—instead of trying to strike him, or bursting out screaming—was a huge testament to her inbuilt strength of character.

I do not think that many of us would have behaved in such a way. I cannot help but reflect that when a person in this country is accused of a horrendous crime against—for instance—children or women, large crowds gather outside the court and people scream, shout, push the police and thump the passing vehicles. Sadly, an event such as that happened in my constituency, but regardless of how dreadful the crime is, that is not responsible behaviour. It contrasts starkly with the ability of people from a less educated and poorer background to be much more resilient. Perhaps we have a lot to learn from them.

As our visit continued, I began to be struck most obviously by what I can describe in public only as a question of whom I should believe. Everything seemed to be too good because we constantly heard about reconciliation. However, something in my mind made me think that the people who came to power since the genocide were the winners. They had done a tremendous amount to put that behind them successfully, but at the back of my mind I wondered whether another—perhaps larger—group of people was somewhere feeling huge resentment because it was on the other side. However, we saw that the process of reconciliation was genuine, determined and successful.

There are groups that have been overthrown. They are organised in the DRC and several are determined to return and to complete the genocide. They are out there and organised, which is part of Rwanda's problem.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State. I was fully aware of that and I was going to mention the groups outside. I was not referring to armed groups but wondering about the level of resentment in the general population. In other words, I was wondering about the level of support that the outside groups would have if they came back.

As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill said, the Rwandan Government should be congratulated on the withdrawal of their troops from the Congo under the terms of the Arusha accord. However, we challenged the President and others on the basis of several stories about such things as plundering mineral wealth. They flatly denied that such events had taken place, but I understand that there is clear evidence that they did.

I shall cite another example about which I do not know the truth—I can call that only misinformation. A person who made the visit with us and works with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and the great lakes group went on to Burundi. He said that

"the Rwandan Government claimed in a letter to the UN SC on the 17th October this year that Uvira"—

which is in Burundi—

"was attacked by Interahamwe and ex-FAR forces using military boats with rocket launchers operating on Lake Tanganyka. However, I was in Bujumbura—close enough to see Uvira clearly across the lake—on the 18th of October and no-one had seen these boats. Equally, journalists in Uvira reported that the town was captured by Mai-Mai forces, not Interahamwe or ex-FAR."

I do not know the truth of that, but every time that one hears such conflicting information it raises the question of what one should believe.

I want to discuss food and agriculture, a subject that those who made the trip will recall was of particular interest to me, and to share my thoughts with hon. Members and, especially, the Secretary of State. I have visited several African countries and, indeed, countries that are well known for their agriculture such as Britain and Australia, but I have never seen land so comprehensively cultivated as that in Rwanda. Every hill and slope is cultivated. The downside is that there has been considerable erosion of the natural jungle, which, to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill, is the haunt of the rare mountain gorillas. It is important to address the conservation of the gorillas, but the gorillas might also be valuable for tourism in Rwanda. I hope that the Rwandan Government will recognise that and not allow further erosion of the jungle.

It was obvious to me that although Rwanda is a poor country, it is not food-poor. We did not see anyone who appeared malnourished in any way. Everyone, including the 7,000 prisoners to whom the hon. Lady referred, was healthy and well fed. It is not a country that starts off with food poverty, as so many others do, and it is obviously an agrarian community. We were asked several times by people whom we met how Britain could help them to develop their agriculture. That is my question for the Secretary of State. The more I pursued my questioning with them, either with our group or privately, the more I realised how basic were their needs.

The Rwandans had read that the common agricultural policy was not allowing them to export to Europe, which, without getting into the realms of the CAP, is only partly true. We know that many African countries are exporting fruit and vegetables to Europe—I have seen that for myself elsewhere in Africa. The CAP is not in itself a block, but there are huge problems.

Having spent 10 years working in an agricultural cooperative in this country before coming to the House, I have strong views about encouraging working together and farm co-operatives. What struck me was that the Rwandans would not require a high-powered delegation, or aid workers trying to impose a system from on high. Although I do not suggest that that is being done, it often has in the past.

It struck me clearly that all that the Rwandans wanted in so many areas was for a few people with good, solid, basic experience of encouraging people to work together, to go in to help build the local organisations. That will take time. Those people should teach the Rwandans about the need to produce consistent products in a reliable supply, so that potential buyers will be interested. That would take the Rwandans beyond the largely subsistence level of agriculture that they have at present.

From the parts of the country that I saw, I realised that Rwanda would never be a country with a huge, large-scale agricultural industry in modern technological terms because the landscape is not suitable, although I understand that parts of the eastern side are much flatter and might be more easily mechanised. However, there is great potential. Rwandans have suffered dramatically as a result of the collapse in commodity prices for coffee and tea, which have been their only real exports in the food world. Coffee prices have collapsed, so over the past five years the export value of coffee has all but halved, which is terribly serious because it is virtually the only source of export earnings. We must help the Rwandans to find a replacement for coffee; because of the lack of other natural resources, other types of agriculture must be regarded as the main contender, along with tourism.

I hope that the Secretary of State will agree that the Rwandans' need is at a low level. They do not appreciate or understand world markets. They require not lectures but on-the-ground help from a few people who are prepared to go there and commit themselves. Those people must have a considerable knowledge of what happens elsewhere. It would not be expensive and is something that we could do to help the Rwandans in the long term. It may be more effective than anything else that we can do and is well worth considering.

I hope that Rwanda comes through the end of transition next year satisfactorily. For all the reasons mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill, I hope that the Rwandans can resist potential incursions from extremist Hutu forces outside their country—I hope that they stay outside the country.

Rwanda has huge potential but, as the hon. Lady said, it requires a lot of support from the rest of the world. I believe that Britain should be a significant provider of that support.

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who was a member of the IPU group that visited Rwanda two months ago. I join him in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) not only on her participation in that excellent group but on her good fortune in obtaining the debate and on her excellent speech. I join her in expressing our best wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), a proactive member of our group who continues to follow those interests in the House; we look forward to her return after the Christmas recess in full health.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill gave a moving account of some aspects of our visit to Rwanda. She reflected on the terrible genocide that took place there, and then brought us up to date by speaking of yesterday's talks in Pretoria. I hope to touch on that subject during my brief remarks.

I first visited the region in 1994; I went not to Rwanda but to Uganda. Given that 1 million of Rwanda's population of 9 million were lost in 100 days, the spin-off to the neighbouring country of Uganda was dreadful. Sir David Steel, I and others saw the bodies floating down Lake Victoria, and saw the mass graves and the refugee camps. We saw then, and we are reminded of it today, that Rwanda cannot be considered in isolation. Nations in that region have problems and ambitions.

I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will be replying to the debate, because everywhere we went during our IPU visit people had the highest regard for DFID's work and said that if its contribution could be emulated by other countries, within the European Union and elsewhere, even more progress could be made.

Given the problems of genocide, there are issues that clearly could not be resolved in the short time since 1994. Even today, they represent a major challenge to the international community. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill was right to remind us that, at our memorable meeting, President Kagame made some criticisms of the international community during that period of genocide; most of us felt that he had a point. We do not want to sit back and have the same criticisms levelled at us—with the same justification.

The Secretary of State is of course very much aware of the memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom and Rwanda, which is so important in trying to solve some of the problems. She will recall the major aspects of that memorandum—respect for human rights, media independence and transparency. Some progress has been made but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill said, we would be greatly mistaken if we thought that we had made anything like the progress that we would wish to see. Certainly, the evidence of the Gacaca courts was impressive.

On one point, however, it is important that we place our frustrations and impatience on the record—the achievements of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Regardless of what we have heard—the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire made some relevant points—we must bear in mind the tribunal's lack of achievements. It has not indicted one RPF member, and the fact that an investment of $800 million over six years has brought only nine convictions suggests that there are still serious problems.

We know the pressures on the Rwandan Government, but there are still questions about their role. I have no doubt that people are genuinely committed to the reconciliation about which we have heard so much, but I would add one point to the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill made about justice. If there is to be reconciliation, we must remember that justice delayed is justice denied. That is why we were very aware of our responsibilities when we visited Giterama prison, which holds 7,000 to 8,000 people. We welcome DFID's contribution of resources, but it is clear to us all that we must encourage those involved to speed up the process of justice.

We had other opportunities to say how we felt. I hope that what we said was accepted with humility—as I hope that what I have said today about the role then and now of the international community will be. For example, we were glad to have the opportunity to raise a case of clear injustice on behalf of a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), who may catch your eye later, Mr. McWilliam. I am sorry that there has been a delay in responding, despite the promises that were made at the time.

We look to the future of Rwanda with realism and, I hope, more than a degree of optimism, particularly given the role of the Secretary of State. However, we cannot forget the valid criticism that was made fairly recently in, for example, the UN panel report. Nor can we overlook the International Crisis Group report, which was published in November 2002. It said:

"The RFP wields almost exclusive military, political and economic control and tolerates no criticism or challenge. For the past three years, opposition political parties have either been dismantled or forced to accept the consensus imposed by the RPF, the independent media has been silenced, and civil society has either been repressed or coerced."

We are concerned about the July 2003 elections. We want pluralism to prevail, and Opposition parties, which seem unable to compete with the RPF, to be given the opportunity to do so. Otherwise, many people will regard the whole exercise as a mere sham.

I shall now mention the decision taken yesterday in Pretoria, because it offers great hope. There was a need for a peace process, and there is a need to ensure that it works this time. We recognise the role of the President of Rwanda, and he was very forthcoming when we met him. We welcome the withdrawal of his troops from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but I remember one of his comments in particular. He said that he would not hesitate to send his troops back if the Government of Rwanda thought that there was a challenge to the country's borders. The situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in Burundi and in the whole region remains worrying. Any suggestion that Rwanda is isolated does not reflect the realities of the region.

I hope that we can examine the peace process in Pretoria and consider the opportunities there, including those for tourism. When some of us were at Lake Kivu, we observed the enormous potential for tourism in Rwanda. The mineral resources, properly shared, offer a great deal of hope to all the people of the region. The greed that has been associated with them may have been the source of some of the strife that has occurred, including the terrible genocide.

I hope that we can view Rwanda in a regional context and address it from that perspective. I pay tribute to the tremendous work done by the Secretary of State, and hope that, reflecting what was said during our visit, she will consider the possibility of a regional peace conference.

I end, given that we are in Great Britain approaching Christmas, by quoting the words of Charles Dickens:

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times".

What we saw and have debated represented the worst of times for Rwanda and for the region. However, given the tremendous opportunities ahead and the region's natural resources, I believe that, for Rwanda and its region, the best is still to come.

rose—

Order. If hon. Members keep their contributions short, I can fit them all in.

I am privileged to follow the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), and I join colleagues in congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) on having secured the debate.

I have never been to Rwanda, but I have had two experiences that I associate closely with the area. The first was in 1986, when I had the mixed pleasure of serving for nine months in Uganda with a British Army training team. That was when President Museveni's forces successfully defeated President Obote's and established what we hoped would be a new era of prosperity, hope, common sense and justice in that country.

I was a young man, and it was my first experience of genocide. Sadly, I seem to have become a genocide tourist ever since, having seen what has happened in Kosovo, Northern Ireland, the Balkans and various African countries.

It is not genocide in Northern Ireland.

Well, one has to make a judgment as to whether that is genocide; it might be classified as such over the past 300 years. I first really understood what was meant by genocide when I saw the large corrugated metal platforms that were established outside Ugandan villages, laden with the bones, the skulls, the ribs and other body parts of those who had perished in Uganda under various regimes. It was a horrifying sight. Sadly, I recognised the names of some of the young Ugandan officers whom we had trained and who had served under us as being associated with the continuing problem and, perhaps, having contributed to it. I hope that they had not.

The second experience was, strangely, in north-east Nottinghamshire, where I am lucky enough to have an organisation called the Aegis trust working in a house outside the village of Laxton, sometimes known as the Holocaust centre. It started by examining specifically the problems experienced by Jews under Nazi rule in the second world war, but it has evolved and has generated itself into a much greater concern, opposed fundamentally, root and form, to genocide. It has, rightly, concentrated recently on Rwanda and the lessons that can be drawn from the genocide there for the whole of the world, especially the great lakes region of Africa. Thanks to that coincidence within my constituency and to my personal experience, I feel reasonably closely associated with the area.

I shall talk briefly about the extraordinarily dangerous situation that continues in the northern Kivu area of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I need not tell the Minister what has happened there in recent years. The two nations of Rwanda and Uganda have elevated what might be called a tribal quarrel into a conventional conflict, bringing much additional misery to the region on top of the Rwandan genocide. Despite the several mentions that there is a sign of hope in the Congo and of the warring factions signing a peace deal, the area is still enormously dangerous. Both nations must accept that they cannot fight on foreign soil, kill 600 civilians, destroy the second largest town in the Congo and not be made to pay the reparations that are due under UN Security Council resolution 1304. I wonder whether the United Kingdom should review its aid policy to both Uganda and Rwanda if the reparations are not paid properly—perhaps some moral arm-twisting can help to redress the regrettable situation.

The governance of the two countries has been mentioned. Their military elements can distort the proper democratic rule if that can be seen to influence events. Can it be acceptable for international donors to be involved with nations that go to war on a whim? If there is a risk of renewed fighting in the area, the international assistance programmes should be scrutinised and, perhaps, suspended.

MONUC, the United Nations observers' mission to the Congo, has been mentioned. I am delighted to hear suggestions that the mission should be reinforced so that its already very effective job can be improved. With more personnel, better communications equipment and further transport, especially aircraft and helicopters, it might be even more effective—particularly, in view of the news of an upsurge in violence by insurgent groups in the area, through its monitoring positions established on the border, at Kanyan Bayonga and Lubero. By addressing all these points, we could help to prevent a recurrence of violence in the region.

I shall finish by concentrating on the work that has been done to commemorate the slaughter that has occurred in the past decade or so. There are more than 200 sites of mass killings in Rwanda, and a number of projects are trying to put money into turning seven of them into appropriate permanent monuments to the folly of genocide. It is hoped that they will instruct nations near and far about the effects on countries, nations and Governments of policies that run out of control.

On 3 September, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pledged £300,000 to preserve mountain gorillas in Rwanda. She stated that

"if the Great Apes are to be anything more than a memory this is a fight that we have to win. I am confident that we will do so."

Clearly, that is good for the gorillas, and I am delighted about that, but perhaps we should be looking to fund more important or more focused projects. It is pleasing to hear that, in the past couple of days, local government officials from the Congo have gone to visit sites in Rwanda. They have gone to learn lessons from what happened in the past, so that they can, perhaps, be avoided in future. If more funding can be found to ensure that the sites remain as a permanent memorial, and if the victims—those who looked on, those who took part, and those who suffered, even as second parties, in the killings in Rwanda—remember and are remembered, the lessons of what happened in 1994 may not be forgotten.

Of necessity, I will be brief. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) on securing the debate.

I shall illustrate the problems that we have talked about with the tragic case of Charlotte Wilson, a 27-year-old teacher and the daughter of one of my constituents. Almost two years ago, on 28 December 2000, she was murdered in Burundi. There was significant publicity surrounding the event. I have an article from The Guardian, published at the time. The crime was horrific. Charlotte was travelling on a bus from Rwanda to Burundi when, about 15 miles outside Bujambura, the 30 passengers on the bus were ordered off. Charlotte and her fiancé, along with 21 other people, were massacred for no apparent reason.

Charlotte worked in Rwanda for Voluntary Service Overseas. Interestingly, she was told that Rwanda was safe at the time, but that Burundi was not. However, because of her interest in the region, she chose to travel there with her fiancé. As her mother will attest, she was committed to the work that she was doing there, to the children, to Rwanda and to the region. Since Charlotte's death, her mother, Margot, and her brother, Richard, have worked tirelessly to pursue justice on her behalf and on behalf of the other victims of that particular crime. They, too, have a commitment to Rwanda and to the region, have travelled there both before and since and continue to take an interest in the area.

During the two years since those events, there have been reports from non-governmental organisations and local people. Indeed, a witness, Eric Marango, came forward, and there was concern in Rwanda about his safety. The family tried to bring him here as an asylum seeker, but they met the usual Catch-22, which is that if someone presents himself to an embassy or high commission and asks for a visa as an asylum seeker, he will not receive one. He must deliver himself to the shores of this country to be received as an asylum seeker. Therefore, Eric Marango remains in the country.

There has been a police investigation. Indeed, officers from Scotland Yard went to Rwanda, but they face enormous difficulties there, and we have discussed how fragile the situation is in Rwanda. Of course, witnesses are reluctant to come forward because there is a widespread climate of fear. However, the police and others have assembled various witnesses from nongovernmental organisations. Local reporters for international newspapers and magazines and others have identified the Force Nationale de Liberation as the organisation responsible for the crime. It is an extreme Hutu group which, sadly, is still very active, especially in Burundi and the DRC.

I will not go into the situation locally, except to say that although significant progress has been made in Rwanda in establishing legal institutions-we should pay due attention to the work of DFID and others in achieving that—the situation in Burundi continues to deteriorate. There is great concern about that.

