I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate a debate on an area of the world that rarely receives much media or political attention in the west, but that in recent years has been the scene of one of the most bloody and terrifying conflicts in world history, with huge loss of life and horrendous human suffering. The complexity of the conflict and the numerous players within it have led to its being called Africa's version of the first world war, but there has been little perception in the west of the sheer scale of the human misery that the conflict has caused. I am talking about an estimated 3.5 million deaths, some 3.4 million displaced persons and the almost complete destruction of an already weak state infrastructure and economy. The effects have been particularly severe on women and children. Sexual violence is endemic, and armed groups continue to recruit children as soldiers, porters and cooks.

The history of the Democratic Republic of the Congo since independence in 1960 has been marked by continual civil war and corruption. The regime of the late President Mobutu between 1965 and his overthrow in 1997 saw institutionalised corruption to such a level that it has been called the world's first kleptocracy. Despite the country's enormous mineral wealth, the infrastructure crumbled and the state lost any form of authority over most of the country. Only the steadfast support of the west during the cold war kept Mobutu in power but, following the end of the cold war, the United States lost interest, leaving the regime increasingly vulnerable.

In 1996, a rebellion broke out in the Kivus in the eastern DRC, led by Laurent Kabila and backed by the Rwandan and Ugandan armies. All those parties wanted to overthrow the Mobutu regime and neutralise the threat of the various foreign militias operating in the eastern DRC, which threatened conflict in the wider great lakes region. Although the rebellion was successful, problems of regional security continued. Relationships between the Kabila regime and its former allies of Rwanda and Uganda quickly deteriorated as the latter accused the Kabila Government of failing to deal with the militias and even of arming them.

In August 1998, a new conflict broke out, with the Rwandan and Ugandan Governments providing support to the Rassemblement Congolais pour la Democratie. Loosely attached to the RCD was the Mouvement pour la Liberation du Congo based in the province of Equateur. In response, the Kabila Government, claiming that their sovereignty was threatened, called on the support of fellow south African Governments. That led to troops being sent from the Governments of Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia and Chad, with Burundi joining to support Rwanda and Uganda.

After an attempt at a peace agreement in Lusaka in 1999, the front lines became relatively static, with the RCD and Rwanda controlling the east, the MLC and Uganda the north, and the Government and their allies the south and west. However, fierce fighting continued, with clashes breaking out between former allies Rwanda and Uganda, as well as fighting among the various militia groups.

In January 2001, Laurent Kabila was assassinated, bringing his son Joseph to power. That change in leadership led to much greater progress on a peace process and eventually to the inter-Congolese dialogue in March and April 2002. From then on, we have witnessed the first steps, we hope, to a genuine movement for peace in the great lakes region, with the official withdrawal of Ugandan and Rwandan troops from the DRC in the past 12 months.

This summer saw the inauguration of a two-year transitional national Government, who include members of the existing DRC Government and of the RCD-Goma and the MLC. The challenges faced by the transitional Government are immense, and the next year will be crucial in establishing a permanent peace in the area.

In that context, the full-scale involvement of the international community, and particularly the UK Government, is vital if the efforts for peace are to succeed. The transitional Government strongly believe that the UK can play a key role in the months to follow and in October they extended an invitation to the all-party group on the great lakes region and genocide prevention, of which I am vice-chair, to visit Kinshasa and meet Ministers and parliamentarians. Unfortunately, I was unable to join the delegation, but I am pleased to see that several of the delegates are present today; no doubt they can add their own comments on that important visit. Later today, the all-party group will publish its report on the visit. I hope to touch on a number of important issues that it considered to be priorities for future UK policy.

In the words of a recent report from Amnesty International, all sides need

"to bridge the reality gap between their aspirations for reconciliation, justice and security and the devastating cycle of violence and human rights abuses, which continue to affect the east and threaten to bring these aspirations to nought"

The UK needs to intensify its political support for, and encouragement of, the transition. That is why I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's visit to the DRC just last week, and his commitment to providing substantial additional support over the next three years. I am sure that he would agree that it is more important than ever that we remain focused on the DRC until the proposed elections in 2005.

It is essential that the eventual elections at the end of the two-year transition be free, fair and well managed if they are to provide the necessary launch for a permanent Government. That is why I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that we offer financial and material support for the preparation of the elections through the UN and the other international agencies, and that we offer support, training and expertise to the new Congolese parliamentarians. Also, I hope that he will consider sponsoring a visit by Congolese parliamentarians to the UK as part of that. Having met one of the new senators a few days ago, I know that they would really appreciate the opportunity to engage with the international community.