I should like the Minister to take on board a number of issues. I hope that DFID and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will continue to put their best efforts into trying to resolve a heinous crime. They have been doing as much as they can, and I welcome that. I hope also that they will not give up on the case, but will continue to do what they can to bring the perpetrators to justice. Legal institutions must continue to be established. There is a particular problem in Burundi, where the situation is still tense and unstable.

There have been reports that the FNL is not only active in the region but has contacts in Belgium, and perhaps in other parts of the EU. It has been reported that its leader, Agathon Rwasa, has travelled to Europe on numerous occasions. I hope that the Minister and the Home Office will consider whether that organisation should be proscribed as a terrorist organisation. I do not know whether anyone is active in this country but, if possible, action should be taken in the United Kingdom, in Belgium and throughout the EU to proscribe that terrible organisation. I hope that the Minister will continue to focus on the region. If things continue to deteriorate in Burundi and in the Congo, we could face circumstances similar to those of eight years ago. No one wishes to see that. The international community—and perhaps Britain in particular—has a responsibility not to allow that to happen.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) on securing the debate, and other hon. Members on their interesting contributions.

Like the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) was on the visit but is unable to be here this morning. I have discussed the issue with her at length, and she is optimistic about Rwanda's future and about what is happening on the ground there. She congratulates the Secretary of State for the work that her Department has done, with particular emphasis on education. My hon. Friend has also commented on the success of the vaccination programmes.

The plight of those living in Africa has once again grabbed the attention of those who write this country's newspapers, with the main focus on Ethiopia, Malawi and Zimbabwe. Rwanda, however—a country that dominated the headlines in the mid-1990s—tends not to take up much column space these days. That is why debates such as ours are so important in keeping Rwanda on the agenda after the news teams have left the country. As the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) mentioned, the problem does not recognise national boundaries. It spills over into neighbouring countries, as other hon. Members said. The problem affects the entire region, whether it is the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda or Burundi.

Condemnation of genocide unites the world community, which has an obligation to step in and stop it when possible. That did not happen in 1994, however. It is difficult to find words that properly describe what happened then. "Horrifying", "appalling" and "sickening" do not seem to sum up the scale of the tragedy. We all remember the pictures on our television screens and the stories in the newspapers. The operation was meticulously organised, as the journalist Linda Melvern wrote in her recent book:

"The 1994 genocide was planned in detail. Elaborate lists were drawn up of those to be massacred; half a million machetes and huge numbers of axes, hammers and razors as well as guns were purchased in advance and stockpiled—the costs met by cunningly diverted aid funds. One of the organisers of the genocide, Colonel Bagosora, boasted that he was preparing 'apocalypse deux'."

Much has been said already about how those who perpetrated the genocide that has killed more than 1 million people, in far and away the largest-scale organised killing since the second world war, should be brought to justice. Of course, it is important to the people of Rwanda to believe that justice has been done. It is to be hoped that the new Gacaca court system will help to speed up a process that has so far been painfully slow. However, I share concerns about the increasing number of reports of intimidation and bribery—and even of the murder of witnesses who were due to give evidence. In Kigali alone, investigations are taking place into the deaths of 20 people believed to have been killed to prevent them from giving evidence in a local court. It is clear that a strategy for the protection of witnesses is a missing piece of the jigsaw, which must be put in place if the process is to be a success.

Reservations have also been expressed about the lack of training available for the so-called people's judges who pass judgment as part of the Gacaca system. The fact that defendants have no right to legal representation must be questioned by all those interested in fairness and justice. The Foreign Office has queried the matter.

Although it is important for Rwanda to deal with its past, it is doubly important for the country and its people to look to the future and face the challenging questions of how to bring about the development and advancement that we would all want for it.

Part of Rwanda's commitment to development and poverty alleviation must come through a commitment to peace with its neighbours. The peace agreement signed by Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo was welcome, but it will work only if all aspects of the agreement are implemented. So far, that does not seem to be happening. The key elements of the agreement were, of course, the disarming of thousands of ex-soldiers and their repatriation from the Interahamwe back to Rwanda. However, that itself will bring problems as soldiers begin to move round the country. The problem of AIDS is, as for other African nations, a scourge of Rwanda.

It seems that both countries are taking steps that are not exactly consistent with what many of us thought would happen after the signing of the agreement. The ongoing occupation of the eastern Congo by Rwandan soldiers is not acceptable. I read with interest a recent story in The Observer accusing many Rwandan soldiers of collaborating with Hutu militiamen to stay in the Congo and raid the rich mineral resources of the country. As one American diplomat said:

"The Interahamwe is now a very convenient excuse for Rwanda to loot Congo. Maybe it's 20 per cent threat, 80 per cent for show."

Another UN officer said:

"How serious are they"—

the Rwandans—

"about solving the Interahamwe issue when they seem to be fighting everyone in eastern Congo except the Interahamwe? Their security concern has become a joke."

As for the DRC, there are reports of civilian Hutu refugees, including many women, now being wrongfully arrested as part of the repatriation programme and taken into military camps such as the Kokolo camp in Kinshasa. One Hutu, a refugee from Burundi, reported that he was taken to a camp, tied up and locked in a lorry container. He was told that he was being sent to Rwanda simply because he was a Hutu. Surely that was not the repatriation that we envisaged when the peace deal was signed.

As others have said, Rwanda, internally, remains a country in real need. The latest figures from the World Bank show the percentage of households below the poverty line at around 70 per cent.—an increase of 17 per cent. since 1994. Life expectancy is not even 40 years and almost a third of children die before reaching the age of five. I mention the latter point because, of course, it relates to one of the key development goals set by the United Nations, classed as one of the key indicators in the eradication of world poverty. Illiteracy levels are high too, with an estimated one third of adults unable to read or write.

I do not make light of the efforts of the UK Government, and in particular the Department for International Development. It would be wrong not to note, and welcome, the commitment shown by the Government to the development of Rwanda, as set out in the 1999 country strategy paper. That is not to say that I have no criticisms to make—I am sure that that will come as no surprise to the Minister, for whom I have great respect.

Rwanda, not unlike its neighbours, is living in the stranglehold of HIV/AIDS. The country is among the 10 most heavily infected African countries, with almost 13 per cent. of its population now infected. The genocide of the mid-1990s and the massive mobilisations of population that followed served only to break up family units. That has been accepted as a factor in the increase in the number of HIV-positive people. It is important to remember that a staggering 60 per cent. of the population of Rwanda are under 20 years old. Among that group 10 per cent. are believed to be infected.

We need long-term commitments from the Government, so that countries like Rwanda can tackle HIV. The HIV problem threatens Rwanda's way of life. The Rwandan Government need new resources to overcome the massive overcrowding of Rwanda's prisons. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park mentioned that she thought that people were stacked like chickens in the prisons that she saw with the group that recently visited the country. The recent United Nations report on the situation was distressing. It stated that in some detention centres four inmates can occupy every square metre of floor space in open courtyards, and that there are six inmates to every square metre in dormitory buildings.

The Rwandan elections, which are planned for July 2003, offer a chance for real reform and reconciliation in the country. That opportunity cannot be squandered. I wonder whether the Secretary of State has had time to read the International Crisis Group's report that called for the international community to withhold any finance for the elections because of problems with the Rwandan Government's lack of respect for political associations. It is clear that there are very serious questions about apparent restrictions on Opposition parties and on reporting in the independent press.

Several things must happen in order for Rwanda's future to be bright. The tourism industry in what is generally recognised as a beautiful country requires supporting projects—

Order. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to bring his remarks to a conclusion? We should like to finish the winding-up speeches.

Yes.

The least that we in the developed world can do is to help the Rwandan Government in their efforts to meet the challenges ahead. I look forward to hearing from the Secretary of State what can be done.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) on securing the debate. I also thank other members of the IPU delegation for taking the time to give us the benefit of their experiences. Several hon. Members spoke specifically about constituency cases and brought their experiences to bear on the situation in Rwanda. In the spirit of good will at Christmas, I acknowledge the Secretary of State's work on bringing reconciliation and helping to maintain peace in Rwanda—it is right to record that. We have heard that there is fragility to the peace, which should concern us all. I shall endeavour to keep my remarks as short as possible because many questions have been asked—I shall add several—and we want to hear what the Secretary of State has to say.

I shall focus on next year's elections, but not because I believe that Rwanda's past is unimportant—its outworking will be with both us and it for a long time. However, it would be helpful today to think about the country's future. Democratic elections will be held in July next year. That is good news, although questions remain. There are still multiple restrictions in Rwanda on political and civil liberties and there is no sign in the outline of the constitutional plan of a guarantee, or even an indication, that any political opposition will be able to participate in the elections on an equal footing with the RPF. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to reassure me on that point and will answer two important questions. What are her assessments of how the elections will take place and of the viability of the opposition in Rwanda?

The International Crisis Group, which is an independent, not-for-profit organisation that works to prevent and resolve conflicts in all parts of the world, has made an assessment of Rwanda's journey toward democratisation. Although the group shows an understanding of the RPF's desire to hold a tight rein on such a potentially volatile situation, it also urges greater freedom for the press and for the RPF to allow public criticism. It recommends that an independent authority should be put in place to create and oversee the foundations of general reconciliation.

Does the Secretary of State support the creation of an independent body to oversee the politics of the country through the election period? What lessons have we learned from the recent local and district elections? The International Crisis Group claims that the national electoral commission abused its powers to veto unwanted candidates and guarantee that only supporters of Government policies were selected for the district elections in March 2001.

Elections were held this year. What is the right hon. Lady's assessment of the implications of those elections and what they augur for the future? The ICG says that the RPF should recognise that its authoritarian actions, whatever their motivation, have worked against its own stated objective, which is to restructure Rwandan political culture away from purely ethnic lines through popular education.

The general tenor of the ICG's report on Rwanda is that President Kagame should try the carrot rather than the stick in the fragile peace. The Secretary of State is well aware of the situation and has faith in President Kagame. What is her response to the more critical aspects of the ICG's recommendations published last month, to which I have referred?

The non-governmental organisation Saferworld, of which I am sure the Secretary of State will be aware, works mainly on demilitarisation and weapons collection programmes and is urging our Government to support and monitor the Nairobi declaration signed in March 2000, when the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda agreed to work together to combat the problem of small arms and weapons. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) about the importance of monitoring work and the fragility of the border situation. Will the Secretary of State reassure me that the monitoring process is effective? Will she respond to my hon. Friend's remarks about the under-provision of equipment required to be effective in that process, especially in the light of the recent peace accord, which will mean the return of thousands of disaffected Hutu refugees, many still armed? That will also bring volatility to Rwanda.

I should like to pick up the point about AIDS in Rwanda, which the Tear Fund has called a second genocide. I am sure that the Secretary of State has, with me, been appalled to see the outworking of rape used as a weapon of war that has infected many female-headed households that struggle to survive. That is another disaster waiting to befall Rwanda.

Will the Secretary of State reflect with me on an incredible irony: that a country that, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) said, has an infection rate of 30 per cent. of HIV/AIDS must use 30 per cent. of its export earnings to service the debt owed to countries such as Britain? I am deeply troubled by the morality of the situation, when so many sub-Saharan African countries with high rates of infection remain heavily indebted to us and other rich countries and have to use resources that could provide better health care for their citizens. I am troubled by that bitter irony.

Another area of concern mentioned by hon. Members has been raised by agencies working the Gacaca community courts set up to try genocide cases. We have heard from hon. Members who have visited them and tried to understand where the truth lies in the highly charged emotions in the court as confessions come out and reconciliation is sought. One thing that concerns them and the agencies that work in Rwanda is that there is a desperate shortage of professional legal help. Some of those who preside over the courts have no legal training. Should we not be trying to ensure that the courts gain more support from us in terms of legal provision and civil service support? The civil service has been decimated by all the tragedies that have befallen Rwanda.

May I endorse a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) about the agrarian situation in Rwanda? Given the terrible famine in southern Africa and now in Ethiopia, it is a plus point—as he said—that agriculture is relatively well developed in Rwanda, but its principal exports of tea and coffee are badly affected by the collapse in commodity prices. Will that be considered in relation to the reworking of Rwanda's debts?

The Chancellor said in his pre-Budget report that the heavily indebted poor countries initiative was failing, partly because of its failure to cope with exogenous shocks. The collapse in commodity prices is one of those shocks. I appeal to the Secretary of State to examine Rwanda's case, which cannot be worse. Although the agrarian situation is good compared with that in other parts of Africa, the framework cannot cope with the country's capacity to produce and meet the market need. It must be said that Rwanda has recovered remarkably well, given that the worst attempted genocide in Africa, in which both sides lost hundreds of thousands of their people, ended only eight years ago. Let us hope that the proper execution of the election process in July will underline that potential achievement.

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) on organising the debate and on the clarity and sweep with which she put her case. We are debating the genocide in Rwanda and the great lakes—the most recent genocide in which the world failed to act, even though we have a genocide convention since the holocaust in Europe that obliges us to act. Moreover, the United Nations presence was pulled out and the people who were camping around its site were being slaughtered. That is a deep, recent historical failure.

I have been a major actor in efforts to bring peace and reconstruction to that area of the world. For the first time since 1997, there is a debate on the situation in Rwanda in which my policies have been subjected to parliamentary scrutiny, apart from parliamentary questions. Unfortunately, we have so little time left this morning that I cannot answer all the questions that have been raised. In terms of parliamentary accountability, that seems a poor way in which to scrutinise such a crucial policy. The United Kingdom can make a difference and give people who have been terribly hurt by history a chance of a better future.

When I first visited Rwanda, there were still bones and rags in many churches. There were little collections of skulls and bones outside those churches. The north of the country was still occupied by the forces that were trying to take over the country to complete the genocide. I do not remember much television coverage of the genocide, but I remember the coverage when the people moved out and became refugees. The cholera outbreak and the fact that they were living on difficult territory were relayed all over the media. The leaders of the genocide were driving out the population as the Rwandan Patriotic Army came in to liberate the country. The international community made terrible mistakes by providing food through those military leaders, which reinforced their power. That is part of the continuing instability in the region. Those who organised the genocide are still around. They are in Kinshasa, armed and still trying to invade the country. Rwanda is trying to rebuild at the same time as forces that want to promote a complete genocide attack it.

When I first visited the country, the international community took a humanitarian guise. No country or institution was willing to engage in rebuilding the country. Although we had no historical link and our colonial experience was bad, there was general support in the United Kingdom for my decision to take a lead in helping to reconstruct the region; otherwise, its people would suffer a continuing disaster. We had to make a commitment to long-term aid to get the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to create a programme that would offer any economic growth to Rwanda, because the country is so poor. The land is fantastically rich, but it is very densely occupied. That was one of the tensions. Then there was the drop in coffee prices that led to the genocide. There are hungry people in Rwanda because not everyone has land, but the land is fantastically fertile. There are hungry people; that is unquestionable. It is in the statistics. Statistics were quoted earlier about the number of children who do not survive to the age of five.

The state of affairs is interesting, and it led to a UK shift to giving long-term commitments that enable countries to be more ambitious about their development. Our long-term commitment enabled the IMF and the World Bank to have a more ambitious programme, and enabled Rwanda to start to rebuild. The country went on to qualify for debt relief and is seen as a successful reformer, which is remarkable when one thinks of Rwanda in 1994. When those organisations took over, everything had been smashed.

Most of the educated people in the country had been killed because the more liberal and educated Hutus—the lawyers and so on—had opposed the genocide. There has been a big achievement. There is peace across the country and the north is stable. There are more children in school than ever before in the history of Rwanda. Some 74.5 per cent. of children are in primary education. Rwanda is on track to have universal primary education by 2010. Access to education was used in the colonial experience to divide people, so that is a wonderful achievement. The books of the past have gone, and children are not labelled as Hutu and Tutsi. All children are now getting access to school.

Those are all important achievements but, as has been said, there are still hundreds of thousands of prisoners charged with genocide. Some in the prisons might have had false allegations made against them, but many are responsible for engaging in monstrous acts. There are very few lawyers in the country, as many were killed, but to get any kind of normalisation, the problem must be dealt with. Given the rate at which trials were being held in the country, it would have taken more than 100 years to deal with everyone charged with genocide.

The prisons are well organised—the local Gacaca goes on—but are like sardine cans. They are absolutely full of people in pink outfits. That is Gacaca; it tries to use a traditional Rwandan way of using community justice to get the truth out. Very senior figures might be imprisoned, but those who have done less gross things might be accepted back into their communities and do some sort of repentance or work, so that there might be some reconciliation. That is a fantastic strain on the country. Those who have killed others' children will

come back and live alongside them in their village in a country in which land is scarce. Of course, after the killing, land and possessions were stolen, so there are also disputes about who has the land, and so on. However, the country must do something; otherwise, the prisoners will be there for years to come. What Rwanda has achieved is great, but the release of people will strain communities across the country.

I am running out of time; I am very sorry. I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill about MONUC, the DRC and the UN panel. There are many important things to say. There is a danger that in Burundi there will be bouts of genocidal killing, rather than one spectacular genocide. The FNL, which my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) mentioned, and which is said to be responsible for the killing of his constituent, is the one group that has not come into the Burundi peace process. I will respond to all those complicated and important questions.

One of my personal ambitions, and one of the things that the UK can help to do, is to give this generation of Rwandans a chance to move forward and have elections and a constitution, not another bout of genocide. However, Rwanda cannot be safe if the Congo is not safe and if Burundi is explosive. To care for Rwanda, one must get a settlement in the region. There have been divisions in the international community and among members of the UN Security Council. The hostility within Rwanda is like anti-semitism as it used to be in Europe. There is real prejudice and division in Africa on such questions, and it needs to be understood. I think that we can make progress. The UK can play an important role. The present generation in this country do not have a colonial experience in the region, so we may be able to contribute to its rebuilding.

I will write to hon. Members on points that I have not been able to answer. The allocation of time for this debate has been unfortunate.

I welcome the opportunity to raise an issue of considerable importance to my constituents and to others who live along the south coast. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson)—who seems to be the Minister with special responsibility for Westminster Hall. He will know that I spoke to his office yesterday to give him some indication of the issues that I wished to raise. I intend to approach this matter constructively; doubtless, the Minister will respond in similar vein.

I welcome the concept of multi-modal studies. They are a welcome innovation, introduced by the Government shortly after the election in 1997. The concept was that, rather than continuing to consider particular roads, it was sensible to consider transport corridors and examine what could be done with rail and bus developments, walking and cycling initiatives, and even short sea shipping—if I can say that without tripping over the words. The concept is sensible and the Government deserve credit for it. Unfortunately, the good intentions have been blown off course by events.

I want to focus on the south coast, which is a good area to consider. It was right for the Minister to consider it and it is welcome that the Government are paying attention to the transport situation there. The south coast corridor contains a combination of local transport movements; very few movements run from one end of the corridor to the other. The Government's multi-modal study is therefore a study of a combination of little areas of transport movement. Nevertheless, it is welcome.

Halcrow is the consultancy company that has been appointed for the study. That surprised me, because the company is clearly doing work for other organisations. Most notably, it has recently done work for the RAC, for which it produced plans to build lots more roads—which was doubtless what the RAC wanted. I wonder whether there is a slight conflict between Halcrow's work for private companies and its work in the public interest, such as this study.

My worst fears have been borne out by the report that Halcrow has produced. It comprises 80 pages, of which only four are on bus and rail. Virtually none of the report is on cycling or walking. Of the £1.1 billion that has been allocated, I calculate that around 54 per cent. is allocated to road building with only 2 per cent. allocated to buses. Even worse—I want to raise this general point with the Minister—the difficulty with all multi-modal schemes, which are desirable in theory, is that the road elements tend to be progressed whereas the other elements are treated differently. Traditionally, the Secretary of State for Transport stands up in the House of Commons and makes announcements on the building of bypasses or stretches of road, and is then able to deliver. However, rail schemes are not delivered in the same way. I have never understood why Transport Ministers cannot stand up in the House of Commons and say, "I will deliver this rail scheme." They should announce rail projects in the same way as they announce road projects; but, instead, rail schemes are shunted off to the Strategic Rail Authority, on which the Government rely to deliver rail schemes.

The SRA is reporting to the Government that it wants to cut the number of trains in use, that it cannot deliver services, and that it is therefore prioritising. Consequently, many rail schemes that are recommended in multi-modal studies—including schemes in the south coast study—will not be progressed. Even Halcrow said, as did the local community, that there was a strong case for the electrification of the Hastings-Ashford line, which is the only diesel link along the south coast. The ludicrous situation arises that it takes me longer to travel by train from Lewes in East Sussex to Ashford, in the neighbouring county of Kent, than it does to get from Ashford to Brussels by train, including the need to change at Hastings because there is no electrification. That situation, which everyone thinks should be rectified, will continue.

No electrification is proposed for Uckfield-Oxted, although that has been in the plans since the 1980s. In fact, that was in British Rail plans. The Polegate-Pevensey loop, which Halcrow was keen to progress, will not happen because the Strategic Rail Authority does not regard that as a priority. Most culpably, there are no plans to reopen the Lewes-Uckfield line. That plan is supported by not only hon. Members from all parties, including the hon. Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry), with whom I am working closely, but all the local councils, including Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and Labour in Brighton and Hove. Virtually no one is opposed to it, the costs are modest, and yet it will not feature.

On the Halcrow study, the Council for the Protection of Rural England commented that it was

"extremely disappointed at the limp approach taken"

to the issue of the Lewes-Uckfield railway line. The rail passengers committee for southern England and its chairman, the excellent Wendy Toms, have raised real issues about SRA estimates for the electrification of Kent and Sussex lines, alleging that at £154 million those were five times too high. Whether or not that is five times too high, the key point is this: the road schemes that the Government wish to progress will progress. Rail schemes, cycling, walking and buses, are all dependent on external bodies, for example, the SRA or the county council, and those might not progress.

In the Government's implicit hierarchy for transport in the multi-modal studies, road building is a last resort. I think that that is right. Similarly, there is a waste hierarchy in which landfill is last. It seems right that the transport hierarchy puts road building last, but that is not going to happen in this case. In fact, because of the arrangements with the SRA, among other things, road building is first. It is, therefore, more likely that the road schemes that are recommended in the multi-modal study would go ahead, rather than other transport measures. That cannot be what the Government intend. I give the Government credit for wanting an integrated transport policy—I believe that that is still their policy. If it is, what will the Government do to ensure that there is progress on the non-road proposals in such studies, and in this one in particular? Will they ensure that such proposals progress in the right order, before road improvements?

The CPRE recommended that the transport hierarchy should apply and quoted the Government's own 1998 transport White Paper, which said:

"Since new roads can lead to more traffic, adding to the problem not reducing it, all plausible options need to be considered before a new road is built."

Those are the Government's own words, with which I entirely agree. Because of the way in which the situation is turning out, that will not be delivered. The timetable of events is worrying.

The environmental impact of road building is also a problem, not least in my constituency, which is in an environmentally sensitive area in a new national park. The Government are pleased to have created a national park, and yet it seems that one of the first things they will do is to approve an environmentally destructive road scheme that runs right through it. There seems little point in creating a national park if that is to be done with it.

The Halcrow study pays lip service only to the positive and practical measures that could be taken on so-called soft measures, although it recognises that those have a role to play. Where are the measures to secure travel plans so that car sharing takes place? Where are the measures that would push public sector employees—many work in Lewes—into adopting such travel plans? What are the Government doing about the 51 per cent. of car journeys in the area that are made simply to take children to school or to access local work? What are the Government doing about so many people driving alone in their cars? My colleagues and I in the Lewes area conducted a survey of traffic going into Lewes off the A27-the road in the multi-modal study. We found that 91 per cent. of cars that entered Lewes from the east had only one person inside. There is clearly an opportunity to encourage car sharing to reduce the number of cars, yet the multi-modal study says virtually nothing about that.

More importantly, there is the question of pricing. The Government talk about road pricing, but I want to talk about transport pricing. A parliamentary answer that I secured from the Minister on 20 November demonstrated that the cost of travelling by car—including purchase, maintenance, fuel, tax and insurance—had, from a base of 100 in 1974, dropped to 98.7 in 2001. It had also dropped over the period of the current Government. The cost of travelling by rail had risen from a base of 100 in 1974 to 185.3 in 2001—it had virtually doubled in real terms. The cost of bus travel over the same period had risen from 100 to 166.1. The cost of both public transport options had increased in real terms under Labour, whereas the cost of travelling by car had dropped.

Surely the Minister accepts that the price that people pay to get from A to B has an impact and affects which mode of transport they choose. The Government must take action to secure lower bus and train fares rather than simply saying, "That is a matter for train operators and private sector bus companies," because the consequence is that people are forced off public transport and on to the roads, which is the exact opposite of what the Government say they want to achieve.

Just so that we do not lose this point, will the hon. Gentleman say whether his party would increase the cost of motoring?

I will wait for my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) to speak on party policy: I am here as a local Member of Parliament. I do not wish to be distracted. I want to be constructive and to raise constituency issues rather than to speak on transport policy for my party. I am sure that my hon. Friend will pick up the point. There is a long answer that I could give the Minister, but I do not wish to be driven down that track at this point.

I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will address the issues that I have raised about the relative increases in rail and bus fares compared to the cost of motoring. He may know that I have managed to persuade the train operator South Central to decrease by roughly a third the cost of season tickets from the constituency of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) into Lewes and from Seaford in my constituency into Lewes. South Central tells me that that has led to a significant increase in the number of passengers buying tickets and the cost of the initiative is now covered through increased passenger use.

The scope for such schemes is enormous. The Minister will know that soft measures such as mine that break even can be far more cost-effective than environmentally damaging road schemes that have multi-million pound costs. I would have liked Halcrow to pay more attention to such schemes.

The Minister will also know that 63 per cent. of local journeys in the study area take place in the Eastbourne, Brighton, Gatwick triangle, where there is train capacity. Yet Halcrow has made no effort to identify how that capacity can be accessed. I am afraid that Halcrow has produced a road-building charter, with a coat covering it that reads "integrated transport". I do not believe that that is what the Government want, but it is what they have got from Halcrow in this study.

The study is also flawed in other ways because it makes assumptions about the economy. For example, it says that the Wilmington bypass will

"improve access to priority regeneration areas in East Sussex",

but what does that mean? The report of the standing advisory committee for trunk road assessment produced by the Conservative Government showed that there was no inevitable connection between improved road networks and economic vitality. SACTRA demonstrated that the impact depended on the various factors surrounding that road improvement. A new road to Gatwick, which is already strong, might well result in jobs being sucked into the area. However, a new road to a weak area might lead to jobs being sucked away from it. That naive and foolish connection between new roads and economic prosperity needs to be challenged. The Government have accepted, through the work of the standing advisory committee for trunk road assessment, that there is not such a connection, but here we are with the old fables being repeated by Halcrow.

I should like to bring the hon. Gentleman on to specifics. What, if anything, would he do about the A27 between Lewes and Polegate, and indeed about the Beddingham bottleneck—where both rail and road use the same junction?

That is an important matter, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall come to that point in the course of my remarks.

I have mentioned the standing advisory committee for trunk road assessment, but even if one accepts—as I do not—that the new bypass will improve regeneration, one must ask where it will improve it. The answer is that it will open up a big parcel of land at Polegate in my constituency. That will lead to business development. I suggest that a consequence of that might be to take business opportunities away from Newhaven—which I hope that the Government support, as a port—and away from Hastings. There would be not a net increase in economic activity, but a reshuffling of it.

On congestion, the study is technically flawed. Congestion is a new word adopted by the Government, on which they are concentrating, although yesterday's statement was depressing for what it revealed about how congestion is developing. The study refers to congestion between two points and states that improvement of a road in a particular place will reduce congestion between those points—for example, Southerham and Beddingham. That may be true, but the Minister needs to understand that nobody actually travels from Southerham to Beddingham. People go from Eastbourne to Lewes or from Polegate to Lewes, or to Brighton, but they do not go to Southerham. No one goes there: it is a transit point. To be sensible, any assessment of whether congestion will be eased must take into account the access and destination points of any road journey—not just two arbitrary points on the road.

The Minister may know, if his officials have briefed him on the point, that anyone wanting access to Lewes from the A27 must go through a single-carriageway tunnel that joins the A26 at the other end. The Minister is nodding—I am glad that he has been briefed. The tunnel is at capacity. It already has traffic tailing back on to the A27 in the morning and into Lewes in the evening. No amount of improvement of the A27 will deal with that. When the Highways Agency was asked about the matter, it replied that it was not its problem because the road was the responsibility of the county council.

The county council cannot deal with it. There is no physical way to deal with the tunnel. By cutting congestion between Southerham and Beddingham the Minister will add to congestion in the tunnel. People travelling from Eastbourne to Lewes, or Seaford to Lewes, which are the real journeys, will have the same journey as before. Congestion point measurement does not work. It is surprising that Halcrow could fall for such an elementary mistake in its report.

The standing advisory committee on trunk road assessment also stated that when any new road is built or a road is improved, people begin to make longer journeys than they would otherwise have done and to go on journeys that previously they would not have made. They visit people whom they would not have visited; they take jobs that are further away. The spare road capacity that is created is filled up by extra journeys.

People making those extra journeys will also need to use the tunnel in Lewes. The idea that what is proposed will deal with congestion does not stack up.

In any case, Halcrow accepts in its assessment that the only real congestion is westbound in the morning between Lewes and Polegate, and says that a maximum of 11 minutes would be taken off that—I do not believe that it would be anything like that—with three minutes taken off the eastbound congestion. It proposes to deal with that congestion by means of a multi-million pound scheme.

I have concerns about the Southerham-Beddingham proposal to which the hon. Member for Eastbourne referred in his intervention, and more generally about the Lewes-Polegate road corridor. I say road corridor because a parallel railway runs from Lewes to Polegate, although Halcrow appears not to pay much attention to that in its so-called multi-modal study.

I am disappointed that the Southerham-Beddingham proposal has been rushed out in the past three or four weeks because, if the south coast multi-modal study means anything, it means a co-ordinated approach along the corridor, including due deliberation with relevant bodies and consideration of the impact of one scheme on the rest of the corridor. Instead, we are returning to the bad old days that we had under the previous Conservative Government of simply picking a road scheme and banging it in. That does not seem sensible.

There will be a so-called consultation exercise over Christmas, which will take place over two days in a village called Ringmer. Of course, Ringmer is not accessible by train and is nowhere near those affected directly by the A27 scheme. Consultation should have taken place in Lewes. It is unacceptable that there has been no proper consultation there. The Highways Agency merely said that it would carry out the consultation exercise in Ringmer, which mirrors what the south coast multi-modal study suggested about not having an exhibition in Lewes at all. It wanted one in Eastbourne and one somewhere else. It was only after I kicked up a huge fuss that one came to Lewes. When the exhibition was there, I was told that more constructive comments were made in Lewes than anywhere else. But the same problem arises in relation to this issue, with Lewes missed off the physical consultation map. I hope that the Minister will insist that that exhibition is brought to Lewes.

Why has the proposal been brought forward quickly? As the hon. Member for Eastbourne said, there is concern about the level crossing at Beddingham. The railway inspectorate issued a statement suggesting that it is unhappy about the safety of the crossing. I do not underestimate that comment, which needs to be taken seriously. The Highways Agency alleges that there have been 25 safety incidents, as it calls them, at the crossing in the past four years.

The police figures for the same period suggest that there has been one serious and three slight accidents, which does not tally, unless the other safety incidents are people weaving and dodging round the half-barriers. Frankly, anyone who thinks that they can weave round a half-barrier when a train is in sight must want their head examined, but such incidents have happened. I have always stuck rigidly to the highway code instruction, which is that one should always give way to trains at level crossings. That has always struck me as good advice, but others have not always followed it.

That serious matter needs to be dealt with immediately. Some action has been taken. Along with others, I have asked for enforcement cameras, which have now been provided. I hope that notices will accompany them, warning any drivers who weave round the barriers that they will invariably be subject to severe prosecution. They are endangering not only their lives but those of train passengers. I have also suggested as a short-term measure the erection of solid barriers down the middle of the single carriageway either side of the crossing. That would physically prevent such weaving and dodging.

Those measures would deal with the immediate safety issues. The Highways Agency says that the way to deal with the problem is a double barrier that would mean 24 minutes delay per hour. However, it says that we cannot have that, so we must build a flyover. I have just made two suggestions—enforcement cameras and a solid barrier—that would deal with the safety problem of preventing dangerous behaviour. The railway inspectorate has now said that it is concerned about the matter because there is a suggestion in the south coast multi-modal study that the number of trains that go through the crossing will increase. The road schemes may go ahead, but I would be surprised if we had those extra trains, so ironically that may not occur in any case.

The scheme is proposed. I tell the hon. Member for Eastbourne that I do not rule out action either at that crossing or along the A27—I have always been prepared to see action along the A27. However, I am concerned about the scheme: the way that it has been introduced, its contents, and its environmental impact in particular. I am taking slightly longer than I would normally, because there appears to be a shortage of people who wish to contribute to the debate. I hope that you will let me wander on a bit more, Mr. McWilliam.

Halcrow accepts that the scheme would have adverse environmental effects on the landscape, and impose an increased flood risk. It does not recommend the tunnel, although many people have raised that issue with me. However, interestingly enough, in the work that it did with the RAC recently, Halcrow was busy recommending tunnels up and down the country, saying that they were one of the ways forward. Halcrow appears to be out of the line with the advice that it produced for its private sector client.

There are a number of serious worries associated with the scheme, in terms of the environmental impact. It is closest to option SB1, which was produced by Bullens, the consultants in 1993, which is when the issue was last considered. In discussing the option of an online improvement to upgrade junctions at Southerham and Reading—roughly the same as the scheme now under discussion—Bullens stated:

"The most damaging option to landscape and views by a substantial margin would be Option SB1. If Southerham Roundabout is upgraded in the future to become grade separated, the existing severe intrusion at Southerham would become even worse. The traffic would continue to cross the slope of Ranscombe Hill visible from the floodplain and Mount Caburn. The route would be raised on embankment across Glynde Reach causing high intrusion to the view from Mount Caburn. This option also encroaches on the SNCI at Beddingham Grazing Marsh."

That is essentially the option now before us, produced by Halcrow. How can it be that the option that was discussed and dismissed as the worst possible option in 1993 is now before us for recommendation? It is a funny old world when that can happen in nine years.

I raised the matter with the Highways Agency. I asked why it was promoting the scheme, given the comments made in 1993. It said:

"The flood risk of the previous southern option swings the balance in favour of the northern route currently favoured even though the landscape impact is greater."

Even the Highways Agency says that the option is not the best in terms of the landscape.

I hope that the Minister is familiar with the part of the world to which I am referring, although if he is not, he is welcome to visit my constituency. We would be delighted to see him there—I will show him the route of the Lewes-Uckfield railway line and he will find that Mount Caburn is a fantastically famous and wonderful landmark in Sussex. People love it, not for its height, but for its shape and how it fits into the landscape. It is in an open plain, in a delightful part of the world. People are genuinely concerned about the environmental implications of what is a crude embankment—a cut and paste job—stuck between two roundabouts to get over the level crossing. The South Downs and the national park, which the Minister and his colleagues have been keen to promote, deserve better than that.

I hope that I have demonstrated that there are serious concerns about the environmental implications at the junction. If there is to be a scheme, the one that is proposed is certainly not the best for the environment. It may be one of the cheapest, which is perhaps what has recommended it to the Government, but it is not the best. I also do not believe that it will reduce congestion time at all. It is important to deal with safety issues at Beddingham level crossing, and I have mentioned ways in which that can be done in the short term. In the long term, and in answer to the intervention from the hon. Member for Eastbourne, the south coast multi-modal study should follow the hierarchy that the Government have set down. It should seriously consider and introduce other options. It should introduce cheaper rail fares and improve the bus network, and it should take some of the steps that the Government recommend. Once it has done that, it should follow the Government's advice and make roads the last option. If those methods—and soft measures, such as shared travel-towork arrangements—cannot resolve the safety and congestion problems on the road, it may be necessary to return to road schemes along the south coast.

However, we have not reached that point yet. Those involved in the study should go back to the drawing board, take on board the Government's advice and consider other options first. Most of my constituents would prefer those options to have been exhausted before we introduce an environmentally damaging road scheme. As Bullens said in 1993, the scheme would be the worst option. It would be built in a sensitive area of the South Downs, at significant cost to the taxpayer. Before that happens, let us look at the other options.

I hope that the Minister will do more than simply answer my questions. On a minute matter, I hope that he will ensure that the exhibition that did not take place in Lewes will now take place. More seriously, I hope that he will reaffirm the Government's commitment to an integrated transport policy and to studying other options, such as rail, bus and soft measures, rather than simply opting for environmentally damaging road schemes. I hope that he will remit his thoughts on the issue to those involved in the study so that they can do their work properly, as I believe he and his colleagues first intended.

I commend the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on securing the debate. Like other colleagues, we have been trying to secure a debate on this important report, and it is splendid that we are discussing it today. The spirit of unanimity may wear a bit thin as my speech progresses, but I join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the process involved in the south coast multi-modal study. That process is important, and I have made representations to the consultants, as, I am sure, has the hon. Gentleman and many of our constituents. It is a good process.

I part company with the hon. Gentleman, however, in that I think that SoCoMMS reaches a careful, well-argued and balanced set of conclusions. It has tried to strike a balance between environmental and social considerations on the one hand and economic considerations on the other. It has also tried to strike a balance between the needs of private and public transport. It has carefully examined all the cost-benefit analysis issues, and the cost-benefit analysis, certainly for the A27 scheme, is 2.8:1, which is encouraging.

The report is very long, and like the hon. Member for Lewes, I shall focus on a few specific issues. The report is brilliant news for everyone in my constituency and in the rest of East. Sussex. I shall deal with the proposed improvements to the A27 in more detail later, but I warmly welcome them, and it is gratifying that they will be given priority.

It is also right to welcome the proposal for more frequent rail services to and from my constituency. The plans for a possible new station at Stone Cross will benefit many of my constituents, particularly those who live in the Langney area.

There will also be better connections with Ashford, and the hon. Gentleman touched on that. If I want to go to Europe on the Eurostar, I often drive back up to London, because the road and rail connections between my constituency and Ashford are pitiful.

It is interesting that the report has attracted such widespread support. The regional assembly debated it the other day and was broadly in favour of it. I have also had a message of support from Anthony Dunnett, the chief executive of the South East England Development Agency, who says:

"The south Coast Multi Modal Study has received the full support of SEEDA as it takes a balanced approach to meeting the varied and pressing transport needs of the South Coast … Without these measures the South Coast cannot attract the vital investment that is needed to regenerate towns like Eastbourne, Hastings, Brighton and Littlehampton."

Eastbourne borough council, which, incidentally, is controlled by the Liberal Democrats, has always adopted a cross-party approach to the A27. I have an e-mail from Mr. Norman Kinnish, director of planning, regeneration and amenities. He reminds me that we have been sending deputations to Westminster since the 1990s. He says that Eastbourne council

"supports an off line dual carriageway solution as the most effective method of resolving this road's problems … Both parties represented on Eastbourne Borough Council continue to commit their unwavering support for these improvements"

The leader of the Conservative group, councillor Graham Marsden, says:

"The economic progress of this area is being stifled by the lack of an effective transport infrastructure … The A27 is dangerous with too many drivers taking risks because of its frequent bends and dips."

There is widespread support for the proposals. The Eastbourne and district chamber of commerce, which covers an area way beyond the boundaries of the borough of Eastbourne, says:

"It is vital for the economy of the whole area that improvements are made to the A27 as soon as possible."

Although the cabinet of East Sussex county council has yet to formally debate the SoCoMMS report, it has long supported the campaign for significant improvements to the A27. In an e-mail to me, Mr. Bob Wilkins, director of transport and environment, makes several points, some of which have already been touched on by the hon. Member for Lewes, but others are slightly at odds with what the hon. Gentleman was saying.

There are two issues here. One is the issue of the A27 itself, and arguments have raged for years about how best to deal with the problems of congestion. The road is a major artery, certainly economically, and is extremely dangerous. There is also the problem of trying to find some division on the rail crossing that crosses the road at Beddingham, which, at times, is a nightmare. Fortunately I was not involved, but I heard on my car radio last Friday that there had been some sort of breakdown at the crossing and that traffic was stacked up for many miles in both directions.

Mr. Wilkins makes the point that the railway currently carries four trains an hour in each direction between Lewes and Eastbourne, causing a stoppage of about 12 minutes in every hour. He says that during the morning and evening peak periods, traffic builds up for five miles back from the crossing. That cannot be good news for the people who live in Selmeston and Berwick—

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that even if the crossing is bypassed, traffic will simply build up at the Southerham roundabout or in the tunnel into Lewes?

Not necessarily. I would have thought that the SoCoMMS report would have taken that into account. On any view, there should be a significant improvement in the amount of traffic.

At the moment, the traffic flow amounts to almost 30,000 vehicles a day. The SoCoMMS report predicts that that will increase to 39,000 vehicles a day in the next 15 years. On any set of criteria applied by any Government, the road deserves to be a dual carriageway. The clinching issue—this was also touched on by the hon. Member for Lewes, although I think that he skirted around the solution—is the question of train frequency. Every silver lining has a cloud, and one of the benefits of privatisation, at least for my constituents, was that, instead of an hourly service from London to Eastbourne, a twice hourly service was introduced for much of the day. That means that more trains go through Beddingham and there are more stoppages on the road. As I said, at the moment, we have four trains an hour. According to the railway inspectorate, there will be a significant problem, possibly involving closure of up to 30 minutes an hour, because of what can only be described as a high risk of serious loss of life. The hon. Gentleman tried to minimise the risk slightly. One thing that I have discovered about fatalities on the roads is that the statistics collected by people such as the police are slightly unreliable. In any event, Mr. Wilkins says:

"If the barriers were to be changed"—

presumably to make them more difficult to evade—

"the delays would increase to more than 30 minutes in every hour, causing unacceptable disruption to the road network."

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Highways Agency estimates delays of 24 minutes, not 30 minutes per hour? Does he also accept that the figure would apply only if a double barrier were put in, not if the strategy that I suggest were adopted?

We should certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestions. I am not a technical man, as you will know, Mr. McWilliam, and if the time can be reduced, that is fine. Our starting point, however, is that there are enormous traffic flows, which are bound to increase, and stoppages of at least 12 minutes in every hour. We must address the existing problems before tackling the new problems that would be caused by a different sort of barrier and longer stoppages.

Mr. Wilkins goes on to say that SoCoMMS recommends

"an increase in rail frequency to 7 trains an hour between Lewes and Eastbourne"

We can all regard that as good news, and my constituents will be delighted. The hon. Member for Lewes was sceptical about whether that increase would ever come about, and I can see how that fits into his overall argument. We should perhaps be sceptical about such promises from any Government. My point, however, is that any increase would significantly add to delays.

There is a much more human level at which the A27 needs to be sorted out. Mr. Brian Stoodley, a leading local surgeon, who is based in Eastbourne, has been one of my strongest supporters over several years. He recently wrote to the leader of the Liberal Democrats to point out that the A27 was not only inefficient and slow but extremely dangerous. He noted that it

"carries over twice the traffic volume of an average 'A' road … It has over twice the morbidity and twice the mortality rate"

that one would expect of an equivalent road. To put it in more brutal terms, Mr. Stoodley and his colleagues have had to deal with the consequences of the dangers of the A27 over the years.

As long ago as 1996, Sussex ambulance service wrote to me to make it clear that it was in favour of better road connections in the area. There were problems dealing with patients after accidents because ambulances were unable to get around the area quickly.

Since being elected I have lobbied consistently on this issue. I took a deputation to see Conservative Ministers in 1995. Ultimately, the Conservative Government announced schemes to deal with bottlenecks on the A27. I was obviously very quick off the mark because in July 1997 I took a cross-party delegation from Eastbourne to press the case for road improvements with the new Minister with responsibility for roads. I have also secured several debates on the issue, including one in February 1996 and one in November 1997.

There is a massive consensus, certainly in my constituency, that the problem must be addressed. The problem of improving the A27 is linked to that of improving the rail crossing at Beddingham or replacing it with something more up to date.

Schemes were first mooted after the last world war, and after many years, the Polegate bypass and the new A22 route into my constituency were recently introduced. Both are already having a significant effect in drawing traffic from other parts of my constituency and elsewhere.

To be fair, the hon. Member for Lewes has a long and honourable track record on the issue, and I understand his reservations. If I may say so, however, he is being excessively gloomy and critical about the SoCoMMS report, which is closely argued. It is there for debate and, indeed, consultation.

I hope that this will not provoke a furious intervention, but the hon. Gentleman used to be an opponent of the Polegate bypass. He then came to see the benefits—

rose

At least let me finish the point—I knew that I should not have embarked on it. In time, the hon. Gentleman came to see the benefits of the Polegate bypass and, indeed, became one of its most enthusiastic supporters—so much so that one might have thought that it had been his idea. Perhaps the same process will occur in this instance.

This is a good-humoured intervention, rather than a furious one. To put the record straight, I have always been in favour of a bypass for Polegate. I was not in favour of the dual carriageway bypass that was finally constructed. I have always recognised a difference between a bypass, which may have merit, and a new inter-urban road, which, in my view, is more difficult to justify.

We can argue about the history, but the result is that we have the road, much later than we should have done, and it is, in my humble opinion, working.

Last week I asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he would announce a decision on SoCoMMS and, in particular, the A27 project. He told me, largely out of a fear of lawyers, which I can understand, being one myself, that he wanted to defer the decision to the spring and make a package of announcements. However, I should like to challenge the Minister to consider whether the decision can be brought forward. Whatever else is set out in SoCoMMS—and there is much detailed and interesting work affecting many other areas of the south—what cries out for attention is the need for improvements on the A27 and at Beddingham and the fact that the report concludes that those are a priority.

My constituents and other residents of Sussex have waited too long for those much-needed road improvements. They have the backing of the independent study and the regional assembly, as well as of people, businesses and business organisations in the area. They have the support of the relevant local authorities. Everyone knows in their heart of hearts—even, perhaps, the hon. Member for Lewes—that the status quo is not an option. Of course there must be consultation. The hon. Member for Lewes is right—I never thought those words would pass my lips, but he is right in describing the unique beauty of the area in question. Therefore, it is very important that we develop a scheme or schemes that are sensitive to the needs and concerns of people who live along a possible route for the improvements. I should not want anything to happen with which they would not be brought along, in a constructive and helpful fashion. There will always be those who oppose any new roads. Some people will never he persuaded, but we need to make a major effort.

The road is lethal and slow and is crippling economic development in our area. It is high time that this decision was made.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on securing the debate. He has correctly identified the fact that the report is heavily weighted towards roads—I am afraid that that is also true of the other multi-modal studies. He has calculated that 54 per cent. of the £1.1 billion that has been identified will be spent on roads.

The question of balance is emerging in the Transport Committee's inquiry into multi-modal studies, which we are due to complete shortly. That is disappointing, because it is clear in the guidance relating to multi-modal studies that they are required to identify solutions that include a range of modes of transport, including walking and cycling. My hon. Friend explained his disappointment with the study, and rightly stressed the environmentally sensitive nature of his constituency.

Furthermore, my hon. Friend is right—again, I suspect that this is relevant to the other studies too—to express concern about the low priority that has been given to soft measures. Halcrow has, as he said, been soft on soft measures. Both my hon. Friend and the chairman of the Transport Committee have highlighted the drop in motoring costs and the increase in public transport costs. Let me take this opportunity to respond to the Minister's question. He knows the answer: the Government, after all, are in favour of congestion charges, and have identified the need for local authorities to introduce them—or are expecting local authorities to introduce them. He and I know that one of the effects will he increased costs for motorists. That is Government policy, and we support it: we believe that charging has a role to play in reducing congestion and raising revenue for public transport.

We also support measures that would reduce the costs of motoring for drivers who use the most environmentally friendly cars. Therefore, there would be gains as well as losses for motorists. However, it is wrong for public transport fares to be increasing significantly when motoring costs are reducing; that differential must move in the other direction. The Minister can make whatever use he wishes of that comment in the coming months and years.

I do not wish to lose sight of that important point. Other than the congestion charges—which, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates, will probably be introduced in very limited areas—does his party support an increase in the costs of motoring?

I have made it very clear that congestion charges—those in London, for instance—will have an impact on motorists, especially if there are incentives with regard to improved public transport. However, if congestion is not reduced, disincentives must also be introduced. I hope that the Minister will be able to use that remark.

The Minister has been invited to Lewes. If he accepts the invitation, he might wish to stop off in Carshalton on his way, because my constituents and I could show him some good examples of local transport improvements that I am sure that he would appreciate.

I disagree with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). He said that the report was careful and well balanced, and he quoted the South East England Development Agency saying the same thing. The hon. Gentleman should talk to David Begg, the head of the Commission for Integrated Transport, who has made it clear that the multi-modal studies are not a careful and well-balanced option. He used the same argument as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, which is that there is no guaranteed funding for any of the rail or local transport initiatives—that applies to capital and revenue. That is why it is anything but a well-balanced option. However, I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes and the hon. Member for Eastbourne agreed about the beauty of the area.

I wish to make some general points about multi-modal studies. Twenty-two studies have been completed or are under way; 15 reports have been issued, and a further five are expected within the next six months; and there are 10 studies that concentrate only on road options. It is disappointing that the only major reference to multi-modal studies in the progress report that was issued yesterday is in the section covering the strategic road network. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong about that, but if I am not, that reinforces my hon. Friend's point about the multi-modal studies prioritising roads at the expense of other modes of transport.

I support the approach taken by the south coast multi-modal study. It is important that it should look beyond transport and address regeneration issues too. There are some interesting proposals in relation to light transit and other rail schemes—with, of course, the caveat about whether they would be funded.

On the regeneration issue, does the hon. Gentleman not recall that the point that SEEDA's endorsement made was that these proposals would assist regeneration not only in Eastbourne but in a raft of south-coast seaside towns?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I also heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes said about the potential for road improvements benefiting areas that the hon. Gentleman may not have expected to benefit from such improvements.

Some time ago, when I was chair of economic development at the county council and the A23 to Brighton was made into a dual carriageway, the area of Sussex that performed least well economically for the next three or four years was Brighton, because businesses were able to relocate to Crawley and Gatwick. It was an own goal for Brighton.

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. He points to the fact that we cannot reach a rapid conclusion about the impact that schemes may have on regeneration.

One of my worries about the south coast multi-modal study is its statement that

"Looking ahead to 2030 and beyond, the role of demand management measures is likely to grow, both as a means of funding sustainable transport measures".

That concern was echoed by David Begg, whom the Government presumably listen to and respect. It seems too late in the day to talk about demand management measures by 2030 or beyond. Mr. Begg said that we needed some form of demand restraint and that

"the best form of demand restraint is some form of road user charging … a pricing system which varies with the level of congestion".

I hope that the Minister will say something about that and endorse the views that have been expressed by Mr. Begg.

As for the implementation of the multi-modal study and others, it will be useful if the Minister can confirm the exact meaning of

"complete and act upon the programme of 'multi-modal studies'.

That phrase was used in the progress report, which referred also to the strategy being for the period up to 2010. Will the hon. Gentleman say what schemes he expects to be completed by 2010? If they are not completed by then, by when would he expect them to be completed? Will he also confirm the budget that has been set aside for the multi-modal studies?

I expect the Minister's response will be that such matters are contained within the £180 billion, in which case will he explain exactly what process will be used to prioritise different competing schemes, whether proposed by the SRA or local authorities or identified in the multi-modal studies? Can he confirm whether the cut in the rail budget of £312 million over the next three years is likely to have an impact on the multi-modal studies? I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will say no, because no budget has been set for the rail proposals in the multi-modal studies, certainly not within three years. However, other feasibility studies may be in the pipeline. I should welcome his response to such matters.

Will the Minister comment on Mr. Begg's concerns about the disconnection between the recommendations of regional planning bodies and the ability of the delivery agencies, especially the SRA, to fund those recommendations? Although the Secretary of State may be making such a response this afternoon, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will refer to Mr. Begg's worry about the lack of clear guidance from the Government on charging and how that has made it difficult for multi-modal studies to make consistent proposals.

Obviously, we need to be able to judge the success of this and other multi-modal studies once the appropriate rail, cycling and other road measures are in place. Will the Minister comment, in a little more detail than is given in section 2.7 of the progress report, on what targets the Government will use to measure the success or otherwise of the study? The targets set out in the progress report are anything but smart; they are totally unquantifiable. They include:

"reduced congestion on inter-urban roads … road condition maintained at an optimum level".

There is nothing in any of the targets—except that for numbers killed or seriously injured on the roads, on which the Government have done a good job—that anyone can measure. I hope that the Minister can flesh out the targets.

It is nice to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr. Chidgey. I conclude by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes has set out some genuine concerns about the study, and has called for the Government to look again at their hierarchy in relation to the modes of transport that they will use to solve congestion and other transport problems. I hope that the Minister can give us some satisfaction on that important point.

I, too, welcome the opportunity to debate the south coast corridor multi-modal study, although so far the debate has centred around the A27, Lewes and Eastbourne—probably because the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) are key participants in the debate. As a former Minister with responsibility for roads who flew by helicopter over those areas more than 10 years ago to look at the transport needs in that corridor, I am impressed by the fact that not much has happened since I left office. I am depressed to think that many of the schemes in the programme that the Government were bequeathed in 1997 and that were put on hold are now the top priorities in the study's recommendations. Five years have been wasted in which next to nothing has been done.

In many respects, the multi-modal studies have been a recipe for delay. The conclusions that they reach are very much in line with many of the conclusions reached by the previous Government, namely that one cannot restrict traffic growth and economic growth by not developing our trunk road network. It is important to remind ourselves that the study says that

"in the absence of any strategy, the number of vehicle km driven within the corridor"—

that is the south coast corridor—

"will grow by around 30 per cent. by 2016 and 45 per cent. by 2030. This is despite a projected increase in rail use of 30 per cent. by 2016."

We know that the hon. Members for Lewes and for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) were at the forefront of the unrealistic campaign in 1997 and 1998, which was led by the Deputy Prime Minister, to make us believe that it would be possible not just to reduce congestion but to have real reductions in the number of vehicles on the road and the number of miles travelled by vehicles on the road. The Government's policy was premised on that enormous fallacy. It is only now that the Government realise what a fallacy it was. They are facing up to the consequences of increased congestion, accidents and damage to our economy as a result of their short-term policies.

The Government have set up the multi-modal studies. The hon. Member for Lewes said that there were 80 pages. I think that he means that the east of Lewes strategy development plan contains about 80 pages. The south coast corridor multi-modal study contains the best part of 700 or 800 pages, although I admit that I have not mastered it all because I anticipated that the debate would be centred on issues relating to Lewes and the A27. It is not reasonable for the hon. Member for Lewes to say that the study should be torn up and rejected by the Government just because its conclusions do not coincide with his prejudices. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne said, the study's conclusions are widely endorsed, and by people in not only the locality but the region.

People in my constituency, which is further west on the south coast, appreciate the importance of a good south coast corridor as a means of enabling people to travel from, for example, the constituency of the hon. Member for Lewes in order to take their holidays in Christchurch, Bournemouth or further west. That would prevent them from being tempted to cross the channel to spend their money on the continent. Likewise, the corridor would enable my constituents to visit the fine landscapes in the South Downs. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne and I have spent enjoyable occasions in the Grand hotel in Eastbourne conferring and discussing strategies. We have benefited from that in the past and will benefit from it in the future.

I invite the hon. Gentleman to comment on the validity of a study that is clearly meant to be taken as a package, although the Government will guarantee to fund only one component: the roads programme.

I do not think that the Government are guaranteeing to fund the roads programme. That would be funded by the Highways Agency because improvements would be made to trunk roads but not local roads. I understand that the railway part of the package would be funded through the Strategic Rail Authority. The hon. Gentleman is making an artificial distinction and he overlooks the fact that a benefit of the study is that the report considers road and rail together. Paragraph 4.33 of the east of Lewes strategy development plan says:

"The objective of reducing delays at Beddingham Level Crossing is particularly important due to the SoCoMMS proposals for increased train frequencies on the East Coastway route (from 4 to 7 trains per hour in each direction)."

That recognises that if the number of trains passing a level crossing is increased, the capacity for road vehicles is reduced, which is a reason why the report recommends strongly that something should be done about that. The present situation is intolerable.

Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that if the frequency of trains was increased and if they were properly priced and consisted of proper rolling stock, the number of vehicles on the road might be reduced?

Frankly, we have just been told—I think that the hon. Gentleman accepted this—that even an increase of 16 per cent. in the number of rail passengers by 2016 will not stop traffic on the roads increasing by 30 per cent. I do not believe that increasing rail capacity reduces the amount of traffic on the road. That is the myth that the hon. Gentleman has peddled for so long and it has been proved to be absolute nonsense. There is nowhere in the world where an increased rail capacity has reduced road use. There is significant road use even in London, which has an enormously expensive and well-developed underground and overground rail network. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington seem to think that the south coast and the South Downs are equivalent environments to central London. Public transport and access to trains play a greater role in London because people live very near stations.

There are vast rural areas in the South Downs—Lewes and Eastbourne are obviously specific towns—in which people have to use their motor cars. The report that the Government produced yesterday confirms that dependency on cars in rural areas is greater than that in urban areas. We ignore such realities at our peril because that leads to increased congestion, more accidents and danger on the roads, and more damage to the economies of the areas served by those highways. I totally reject the strategy of the Liberal Democrats.

It is worth quoting from the Halcrow report, but I hope that in doing so I will not be doing the Government's work for them. The Minister knows that I am, and have always been, a great enthusiast for investment in transport infrastructure. I look forward to the time when we can invest as much in transport infrastructure as was invested when I was the Minister responsible for roads. Almost every day of the week, I would be opening a bypass or a new stretch of road in which the Conservative Government had invested.

What about railways?

I was not opening new railway lines because I was not the Minister responsible for railways. I was the Minister responsible for roads.

The Halcrow report says of the demand for road travel that

"some improvements are essential to the continued economic and social well-being of the region. There is currently severe traffic congestion at many locations along the A27 … and this is predicted to worsen in the future. This will make it more difficult for business and freight operators to gain access to many of the South Coast towns from the national road network."

The report then deals with the strategy, which has been endorsed by many people. The strategy

"includes a number of measures to improve the current road network's overall efficiency."

The report goes on to say:

"Highway improvements are of particular importance to rural communities. Public transport will continue to serve a relatively small portion of the market and the car will remain the most economically efficient means of providing mobility. Reducing congestion on the approaches to larger towns and improving trunk routes will also reduce the need to divert onto sensitive rural roads, bringing environmental benefits to these areas."

The statements in the report are common sense. I hope that it will soon be on the Minister's desk, that a conclusion will be reached, and that recommendations will be made and accepted to incorporate in the roads programme the highway improvements that the report identifies. As I have said before, many of those improvements were identified by the previous Conservative Government and inherited in 1997 by the Labour Government before being put on the back burner. Had they not been put on the back burner, we would have seen them coming to fruition much earlier, with all the benefits that would have flowed from them.

Let us not forget that the original idea was to have a south coast trunk route between Honiton and Folkestone. Many people going from the south coast to the west country, or from the west country to the channel ports, are diverting their journeys and going along the M25, thereby adding to the problems of that motorway and transferring the environmental burden on to the people who live close to it. Congestion, journey lengths and journey times are increasing.

Is it Conservative party policy to divert traffic from the M25 on to the south coast route? I am keen to know, so that I can let my constituents know that the hon. Gentleman is trying to encourage extra traffic on to the A27. Is that his policy?

We should have a coherent network of trunk roads in this country. If people have to travel many miles out of their way in order to gain access to the major air and sea ports, that is unnecessarily burdensome on the environment. I would prefer to have a proper route between Portsmouth and Dover, as was originally envisaged. That route would be a trunk road and would meet the needs of local people. It would be good for the economy of the south coast and it would help to reduce the burden that is carried by the M25.

This issue is important and I hope that the Minister will accept that there is much support from the Conservative party. There could be a consensus between the official Opposition and the Government on the need to improve road infrastructure along the south coast corridor sooner rather than later.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on securing such an important debate. Several issues have received a useful airing, but I doubt whether I shall get round to responding to them all today. The hon. Gentleman has been in correspondence with the Department and I shall write to him about the matters that I do not cover. I shall try, in the spirit of the season, to be non-contentious. However, I may stray.

The hon. Gentleman referred to my frequent presence at these Westminster Hall Adjournment debates. This is my penultimate debate this year. For those hon. Members who want to stay around, I should say that I shall be responding to a further debate today. Sadly, in January, debates on transport matters will be held every other week because the House, in its wisdom, decided that certain Departments should respond to debates one week, while other Departments do so the following week. I am sure that that decision will bring considerable relief to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). I see that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and his colleagues who also have to take part in such debates are nodding. The hon. Gentleman's good researcher will only be working once a fortnight on his questions, rather than each week.

If I just refer to "the study", that might be one way to avoid using the awful acronym SoCoMMS. It may help the Hansard reporters, too. I wish first to make general points, after which I shall pick up on specific matters that have been raised. As the hon. Member for Lewes will be aware, my ministerial colleagues and I are considering the recommendations of the study, so the debate is particularly timely. The multi-modal studies were set up to examine some of the most difficult problems of the strategic transport network. I am pleased that there has been a general welcome for the approach of the studies. We seem to have cross-party accord.

We are considering the contribution that all modes of transport can play in finding solutions to the problems. Last week, the Secretary of State announced his response to the recommendations of five of the studies, as part of the £5.5 billion package of major national and local road measures. Over the decade, in excess of £180 billion of public and private money will be spent on transport. We are putting in place a programme to tackle years of under-investment in our transport infrastructure, especially rail infrastructure.

We are looking forward to taking a balanced approach between road, rail, public and private transport. Our objective is to improve Britain's road and rail network as well as getting better use out of the existing infrastructure. Our measures are aimed at tackling congestion, improving reliability and making journeys safer. They will also help to improve the environment and the quality of life. The south coast multi-modal study is one of a tranche of two programmes that were identified in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England".

Of the full programme for studies, eight have now reported and the Secretary of State has announced his response to the recommendations. The primary purpose of the south coast's study was to recommend a long-term sustainable strategy for transport between Southampton and Margate. I fully understand why the debate has focused on part of that area, but the consultant's recommendations are intended to recognise the need for economic regeneration in the corridor, while aiming to minimise the potential for environmental damage in a sensitive area. Such issues were raised by the hon. Member for Lewes.

The study has been charged specifically with making recommendations on four remitted A27 road schemes: the Arundel bypass, potential bypasses at Wilmington and Selmeston and improvements at Southerham and Beddingham, picking up the long-term issues that were identified from the previous M27 Worthing and Lancing integrated transport studies and the Hastings multi-modal studies. In the past few days, we have received south-east England's regional assembly's views on the study and we are now considering the advice. It raises important issues, some of which have been aired here today, not least because of the environmental impact that the schemes could have. I have been asked to say when we will make decisions, but we must carefully examine all aspects of the schemes—the benefits and environmental impacts. However, I hope that we will have some conclusions by spring 2003.

The hon. Member for Lewes raised several issues. There may be some misunderstanding about the multi-modal study process. Some of the findings coming out of the studies and the consultation, and from discussion between the Highways Agency and the SRA, will need local solutions. Similarly, some of the methods to reduce traffic in the sensitive areas that he described will be delivered specifically in local areas—they are "local solutions for local areas" or however the phrase goes.

The hon. Gentleman also made general points about the relative costs of different modes of transport, including one relating to the time that Labour had been in office, which is why I tried to tease out what his party's view was and how things might be done differently in the unlikely event of the election of a Liberal Democrat Government. When asked about whether they would increase the cost of motoring, the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington were extremely coy. It is a difficult question that we have to answer.

We must appreciate that many of the issues relating to motoring are not in the direct control of the Government. The price of oil and cars and the efficiencies that car manufacturers are making are bringing private motor cars to a larger number of people. There are many disadvantaged people in my constituency and I am glad that some of them now have access to a motor car.

I am also pleased that my constituents now have access to better public transport. There is huge investment in the infrastructure, especially in the railways. Some of the subsidies mentioned by the hon. Member for Lewes to reduce bus fares are in the gift of local authorities, so perhaps he should make representations to his own.

The point that I am trying to make is not that the Government are not committed to rail-I believe instinctively and philosophically that they are. It is simply that the SRA will not deliver the schemes. It will not deliver the applications. It does not have the money and says that it has to cut back trains and concentrate on the north-west main line. The Government will deliver the road schemes, but the SRA will not deliver those for rail.

The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that the Highways Agency, the SRA or any agency operating on behalf of the Government with private as well as public funding must consider priorities. He mentioned priorities in his speech. His own Treasury spokesperson said not only that any spending pledges would have to be funded within current budgets, but that they represented a priority for scarce resources. I agree. They will be prioritised. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that the SRA is examining the schemes. It can deliver some and some will be delivered by local transport plan funding.

rose—

I want to talk about the Southerham-Beddingham crossing, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. It is an important issue that we must get on to. There is no doubt that the junction is dangerous. The police record the incidents that have caused injury, but there have been many other collisions with the barriers that have caused damage and which were extremely hazardous. It is surprising that there have not been more injuries on the crossing.

The hon. Member for Lewes said that we had rushed out the consultation. That is not the case. He suggests that we were anticipating what might have been in the multi-modal studies decision. Hon. Members would agree that, because it is strategic for the road network and for rail, it is important for rail that we get the consultation moving, regardless of the ultimate decisions of the multi-modal study.

The other important issue—the consultation should pick it up—is that if that line is not bridged, the movement of traffic along the A27 will be severely restricted. The hon. Member for Lewes is waving his arms, but he knows that the area suffers considerably from flooding and that tunneling will present serious engineering problems, not least the cost. He made the point that some of the consultation on the multi-modal study did not take place in Lewes. If I might make a seasonal reference, I think that the inn was full—there were no places in which the consultation could take place at the time. However, I have some extraordinarily good news. As we speak, Highways Agency officials are looking at a place in Lewes that is suitable for the purpose, so he can now look forward to the consultation.

I wonder whether, as there has already been one consultation session in Lewes, the Minister can give some thought to holding one in Eastbourne? It is of enormous importance to people in my constituency. Alternatively, could he invite me to the consultation in Lewes?

I think that it would be quite in order to invite the hon. Gentleman along. I am sure that he will be welcomed by the hon. Member for Lewes, who will no doubt take him round the fine hostelries of that fine town.

I agree that we should make information more widely available. The point has been made that roads are delivered and rail is not. That is incorrect—there will be a balanced approach, based on priorities.

rose—

I shall give way just once, but I want to answer points made by other hon. Members.

On the point of road versus rail, is it the case that in the multi-modal studies that have reported to date, the Government have given the go ahead for the road schemes, but have referred the rail schemes to the SRA, which has already told us that it has not budgeted for the multi-modal study rail proposals and will therefore not proceed?

It is correct for us to refer those to the SRA, which is now considering all the proposals. It will consider those, and the proposals that arise in the next tranche of multi-modal studies, in the light of its priorities. The hon. Gentleman has told us previously that there is no more money in the Liberal Democrat pot. How would his party fund those schemes? Perhaps we shall hear in a future debate.

I move to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). At the risk of embarrassing him, I shall say that he made a well thought out and powerful case for his constituents, and made many of the points that I might have made. He welcomed the study and said that not only was it a balanced approach but that it was brilliant news for his constituents. He made a valid point about rail connections and the problems with the junction. If it is not improved, either the road system or the railway to and from his constituency will be inhibited. He reinforced the important points for the economy about regeneration. Nobody has mentioned that a considerable amount of new house building is planned for the area. The population will increase and that will put pressure on the roads and on the rail system.

It is difficult for me to cover all the points in the time that remains. If hon. Members would like any other answers, I shall deal with them by correspondence. The debate has been helpful, and the hon. Member for Lewes has raised some important points. I am glad that we have found some cross-party accord on at least the method that we have used to bring forward the multi-modal studies.

I am grateful to have secured this timely debate. It seems all the more timely given yesterday's statement on public transport investment by the Secretary of State for Transport. I realise the irony of using words such as timely and public transport in the same breath. However, my intention is serious. I want to make a strong case for a much earlier decision to be made on the sitting of a station or halt at the Eastfields level crossing in my constituency. That decision appeared to have been taken, with the station due to open in 2004, but the idea has now been shelved indefinitely.

I am grateful to the Minister for attending to answer the debate. I hope that he can offer some hope to my constituents that they may yet see the opening of the station that they have been waiting for. He may want to make other comments about the future of public transport in less affluent areas such as the Eastfields area of Mitcham, which are disconnected from transport systems enjoyed in much more affluent areas.

I hope that the Minister will agree that the proposal for a station at Eastfields must be treated as a priority by the Strategic Rail Authority, and I urge him to use his good offices to persuade the SRA to bring Eastfields station back up the agenda and to make an early decision.

Eastfields, on the borders of Longthornton, Pollards Hill and Figges Marsh wards in the Mitcham area, has a high-density residential population as well as three schools. It has one of the largest council estates in my constituency, surrounded by streets of typical suburban semis dating from the inter-war years. It also has the two largest derelict industrial sites in the borough.

Eastfields has suffered in recent decades from the sharp rise in antisocial scourges such as graffiti, vandalism, fly tipping and abandoned cars, as well as a decline in close-knit communities and a lack of local facilities. A survey that I carried out in the area last summer, to which hundreds of local residents responded, clearly showed that people desperately want to see more facilities in their area and better transport links. Indeed, almost everyone who responded to my questionnaire said that they wanted better rail links, including a station at Eastfields and access to the Croydon to Wimbledon tram.

There can be no question but that Eastfields has suffered from not having a direct railway link, even though the construction of a station or halt at the level crossing would be straightforward. As such, it has been mooted for many years. Merton borough council is especially keen to develop the station, which would be on the line between Victoria and Mitcham junction, and would open up the area for travel to central London and rail links in Croydon.

The wards surrounding the Eastfields area are among the most deprived in the borough of Merton. It is telling that the seven most deprived wards in Merton are in my constituency, which proves my long-held opinion that Mitcham and Morden has consistently lost out to wealthier places when funds are shared out for public transport, education, health and regeneration projects. I wanted to become a Labour Member of this House to turn over that inequality, and I am here today to speak about the needs of my constituents.

I understand that, in the mapping carried out as part of Merton's neighbourhood renewal project, all the evidence showed that communities in the area that would benefit from a station at Eastfields suffered disproportionately from income deprivation, child poverty, low levels of education and attainment, poor access to health and social care, crime and disorder and low access to public transport for employment. The communities that would benefit from the station include those disadvantaged in many other respects, including elderly people as well as significant concentrations of people from ethnic minorities. As the Minister will be aware, those from ethnic minorities experience disproportionate levels of unemployment and isolation, which adversely affect their opportunities and life chances. Too many people in the eastern part of Merton share such disadvantages.

The problem is much more than the lack of a station—a transport inequality. It concerns financial inequality, health inequality, inequality in education and—plain and simple—social inequality. Eastfields school will increase its intake from 840 to 1,200 pupils per year from 2003. The infrastructure work associated with that, including new paths to and from a possible Eastfields station, is part of the planning conditions for the school's developments. As such, it will be in any plans for Eastfields station.

The proposed location is along one of the longest stretches of railway line in London without a railway station. Elderly residents of the area say that they have been promised a station there since around 1930. It is even obvious to me that the level crossing was constructed because the intention was to build a station to serve the new suburban development. However, that has never happened. People living in the Eastfields area of east Mitcham have some of the poorest access to public transport in the borough. The new station would improve access to jobs and other opportunities for residents in an area of, as I have shown, high deprivation.

The council has always been keen for there to be a station on the site, and has already modified the alignment of the adjacent Grove road to provide a drop-off point for the new station. The council's present proposals have been in existence since the mid-1980s. In the late 1990s, Merton pursued the proposal with more vigour, based on the Government's policy of putting more emphasis on rail improvements. In late 1999, it commissioned Peter Brett Associates, a firm of consulting engineers with expertise in transport planning and traffic engineering, to undertake a demand and engineering feasibility study on a new station at Eastfields. The report concluded that it was feasible to construct a station. The passenger forecast and financial appraisal strongly suggested that the station would be commercially viable, and predicted that some 10,000 people would use the new station each week.

The train operating companies, Connex and Thameslink, said that services using Mitcham junction could call at the proposed station. Railtrack's 2000 network management statement for Great Britain contained an option to develop a new station at Eastfields in 2006 with Connex, the then incumbent train operator.

On 24 October 2000, the Strategic Rail Authority issued a press release on the outcome of negotiations for the South Central rail franchise, which specified the opening of a new station at Eastfields in 2004. A station at Eastfields has tremendous potential for increasing mobility for my constituents, as well as alleviating congested roads and reducing air pollution. It would also help to reinvigorate the community by increasing access to local facilities and services and to jobs further afield.

Merton council recently informed me that the Strategic Rail Authority had announced its intention to reduce the length of the South Central franchise from 20 to seven years, with the SRA handling major infrastructure investment and upgrading. That has derailed plans for a station at Eastfields, causing huge disappointment to my constituents. The council made representations to the SRA in October, asking that a station be included in the new South Central franchise. It awaits the SRA response. There are two possible stances for the SRA to take: positive, in which case the council would look to joint fund further development work; or negative, in which case the council would need to lobby more strongly. My point in securing today's debate is that the council should not have to lobby more strongly. The needs of my constituents are clear: they need and want an Eastfields station.

In my correspondence on the issue, I have been fobbed off with opaque letters. One letter from James Watson, assistant director of parliamentary and public communications at the SRA, stated:

"the Eastfields proposal was a commitment in the original Heads of Terms—signed in October 2000—for the proposed 20 year franchise. It was not envisaged at that time that the proposal would be progressed before 2008 and 9. As you are aware, we are now negotiating a shorter franchise of up to seven years and no infrastructure works will be taken forward under the replacement franchise. The SRA will reappraise the package of infrastructure proposals from the former proposition and will act as sponsor in taking elements forward. With our other priorities, it will take some time to consider and decide how to proceed."

Eastfields station has been under consideration since about 1930, and I hope that the SRA will not take another 70 years to reach a conclusion.

I can do no more than to quote the eloquent words of my constituent, Mr. Graham Barker of Edgehill road in Mitcham. He wrote:

"I feel that getting into town is a mission as there is no direct rail link, underground, tram or bus that serves the city directly from this area of Mitcham … I'm sure I speak for the majority of local residents when I say that we really do need the station built at Eastfields without further delay."

I conclude by asking the Minister to look into the situation with a view to helping to expedite the creation of a station at Eastfields. I ask him to meet me and representatives of Merton council—and perhaps the SRA, if it can find time among its priorities—to discuss the future of the project. Make no mistake: the project must have a future. It is a future that my constituents are depending on and have been half-promised, and it will go a long way to restoring their faith in our transport system.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this debate and on the powerful way in which she spoke up for her constituents. I fully appreciate what she said about inequalities and about wanting to improve life for her constituents. Public transport is important for those who want to get to work, and also for leisure and pleasure. I appreciate that in areas where such a transport system is lacking, people can be left out on a limb.

My hon. Friend raised a number of other matters to do with inequalities, but I shall not be tempted to debate those today. However, I shall try to put into context any decision that may be made about the proposed Eastfields station. I appreciate that a station has been on the cards since the 1930s. I sometimes visit places waiting for a bypass. The longest wait that I came across was 80 years, but it came about at last.

My hon. Friend asked about a meeting. I would be delighted to meet her and to discuss the issues with all the relevant parties to find a way forward.

I shall say a few words about the decision-making process and about how the SRA has to prioritise its spending. The SRA is fully accountable to Ministers and Parliament. Its job is to promote the use of the railway network for passengers and goods, to secure the development of the railway system, and to contribute to the development of an integrated transport system for both passengers and goods.

The authority works to directions and guidance, given by the Secretary of State, that clearly define its roles and duties. The directions and guidance require the SRA to promote efficiency and economy and set 12 main objectives. Its two principal objectives are to work with the rail industry to achieve substantial lasting improvements in performance and to work to deliver the targets in the 10-year plan for transport.

I understand that it is not possible for the authority to confirm whether the proposed station at Eastfields will be progressed. The decision has not yet been made, and other priorities must take precedence, including negotiating the South Central franchise on the new seven-year basis, replacing the mark I slam-door trains and addressing the important issue of the power supply.

It may help if I set out the history of the South Central franchise replacement process to explain how we have arrived at the position that we are in today. There have been significant changes in the rail industry over the period subsequent to the refranchising process.

The South Central franchise was originally let to Connex Transport UK Ltd. in 1996 and, under the instructions of the Deputy Prime Minister, the shadow Strategic Rail Authority began the process of retendering the franchise. At the time, it was envisaged that franchises would be let on contracts lasting between 10 and 20 years, with franchisees making a strong commitment to invest in new projects.

In March 2000, the authority announced that two bidders, Connex and GoVia, had been shortlisted to compete for the franchise. Following submission and review of its best and final offers, the authority announced in October 2000 that it had signed heads of terms with Go Via as the preferred counterparty for the new franchise.

Heads of terms were based on a franchise of up to 20 years. An investment programme valued at £1.5 billion was proposed to introduce new trains and to upgrade track and stations. The programme included the proposed new station at Eastfields. GoVia planned that the station and other infrastructure enhancements would be delivered through a special purpose vehicle. It is important to note that, at that time, the scheme was only at the feasibility stage of development, with the final scope and costings yet to be finalised.

Of course, October 2000 was a critical month not only for South Central but for the whole rail industry. The Hatfield derailment on 17 October put the rail industry, particularly Railtrack, under intense scrutiny. The repercussions of the tragedy were widespread and long lasting. An unprecedented number of speed restrictions were imposed across the country as safety checks were carried out. Services were disrupted for many months. Railtrack's competence as custodian of the network infrastructure was widely questioned. The floundering project to upgrade the west coast main line added fuel to the debate. The project was behind time and over budget, largely because, as the company admitted, there was a serious lack of understanding of the state of Railtrack's assets and the scale of work needed to renew them. In the eyes of many, the project became symbolic of the company's mismanagement.

The problems that the industry, especially Railtrack, faced following Hatfield came to a head at the end of 2001. There was a crisis of confidence in the railways, both in the minds of the public and in the industry as a whole. In October 2001, Railtrack was placed in administration, an event that has been debated at length in this Chamber and in the House. In October of this year, the not-for-dividend company, Network Rail, was established in Railtrack's place. That change was essential for the recovery and development of our railways. Let us remember that it is only 10 weeks since Network Rail became the owner of the railway infrastructure. The company envisages an initial 18-month intensive programme to stabilise the business and to analyse the costs and causes of cost overruns in Railtrack. Network Rail intends to complete the process of building a full asset register of the rail network. Clearly, it will take time to turn the business around.

Following Hatfield, arrangements had been made to focus efforts on operations, maintenance and the renewal of the network, and to make the Strategic Rail Authority, which was formally established in February 2001, sponsor of the development of projects to enhance or upgrade the existing network. Network Rail is now taking forward Railtrack's new maintenance programme to improve its relationship with contractors and to enable it to have tighter control over the cost and quality of their work. There will be stability in the industry under the leadership of the Strategic Rail Authority and improved management of the network under Network Rail.

By this time, GoVia had taken over the operation of the South Central services from Connex, while negotiations for a new 20-year franchise continued. The negotiations had to be halted because of the many uncertainties in the industry—most notably, uncertainties arising from Railtrack's administration, but also uncertainties about particular projects such as Thameslink 2000, which had a bearing on South Central. In those circumstances, it was impossible to reach an affordable, value-for-money deal. There were too many contingencies for which allowances would have to be made. Therefore, it was necessary to redefine the commercial basis and structure of the deal.

In August 2002, the Strategic Rail Authority announced that agreement had been reached in principle on a new approach for the South Central franchise. The approach is consistent with the wider policy changes announced on 6 November. A key feature of the policy is that franchises are not the appropriate vehicles for taking forward major capital investment. Infrastructure enhancements will generally be pursued separately by the Strategic Rail Authority in partnership with the private sector, including Network Rail.

The new South Central franchise agreement being negotiated with GoVia is for a term of up to seven years, subject to the absolute right of the Strategic Rail Authority to terminate it after five years. The new franchise will deliver new rolling stock valued at £900 million and depot improvements valued at £60 million. Given the shorter length of the franchise and the new approach to franchising and infrastructure enhancements, the infrastructure upgrades originally planned as part of a 20-year franchise proposition will not be part of the new franchise.

The Strategic Rail Authority will reappraise the package of infrastructure proposals from the former 20-year proposition and take a view on which elements it will progress as sponsor. The reappraisal is not a current priority for the authority. It will be undertaken during the next year. The outcome will depend on the value for money of the proposals compared with others that are competing for limited funds.

Where new stations are proposed, other considerations, such as environmental and planning issues, will have to be taken into account. A Transport and Works Act 1992 order may be required for construction, access and land acquisition. Operational effects also need to be considered. Of course, trains stopping at a new station add time to a journey— typically several minutes. The impact on capacity and performances also needs to be assessed.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden feels very passionately on this issue. She is right to do so and, as I have said, she spoke powerfully about the need for improved transport links in her constituency. I know that she will find some of what I have said disappointing. However, I hope that she will understand and accept my explanation of why the prospect of a new station at Eastfields is currently uncertain and must remain so until a reassessment can be carried out by the Strategic Rail Authority. I assure her that the authority is currently preparing its next strategic plan for publication in January.

In the event that the SRA does not do the job quickly, when we reach the 80th anniversary of the promise of a halt or station, will the people of Mitcham finally get their station as a reward for their patience?

That will depend on some of the issues that I have outlined in the debate. It will fall within the priorities. However, I hope that in the coming year there will be a full assessment of the scheme, along with the other priorities. I certainly hope that my hon. Friend's constituents will not have to wait as long as 80 years. Still, she will appreciate that there are many competing demands on the budget for infrastructure improvements. If she wants to air the issues in a meeting attended by some of her constituents and other parties, I should be pleased to meet them.

I am grateful that this debate has been selected, because it highlights several issues about which the Government should be concerned, and raises the question of bureaucracy—the civil service—and whether it is accountable to Parliament, its Members and other individuals.

The case in which I am interested involves the possibility of the Treasury being caught unaware by a £1.7 billion debt. It concerns an 82-year-old in my constituency, Mrs. Kathleen Lonsdale, who has enjoyed a quiet life at the Westerlands residential home in Kingsbridge. She is looked after very well and was perfectly content until recently when the Pension Service informed her that she was entitled to a rather large sum of money.

Overnight, Mrs. Lonsdale's life changed when she received her assessment for the minimum income guarantee. She was told in a letter from the Pension Service on 25 July 2002 that she would receive £162,497.94 a week. That was to be backdated to 14 July 1800. That translates to a lump sum payment of around £1.7 billion, and that is without inflation.

Mrs. Lonsdale is an intelligent 82-year-old lady, but she could not quite grasp the figures or the impact on her life of receiving a backdated cheque of those proportions. However, she did work out that it would be enough to buy out the owners of her residential home! On reflection, as many elderly people might be, she became concerned that such an award would not only change her life, but make her the focus of local and national media attention. No doubt she would have been the recipient of begging letters galore. She also harboured a lurking suspicion that there might be some error in her minimum income guarantee assessment.

Mrs. Lonsdale is fortunate enough to have a devoted daughter who lives nearby in Kingsbridge, a Mrs. Patricia Millington. I have discussed the case with her, and she is aware that I am raising it in the Chamber. Indeed, she is happy for me to do so. Once she spoke to her mother, she realised that the letter from the Pension Service was a mistake. Mrs. Millington received three letters on her mother's behalf at the end of July from the Plymouth pensions office. Those letters stated that the records showed that Mrs. Millington had still not returned her mother's income support book, which was why the problem arose. The only snag—the reason why Mrs. Millington had not returned her mother's income support book—was that she had never received one in the first place.

Mrs. Millington went to the Kingsbridge post office to find out whether it, instead of her, had received the income support book. When she arrived, she was told that her mother's book had been impounded and that no more cash orders would be allowed. Mrs. Millington felt deeply embarrassed to be told that, in a crowded local post office. She had never seen the book so, having been told that she should return it, she had some difficulty in doing so. She did not make eye contact with any customer whom she knew, and scuttled out. Then she tried in vain to get some sense out of someone in the Plymouth pensions office.

On 2 September, Mrs. Millington managed to get through to someone—a great achievement—who told her that no comment could be made on her mother's case because there were no copies of any correspondence relating to it on the files. That is an Alice in Wonderland situation. Everything then went quiet, and then Mrs. Lonsdale received a reassessment from the Pension Service on 9 September. It told her that it was a dreadful story and a terrible mistake, and that she should never have been offered a backdated payment of £162,497.94 each week from 14 July 1800. The figure was wrong: she should have received only £42,107.52 a week backdated to 21 October 1880. She was to lose 80 years' worth of minimum income guarantee. On my calculations, she was to lose some £120,000 per week for that period. Mrs. Lonsdale was philosophical about the matter. She concluded that she would still be better off and would, on her calculations, get a backdated payment not of £ 1.7 billion but of £275 million. She thought that that would do nicely before Christmas.

That was when I got involved. I was approached by Mrs. Millington, who did not know whether it was lunch, tea or dinner. I contacted the chief executive of the Pension Service—a Ms Alexis Cleveland—in the hope that I would make some headway. I fear that I did not. I also wrote to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. His office sent me an acknowledgment card. I told the Minister that one mistake was understandable but two was downright inexcusable.

I had heard nothing from the Pension Service two weeks later, so I approached the Minister again. On 3 October, some five weeks after my original inquiry to the chief executive, she responded herself. In her letter, she stated that

"it is clear that neither Mrs. Lonsdale and Mrs. Millington have received the standard of service they have a right to expect".

That was certainly true. I was concerned that nobody was offered any apologies, though that is perhaps not quite right—the chief executive offered apologies not to me but to Mrs. Lonsdale and her daughter, who were grateful. I was also concerned that the chief executive said that the Pension Service's computer system was

"designed to automatically issue letters"

and that local staff were

"unable to alter the information printed on them."

I do not know what local staff do. Perhaps they simply watch the computer.

The chief executive made one concession: she acknowledged that the letters issued to Mrs. Lonsdale were clearly nonsense—she picked that point up. However, the only reason that the letters were nonsense was the overpayment—quite a substantial overpayment. Mrs. Lonsdale was ordered to surrender her income support book because of that mistake, whereby she would have been offered so much money. However, here is the punchline: the chief executive went on to say that after further assessment of Mrs. Lonsdale's case she was entitled to—wait for it—3p a week. That is just over 10p a month.

A further two weeks passed. I again contacted the chief executive, advising that unless she put right the ridiculous state of affairs and considered an appropriate sum by way of compensation, I might apply for an Adjournment debate in Parliament. That was in October. Following my successful application for this debate, amazingly, an official from the Plymouth pensions office contacted Mrs. Millington to discuss possible compensation—quite rightly. She arranged to see that official yesterday, and the official took down extensive details concerning Mrs. Millington's mother's case, as if she knew nothing. The official said that she would have to file and complete a report. She said that whether compensation was paid for all the inconvenience and trouble was not a matter for her, but that it would take up to three months to take a decision, and that many people would have to be involved.

I do not know how many tens of thousands of pounds' worth of people's time the problem has already cost. I do not know how much time Mrs. Millington or I have spent on it. I do not know how much trouble it has caused for the elderly lady herself. I do not know how many officials have been involved. The Minister and Alexis Cleveland have been involved, and they cannot even sort out the compensation issue. There should have been a modest sum by way of compensation.

I had better return to the story, as I know that the Chamber is waiting to hear what happened next. Not only was the computer in Plymouth going wrong, but the chief executive's computer started to go wrong. I received a second letter from her, dated 21 October, which was identical to the letter that she wrote me on 3 October. Both letters were signed by her personally, but neither dealt with the problem. I was, however, relieved to receive another letter from Ms Cleveland on 24 October, telling me that the general conclusion was that there was a fault in the computer system—she is a bright lady—and that it was being investigated. It had taken two months to work out that there was a fault. Until the error was rectified, she said, staff were obliged to use the same computer-generated letter to correspond with Mrs. Lonsdale. A computer was churning out the wrong figures and could not be stopped; neither could letters from the chief executive to Members of Parliament. The chief executive admitted that she found it highly embarrassing to apologise to me again on this matter. I can quite understand her sentiments.

Out of the blue, I received another letter from Ms Cleveland, identical to the one of 24 October, and dated 29 October. This was followed by a telephone call to my office from an official of the Plymouth Pension Service, who apologised for the fact that the computer had sent out further identical letters, but said that the service was powerless to stop it happening. The Pension Service computers appear to be completely out of control, churning out thousands of letters and causing widespread confusion. Surely a simple solution would be to ensure that the computers are not linked to printers. If they are not, and there is no paper in the printers, they cannot do any damage. However, as long as they are linked up, the stuff will continue to be churned out.

I next received a letter from someone else, calling himself the performance director—things were beginning to sound a bit like a Kafka novel by now. He wrote on behalf of the chief executive on 19 November, apologising for sending me two identical letters, and explaining that steps were being taken to prevent its happening again.

Mrs. Millington's approaches to the Pension Service did not fare much better. She heard nothing from the Plymouth Pension Service following her letter of 24 August to the manager, Mr. Gilmartin, until the end of October—a two-month gap. When she received a letter, it was signed not by Mr. Gilmartin but by a Mrs. Theresa Cooke. Just think of the number of staff involved in the case. Mrs. Cooke was called the processing team manager. Thus we had a performance director, a processing team manager and the chief executive—everybody—involved in the case. Mrs. Lonsdale wondered whether she was merely a figment of the computer's imagination or whether she really existed, because with the letter came a cheque—for 45p.

Hon. Members may be interested to know that I learned, by means of a parliamentary question, that the cost of issuing that cheque was £1.47—£1.02 more than the value of the cheque. I can see that the Minister realises the absurdity of this situation. Perhaps hon. Members can imagine how confusing and distressing it was for Mrs. Lonsdale and her daughter. That is quite apart from the waste of public funds incurred in trying to resolve the matter, with so many letters flying backwards and forwards. At the centre of it all was an 82-year-old lady, whose daughter and Member of Parliament were beside themselves with anger and irritation at the debacle.

As if all that were not enough, the Pension Service performance director told me in his letter of 19 November that under current regulations—I knew that there must be some regulations somewhere to provide an excuse—the service was bound to pay Mrs. Lonsdale the amount to which she was entitled. I am advised that where the amount of income support is less than £1 a week the Secretary of State may decide the intervals of payment, but that those intervals cannot exceed 13 weeks. Thus, every 13 weeks Mrs. Lonsdale must receive a cheque for 45p, even though it costs the taxpayer £ 1.47 to produce it.

I do not understand why the regulation cannot be changed, so that such small sums are administered annually. What of the waste of taxpayers' money? Clearly, this case has got completely out of hand, and change is needed. As I understand matters, other benefits are paid annually. Why cannot the 45p be added to Mrs. Lonsdale's pension, so that she does not need a separate cheque?

The cost of the case will not quite run to the sum of £1.7 billion that was the original forecast for Mrs. Lonsdale's benefit, but certainly a lot of money is involved. Last night an official belted from Plymouth to Kingsbridge, which is a 50-mile round trip, to discuss compensation, only to tell us that it would take three months to sort the matter out. Marks and Spencer would have sorted it out immediately, paid a good will cheque and said that the firm was very sorry. Neither the elderly lady nor her daughter is after money, but they think that the management of any well-run organisation would want to put things right by means of a payment to compensate everyone for their trouble. Indeed, it would be nice if their MP got something, too, because the situation is absurd. What would be an appropriate figure? It would be one that compensated appropriately for the problem. We have an out-of-control computer system that churns out paper with rubbish on it, a chief executive of a public agency who cannot stop sending out the same letter, and an 82-year-old being offered £1.7 billion and £275 million from public funds, only to be sent a cheque for 45p.

This is not just a good Christmas story— although it will be, in one sense, if the Minister, as I hope she will, says that the service will see to it that Mrs. Lonsdale receives a cheque for whatever amount by way of compensation before Christmas—but a story with a serious underlying message. Bureaucracy under this Government is getting too big; it is out of control, unaccountable and just not working properly. Computers are making people's lives a misery. Far from improving our lifestyles, they are creating additional frustration and stress, as this example shows.

I am the MP in this maelstrom, but unlike the apprentice in Dukas's "The Sorcerer's Apprentice", I cannot get the magic to work. In that story, the apprentice gets hold of a book of spells and, as a result of the spell that he casts, the room becomes flooded with water. Just when he is about to drown, the magician turns up. He says the right spell, prevents any more water from pouring into the room and the brooms then pump the water out again. In this case, I cannot get the magic to work; to make the Government put things right, so that the Minister says, "Sorry, but mistakes do happen," and Mrs. Londsdale is paid the minimum income guarantee on her pension annually and receives at least £100 compensation in time for Christmas.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing the debate. I fully understand why he asked for it. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the points that he raised about the unfortunate experiences of Mrs. Lonsdale and Mrs. Millington in dealing with the Pension Service.

The Government are committed to providing a high-quality service for pensioners, although they clearly have not managed to do that in this case. I personally regret that the standard of service provided in this instance has been so consistently poor. The chief executive of the Pension Service, Alexis Cleveland, has already apologised, apparently more than once, although I was not aware of all the duplicate letters to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However, having considered the circumstances of the case in preparation for the debate, I wrote to Mrs. Millington to apologise to her myself, having seen the catalogue of errors that she has had to endure. It is not the hon. Gentleman's job to apologise on my behalf, so I shall not ask him to do so.

Mrs. Millington acts on her mother's behalf and, as the hon. Gentleman said, in March 2002, she made a claim for minimum income guarantee on behalf of Mrs. Lonsdale. In July, Mrs. Millington received a computer-generated letter about Mrs. Lonsdale's entitlement, which was clearly confusing and about as wrong as it could possibly be. It implied that she was entitled to £162,497.94 a week—some minimum income guarantee—and that she was entitled to it from approximately 200 years ago, which would make her a very old lady.

And a very rich one.

Indeed. The letter went on to say that Mrs. Lonsdale was not entitled to the minimum income guarantee from 28 February 1852. It is clearly a computer-generated letter, and clearly completely wrong. I do not know of any benefits that we backdate by 200 years.

Mrs. Millington also had to endure the embarrassment of having her mother's finances discussed publicly in the post office. I am particularly sorry for that. The problem is compounded by the fact that another nonsensical letter was then sent out. That was equally wrong, but not quite as generously so.

I should like to say something about why the letters were issued, because I can understand the frustration that they caused. In this case, they were obviously wrong, but mistakes in letters are not always that blatant and that can cause a problem. The information concerning Mrs. Lonsdale's affairs was correctly entered on to the computer system by the local Pension Service staff. However, something about the way in which the system processed the data resulted in the ridiculous letters. The data were clearly corrupted in an appalling manner during the processing of the claim.

It is normal for computer-generated correspondence to be issued from a computer centre rather than from a pensions centre. Pensions centre staff deal with telephone calls and with clients. They do not have to look after the computer as well, so the case was handled at two different places. The local staff could not have known about the matter and could have done nothing to check the contents or to prevent the letters from going out. The technical fault with the computer system has been referred to our IT specialists and is being investigated so that it can be rectified, Mrs. Millington does not receive any more ridiculous letters and she is kept correctly and fully informed about her mother's benefit entitlement.

This appears to have been an isolated fault—no other such incidents have been reported, although that does not help the hon. Gentleman or Mrs. Millington. We have not been able to identify why the data were corrupted so badly. The income support computer system has 3.5 million live claims on it, which is why we cannot site the computers in the offices of local staff and expect them to check all the letters. Badly corrupted cases such as this account for just 0.007 per cent. of those 3.5 million cases. I know that that is of little comfort to Mrs. Millington, who falls into that 0.007 per cent. category. Nevertheless, I hope that I can give some assurance that what has happened to her is not a regular occurrence. The hon. Gentleman said that computers were making our lives a misery. The rest of the 3.5 million people whose claims are dealt with properly and in a timely fashion week in, week out obviously feel that they benefit from the computer system. I can understand why Mrs. Millington and Mrs. Lonsdale at the moment do not.

I should like to say something about Mrs. Lonsdale's entitlement. It is typical that after this kind of appalling mistake, the correct calculation shows her entitlement to be 3p a week. That compounds the situation. Where the amount of income support payable is less than 10p per week minimum income guarantee, and there is entitlement to another benefit that may be paid with income support, such as retirement pension, it must be paid at an interval that cannot exceed 13 weeks. That is a statutory entitlement and, although the sum is very small, it is not for the Government to say that it is too little to pay. In many circumstances, not necessarily Mrs. Lonsdale's, entitlement to minimum income guarantee can act as a passport to many other, more valuable benefit entitlements, such as a carer's premium or a disability premium. They represent significant weekly sums. That does not apply to Mrs. Lonsdale, but she could, for example, be passported to free NHS dental treatment, if that were of help to her. There can be advantages beyond the small sum.

The hon. Gentleman made some understandable points about the cost of receiving girocheques when the amount payable is so small. Some provisions, known as the de minimis provisions, state that where the entitlement is less than 10p a week, payment is sent quarterly rather than issued in weekly payments, which cost, as the hon. Gentleman said, £1.47 per girocheque.

It is also possible to pay minimum income guarantee in the same book as retirement pension, which is the solution in such circumstances. The customer has to agree, of course, and I understand from the reports of the discussions yesterday between an official from the Department and Mrs. Millington that the idea was put to her. If Mrs. Lonsdale agrees, we can end the nonsense of a quarterly cheque for 45p and the sum can be added to the retirement pension book. That seems the sensible solution.

I am grateful for the understanding and sympathy with which the Minister is dealing with the matter, and I await the punchline on the compensation. Many people other than this good lady must have small pensions. Is it not a good opportunity to suggest to those whose benefit every quarter is 3p, or another figure less than the girocheque value, that it should be added to their pension? Perhaps the computer, in its sophistication, might be able to identify those paid modest sums every week and ask them whether they would like it paid annually or on their pension.

The hon. Gentleman is right. My understanding is that we make that suggestion to people who receive small sums when we can get the letters right and sent to the right place in a timely fashion. He must remember that people's circumstances change. I shall not go into all the details in the Chamber, but I will write to him—

Just once.

Yes, just one letter. I do not intend to plague the hon. Gentleman too much.

It seems that the visit yesterday has indicated a change in the mother's circumstances that may lead to an increase in her entitlement to minimum income guarantee, which I am relieved about. It would be sensible to combine both payments in the book, whatever the sums, so long as they continue to be small. That may be a way out of the girocheque conundrum.

The hon. Gentleman raised the subject of compensation. There has been a request for compensation, and I understand why. Because we are dealing with public money, and because it is not for Ministers to make decisions about compensation, I cannot give him the Christmas present that he wants for his constituent this afternoon. However, the arrangements through which officials administer the payment of compensation in ex gratia sums for such appalling levels of service will be gone through as quickly as I can ensure that they are gone through. So far as I can ensure, the request that has been made will be dealt with in a timely fashion and properly under the rules that apply. I do not make the decisions but, having considered the circumstances, I think that there may be a case for an ex gratia payment.

I understand that the Minister is choosing her words carefully. I cannot imagine a case that cries out more clearly for compensation, but that is not the interest of my constituents or me. We want Departments that get something wrong, for whatever reason, to do more than simply write letters of apology. Ministers can be fired, and there can be debates criticising the Government on the Floor of the House, but my constituent is an individual. The rights of the individual need to be protected.

When big bureaucracies get something wrong, the system should not take three months. Like any good private company, it should offer compensation to correct services that are not correct. That is what worries me about the case. There should not simply be a committee of officials, all paid quite a lot of money, to consider the matter. The Minister should say, "Please deal with this quickly and suitably." I hope that she might be able to do that.

I certainly have no problem giving the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that I shall ask my officials to deal with the matter quickly and suitably.

I understand that Mrs. Millington had difficulty when trying to contact the Plymouth pensions centre by telephone to resolve the matter, as she was unable to get through. The telephone service at the centre is set up to provide a recorded message suggesting, if there is a delay in being answered, that the caller should ring back later. The aim is to prevent long queues of people waiting to be answered, who will all be losing money. Many pensioners have little spare cash; indeed, they are often on fixed incomes. They do not have money to waste on waiting to be put through. The intention is not to prevent callers from getting through; it is to prevent them having to hang on in the hope that they might be put through.

The Pension Service is developing as a customer-focused organisation. It is working to improve its service, which is tailored to the needs of pensioners. In order to achieve that, however, it needs to ensure that the highest standards of service are maintained. Mrs. Millington did not receive anything approaching a high standard of service when she tried to contact the service on the telephone. Again, I regret that and apologise for it.

Many pensioners deal with the service by telephone. For example, more than two thirds of retirement pension claims are now made on the retirement pension teleclaims line. When we can get it to work properly— in this instance, it did not—it provides a good service to pensioners. It is convenient and it means that they do not have to go to buildings in the town centre or some considerable distance away.

We are committed to making it easy to contact the service and to make claims. To ensure that, we are developing 26 modern centres, using the most up-to-date equipment, to deal with queries accurately and efficiently. We are setting those up. It is vital that we provide good-quality service. Once those centres are all operational, we shall make sure, as far as we possibly can, that Mrs. Millington's experience is not repeated in a widespread way. Her inability to get through is a matter of regret. Problems often come in not in ones and twos on social security cases but in great clumps. Unfortunately, that is what happened in this case.

There may not be another opportunity, because the Minister will be finishing her speech in a moment, so I want to thank her for the measured approach that she has taken in this debate, and for her remarks and her admissions. I am grateful to her for indicating that she will suggest to the Pension Service that it deals with the matter efficiently, effectively and suitably.

The hon. Gentleman has correctly spotted that I am coming to the end of my remarks; one can apologise only so many times in a Westminster Hall debate. I am pleased to be able to say that mistakes of that kind are rare. However, we appreciate that they do occur, sometimes in ways that can cause distress and upset. I am as aware of that as the hon. Gentleman, having spoken directly to his constituent. I reiterate my apology to Mrs. Millington and Mrs. Lonsdale for the less than acceptable service that they received.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that MPs should be given something for having to deal with such issues. I therefore wish him a very happy Christmas.

In August 1964, the Wilson Labour Government established the state-funded criminal injuries compensation scheme. The scheme is now well established. It is an acknowledgement that society has a responsibility for, and sense of solidarity with, the blameless victims of criminal violence. We in this country can be justifiably proud of our system of compensating such people.

One indication of the generosity of the scheme is the amount of compensation paid. This week, the Institute of Actuaries published a report showing that compensation paid in 2002 under the UK scheme was some €341 million. That compared with criminal injuries compensation of €107 million in Germany, and €148 million in France. The amounts payable in those other comparable jurisdictions are smaller. In Spain, they are much smaller. The disparity in Europe means that it is not surprising that the European Commission Green Paper on the subject does not suggest a harmonised system. Although exact cross-border comparisons are sometimes difficult to make, the figures speak for themselves. We have a generous scheme.

Since 1964, the scheme has been changed on a number of occasions. The most important change made by the previous Conservative Government was the introduction of the tariff scheme. Early last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—then Home Secretary—introduced important revisions, primarily an increase in award levels, which are especially significant for those with serious multiple injuries. I congratulate the Government on that uprating.

I acknowledge the value of the scheme. I also pay tribute to the hard work of those associated with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and the criminal injuries compensation appeals panel. However, I should like to raise a number of concerns about the operation of the scheme. The concerns were sparked off when one of my constituents, Rod Adams, a former justice of the peace, told me about Mrs. Ramesh Kalia, who runs the Dudley Road post office in Tipton, which is just outside my constituency. The post office was robbed in June 2001, and Mrs. Kalia was seriously injured. She tried to make a claim under the criminal injuries compensation scheme. Early in 2002, she was told that her claim had been rejected because she did not give all the assistance necessary, in that she did not respond to requests for further information.

I was taken aback, to say the least. Mrs. Kalia had been seriously injured and had had no assistance in making her claim. To say that she did not "co-operate" in the ordinary use of the word is a travesty. Subsequently, Mrs. Kalia was told by Sandwell Victim Support that in its experience it would take some nine months for a review of the initial refusal and up to two years for an appeal to be heard. As Mrs. Kalia is not my constituent, I could not take up her case, but I tabled some questions to the Home Secretary, asking him to specify the delays faced by claimants such as Mrs. Kalia in seeking compensation for injuries caused by criminals.

My hon. Friend the Minister answered those questions in volume 389, columns 1505W to 1506W, of Hansard. In one answer, he set out the average number of days taken for claims assessment, claims review and claims appeal. Those time periods do not make comfortable reading, especially as they are getting worse. While Mrs. Kalia's claim was being considered, one of my close friends, Guy Dehn, the director of the whistleblowing charity, Public Concern at Work, was viciously attacked by thugs near Angel in north London late last year when cycling home. He lodged a claim in June giving details of the attack. He also set out the dental treatment that he underwent. He is still awaiting a decision.

In order to go beyond those two cases of which I have personal knowledge, I asked three leading law firms to give me details of their experiences of representing claimants under the scheme. Alexander Harris is a well-known law firm specialising in health matters, with branches in the west midlands, London and the north-west. Leigh, Day & Co. is London based, but has built up an enviable reputation for international as well as domestic personal injury work. Clifford Chance is the biggest law firm in the world. As part of its pro bono activity, it funds a unit that assists those making claims for criminal injuries compensation, especially at the appellant level. I am enormously grateful for the help of lawyers from those firms in providing me with information.

What is those firms' collective experience of the scheme? First, there are the delays. Sometimes, they have quite simple causes, such as not responding to correspondence within a reasonable period. One of my informants said that a reasonable period was eight weeks, but the guide to the scheme contains in paragraph 10 a promise to turn correspondence around within two weeks. Then there are delays in processing claims. A typical case from one of the lawyers relates to a claim that was registered in August 2001, and on which there has been no decision on entitlement. That is an extreme case. Another lawyer, however, e-mailed me this:

"I have two related criminal injury compensation claims (mother and son) that were running parallel to a clin neg"—

criminal negligence—

"case from 1998 (when we were instructed), following the death of the husband/father … The clinical negligence claim settled in June 2001 for £200k … However, we are still waiting for a response from the CICA"—

the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority—

"with the outcome of the two CICA claims. I write periodically (every 2–3 months or so) prodding them and giving them further information they request but little substantive is ever seemingly done. Initial applications were made about February 1999, nearly four years ago. The whole process has been painfully labour intensive and slow, such that the client has virtually given up on it!"

Balanced against that, it is fair to report that lawyers' experience with the appeals panel is better. I am told that its operation has been speeding up and is becoming more efficient. The lawyers who wrote to me about it were especially impressed with the recent operation of the presenting officers.

Thus, my first point is to press the Minister on the delay on the part of the authority.

Secondly, I would like to raise the issue of the obstacles that face victims when making a claim. The authority's latest annual report shows that 6,000 claims were disallowed in 2000 and 2001 because the applicant failed to co-operate with the police in bringing an assailant to justice. Mrs. Kalia was one of those people and it can hardly be said that she did not co-operate, in the ordinary, everyday sense of that word. One of my informants raised his concern at the way in which that prerequisite was being used to filter out claims. I quote his rather graphic language:

"If you are knocked unconscious from behind and never saw the attacker, the police will visit you in the hospital and ask you if you want to prosecute. You then say, 'I didn't see anyone.' They close their note book and that is the end of your claim … what you are meant to do is to insist that they investigate … in this context they also expect you to go to the police before the hospital, as doing it the other way round is considered a delay and therefore a failure to cooperate."

I am not exactly sure about the last sentence, but I think that that makes the point.

In terms of the obstacles to making a claim, there is also the vexed issue of legal assistance in formulating and advancing a claim. On the scheme's operation, one commentator has told me that it is intolerable that free legal advice and assistance are offered to the violent criminal—the perpetrator of the injury—while the victim must pay for any legal representation from their compensation award, use other private means, or rely on their trade union.

The law firm Alexander Harris told me that solicitors are in a difficult position,

"because … cases have to be funded"

on

"a contingency fee basis … or … on an hourly rate, whichever is the less".

That firm has found that that

"is a real problem on small and moderate value claims",

since it would be entirely inappropriate to take part of a claimant's payment in such cases. Alexander Harris adds that the authority seems inconsistent on whether it will pay disbursements. He says:

"Their approach seems to be that they would entertain the idea if it used the reports in their assessment",

but otherwise it will not. The firm says that that makes it difficult to give clients appropriate advice.

Thirdly, I raise the issue of awards. Personally, I would not advocate an increase in the level of awards at present, although I understand the criticism that despite the 2001 uprating, awards are falling behind in terms of general damages and personal injuries. Nor would I want to argue, at this stage, for an extension of the scheme beyond the victims of violent crime, or those who are injured trying to apprehend criminals or preventing a crime. At present, I would prefer any additional money to be directed to reducing delays and refining the "co-operation" requirement for claims.

One aspect of awards deserves early attention. As one of my lawyers stated, victims are

"unable to claim loss of earnings and other special damages for the first 28 weeks"

after their accident. The lawyer added that that

"is very difficult for the Claimants to accept—this is yet another kick in the teeth for someone who has already been a victim."

Over the past five years, the Government have done much to improve the criminal justice system. Crime is falling, which is a good thing from the point of view of victims. As my friend Guy Dehn wrote in a letter to me:

"I—and I suspect all victims—would far rather forgo the compensation and not be beaten up in the first place. This should not be forgotten. Personally I will gladly give my compensation award to the police if I thought it might increase the chance the guys were caught."

In particular, the Government have done much to move the victims towards the centre of the stage in the criminal justice process. That has been long overdue, and I congratulate the Government on doing it. However, I have identified significant concerns about the criminal injuries compensation scheme. They are not to do with the authority or its staff. My informants said that its staff are generally sympathetic and often very helpful.

I suspect that these concerns are symptoms of a more fundamental cause—that not enough money is being allocated within the Home Office to the scheme. That results in victims being dissuaded from applying through the formal filters; that is also because of a lack of assistance in their claiming. Claims are refused that are then readily overturned on review or appeal, which again suggests a further filtering at the claims assessment level. On a cost-benefit analysis, it would probably be much better to pay up genuine claims in the first place. I have addressed other delays.

We must do better for these people, most of whom, in the words of the authority's latest annual report, have

"suffered a traumatic and violent episode in their lives, some a devastating personal tragedy from which they may never fully recover."

I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) on securing this Adjournment debate. It raises the crucial issue of the criminal injuries compensation scheme, in which he has taken a particular interest. It is a very important scheme for the tens of thousands of victims of violent crime who apply each year for compensation.

I am sorry to hear of the experiences of Mrs. Kalia, to whom my hon. and learned Friend referred, although she is not one of his constituents, and Guy Dehn, whom I know. I was not aware that that had happened to him, and I would be grateful if my hon. and learned Friend passed on my very best wishes to him.

I echo what my hon. and learned Friend said about the nature of the compensation scheme. It is right to describe it as the most generous state compensation scheme of its kind in the world. It receives more applications and pays out more money than all the other countries of the European Union added together. That is a striking statistic.

I think that I am right in saying that it was established in August 1964, which means that credit for the Act that introduced it goes to a Conservative Government; the general election that led to the forming of the Wilson Administration did not take place until October. However, that Administration implemented the new arrangements. Since 1964, the scheme has handled nearly 1.5 million applications; it has made getting on for 900,000 compensation awards that total nearly £3 billion. In the past three years alone it has paid out over £200 million each year, and over 120,000 victims of violent crime have received compensation. However, as my hon. and learned Friend stated, that is no reason for complacency, because people who are injured today are less interested in what happened to victims in the past than in how well they and future victims will be treated.

My hon. and learned Friend referred to the history of the scheme. When it was established in 1964, it was non-statutory, and compensation was assessed by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board on the basis of common law damages. Following a legal challenge in the mid-1990s, major changes to the scheme were made in 1996, when it was put on a statutory footing. The most significant change was that the new scheme broke the link with common law damages and moved away from payment based on individual assessment by lawyers to provide for payment made on the basis of a tariff or scale of awards that groups together injuries of comparable severity and allocates a financial value to them.In the most serious cases, extra compensation can be paid for loss of earnings and the cost of care, subject to a maximum pay-out of £500,000 in an individual case.

The Government of the day gave two main reasons for changing the system, the first of which was that they wanted to do something about the rising costs of the scheme and the issue of sustainability. Secondly, they wanted to provide a better service to claimants, a point to which my hon. and learned Friend paid particular attention. The new scheme was easier to administer and simpler for victims to understand. Following a public consultation exercise during 1999 and 2000, the current Government made several significant improvements to the scheme, to which my hon. and learned Friend referred.

It may be helpful if I briefly draw attention to the important differences between the old and the new scheme, because they are relevant to the particular delay raised by my hon. and learned Friend. Under the old scheme, claims were assessed individually by members of the board who were all senior lawyers, and applicants who were dissatisfied with the initial decision of the board could appeal. Their appeal would be considered at an oral hearing before other board members who had not been involved in the original decision. That sometimes led to the accusation that the board was both judge and jury.

When the tariff scheme was introduced in 1996, it was decided that it should be administered by a new non-departmental public body, the new authority, and claims are now determined by claims officers who are civil servants on secondment from the Home Office and the Scottish Executive; it is a joint scheme. The tariff scheme, approved by Parliament, sets out several criteria that must be satisfied before the award of public money can be justified. That means, in practice, that the authority must make inquiries of the police, asking, for example, whether the victim was the blameless victim of a reported crime of violence, and of the appropriate medical authorities to establish the extent of any injury and whether it was caused during the incident for which compensation was being claimed.

In more complex cases, inquiries may need to be made of employers to verify loss of earnings, for example, of social services to see what benefits may have been claimed and local authorities to see what care facilities they may be providing. All such agencies and authorities have other work to do and, despite reminders from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, the process of dialogue, gathering of information and chasing it up means that the information is not always supplied as quickly as the authority would wish when assessing claims on behalf of people who have approached it.

Under the tariff scheme, there is a two-stage appeals process. It may be helpful if I say, in relation to the case of Mrs. Kalia, that if a claim is not entertained, the individual has the right of review and then appeal. There is a mechanism for determining whether the initial decision of the authority not to entertain a claim for compensation was right. If an applicant were dissatisfied with the initial decision—the first decision—he or she can request a formal review. That is undertaken by a more senior claims officer, and if claimants are dissatisfied with the formal review, they can appeal to a new independent appellant body, the criminal injuries compensation appeals panel.

I was not directly involved in the case, but I gained the impression that, because of the adverse effects of the injury, Mrs. Kalia was dissuaded from pursuing the case further. Having been knocked back and still suffering as a result of the injury, she did not want to pursue it.

If that is the case, I am very sorry. I simply wanted to say on the record for the purposes of the debate that that is not the end of the matter and that individuals are free to use the review and then the appeals mechanism.

I shall touch on the factors that have created some of the delays to which my hon. and learned Friend referred. First, when the tariff scheme was introduced in 1996, 110,000 cases were outstanding under the old scheme. Those all had to be cleared under the old rules, so the authority has been running two systems in parallel: the old scheme, to try to clear the backlog, and the new scheme.

By March 2000, the rump of old scheme cases had been reduced to fewer than 10,000, at which point the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board was formally wound up. By definition, as the number of old cases decreases, one is left with the most difficult and complex cases at the bottom of the pile. By definition, those cases have not been able to be resolved previously because of their complexity, and they absorb considerable staff effort and resources that would otherwise be applied to operating the tariff scheme. None the less, over the past couple of years, the authority has been working very hard on that group of 10,000, and today only about 800 are still outstanding. The authority is doing its best to try to resolve those cases.

Other factors have added to problems with swifter administration. One was the judicial review in the Leatherland case, which required the authority to bring forward the arrangements that it had already decided to put in hand in due course to give fuller reasons for its decisions at both the first decision and review stages. The authority decided to do that when the IT systems were upgraded to make it easier. However, because of the judgment, it had to implement the decision earlier. That meant that individually tailored letters had to be produced, which took more time.

It is also fair to say that, as a result of the new data protection requirements of the past couple of years, difficulties have arisen in gathering all the required information from the police, the health service and others. Some people have not been entirely sure that they are permitted to release the information under the new data protection arrangements, so the authority has had to persuade them that that is perfectly in order. The authority is working closely with the information commissioner and the police, through the Association of Chief Police Officers, to minimise delays.

I can also tell my hon. and learned Friend about many positive things. In 2001–02, the authority finalised almost 77,000 cases, which was 5 per cent. more than in the preceding year. The backlog at review stage has been reduced, from a peak of 36 weeks—that being the time taken to assign a new review application to a case-worker—to 11 weeks at the end of March this year, and to the current waiting time of just four weeks. That represents real progress.

The number of outstanding tariff scheme appeals has been reduced from a peak of almost 8,000 in 2000 to just over 5,000 currently. That is despite new appeals arriving at an unusually high rate this year due to the successful efforts to clear the review backlog.

I understand that, as a result of the improvements that the authority has made in explaining its decisions, the proportion of applicants who accept decisions under the tariff scheme has risen markedly. Two years ago, some 25 per cent. of applicants asked formally for the assessment of their claim to be reviewed; now, the figure is 21 per cent. That suggests that the authority is doing a pretty good job of getting it right. Giving better and fuller explanations, which the authority was keen to do, has helped in that process.

In a customer survey conducted by the authority last year, 72 per cent. of respondents were satisfied or more than satisfied with how their decisions were explained— as a result of the new arrangements—compared with 60 per cent. in a similar survey conducted two years earlier.

That shows that providing fuller explanations for decisions adds slightly to the time taken to complete a case, but that there are clear benefits in those circumstances. The authority has also introduced a free telephone helpline to advise potential claimants on the rules of the scheme, and simple leaflets. Next month, it will provide a new improved guide to the scheme's provisions and procedures. All those publications have been entered for, and received, a Plain English Campaign crystal mark award for clarity. The authority is also looking to upgrade its website.

Another point relates to the latest data from the authority on the average time taken to settle cases, in which it compares the first eight months of this year with the first eight months of last year. The average time taken for the claims assessment, which is the first decision, was 306 days last year, and 305 days this year—a very marginal improvement. The review stage took 277 days last year, compared with 269 days this year—also a slight improvement. At the appeal stage, there has been movement in the other direction from 407 days last year up to 446 days this year. However, that reflects the fact that more cases are being put into the review system, which is the product of work done earlier. We very much hope that that will be a temporary glitch, and that once that bundle of pent-up appeals is dealt with, the delays will be reduced. It is worth pointing out that, overall, outstanding cases are down from 109,000 in 1995–96 to 95,000 this year.

I wanted to make a final point about the compensation awards. It might be helpful to point out that the average award was £3,177 in current prices in 1981–82, and in the current year, the average award has been £5,459. The award is therefore increasing in real terms. I cannot comment on how that compares with other compensation claims elsewhere.

I repeat that I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for having raised this important matter. The authority and its staff are working hard, and I am sure that they will appreciate the thanks that he asked to be conveyed to them for their efforts. We need to do more to deal with the problems of delay that he raised, and we will continue to do all we can to provide as good a service to claimants as possible now and in future.