I also welcome the Department for International Development's proposed engagement in supporting the transitional Government in their economic governance and, in particular, in enabling the DRC to clear its deficit with the African Development Bank. Can my right hon. Friend advise me on how soon our Government expect the transitional Government to benefit from relief under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative? Has the country reached the decision point in that process? As he will know, most of the debt was accrued, and most of the money squandered, under the Mobutu regime. The HIPC relief could eventually wipe out more than 80 per cent. of the debt, giving an added boost to basic health and education provision, which is crucial for the development of the country.

Even after debt relief, the DRC, by current forecasts, will need almost 40 per cent. of its revenue to service the remaining debt. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the very sad history of the country, there is a compelling argument for providing additional debt relief to allow it to work towards the millennium development goals? Also, can DFID support the customs agency, a vital element in tax collection for the nation, either directly or via a third-party agency?

The fragility of the peace cannot be ignored. The strengthening of the MONUC mission, with UN Security Council resolution 1493 covering all actions under chapter VII, is very welcome. After the massacre of civilians in Bunia in May, the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, acted decisively in setting up an interim emergency multinational force and extending the MONUC mandate in July. Thankfully, for once the international community acted quickly in response to the appalling atrocities in that region.

The UN troops, led by the French, are to be congratulated on their efforts, which almost certainly prevented further massacres and human rights abuses. Among their biggest assets was their ability to speak French. That allowed them to communicate easily with the population and, just as importantly, to gather vital intelligence. I hope that the international community will learn the lessons from that exercise, particularly about the need for UN troops to be able to communicate directly with local populations whenever possible, and to be sufficiently powerful to effectively stop or slow the rate of violence in areas of conflict.

However, continued low-level conflict jeopardises the political process, with killings continuing in the Ituri district and the Kivu provinces. Amnesty International reported that, during its visit in October, 65 people were killed in a village near Bunia. The overwhelming majority of them were women and children. All the survivors that the organisation met bore horrendous injuries. Amnesty International also reported that the number of MONUC troops in the Kivus is so small as to make implementation of their mandate almost meaningless. It is worth noting that in Liberia, which is one twentieth the size of the DRC, and which has a population almost seventeen times smaller, the UN mission has 6,000 more troops than MONUC has in the DRC. If the monitoring of rebel groups, as well as the policing of the arms embargo and the support of the enormous disarmament process are to be effective, it is essential that MONUC has the capacity that the task demands.

:My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. I declare an interest, as I was part of the delegation that included my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) and my hon. Friends the Members for City of York (Hugh Bayley) and for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King).

I totally concur with what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) says about a lack of power. We were surprised at the limited number of British Army personnel that we saw in the DRC. I know that quality is important, and the people whom we met are of the highest standard, but their numbers are small. I hope that she agrees that if we are serious about keeping the peace in the DRC we should, through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, talk to the Ministry of Defence about its obligations.

I entirely agree. Given the expertise of the UK defence forces, which has been drawn from conflict situations across the world over many years, they have a special contribution to make. I would welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that the Government remain willing to finance any necessary extension of funding to MONUC to allow it adequately to fulfil its mandate, and to consider with the MOD whether the UK armed forces can contribute to that very important task.

I also welcome DFID's support for the disarmament and demobilisation scheme and its commitment to spend £16.5 million on the programme over the next five years. My right hon. Friend will be aware that there are currently estimated to be about 200,000 armed men at large in the DRC. Some are from non-Congolese forces and will require repatriation to their country of origin. The disarming and resettling of 2,500 troops to date is a positive sign, but it is estimated that there are still up to 20,000 fighters from Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi in the jungles of the eastern DRC. The challenge of bringing them into the process is enormous.

If, initially, the remaining Congolese militias were to be enrolled in the armed forces of the transitional Government, the cost of paying, feeding and housing them would be huge and it would overwhelm the Government. Downsizing to the 40,000-strong army considered proportionate for such a country would then have to follow as a matter of urgency. As I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree, in such circumstances it is particularly vital that the remaining troops who are offered a long-term military career are given a proper disarmament incentive, returned to their own province, fed and given a realistic opportunity of paid employment.

The all-party group has recommended a work-for-food programme, and I ask my right hon. Friend what discussions, if any, have taken place within the international community about how to provide the necessary financial and logistical support for such a process. Would the UK Government be prepared to sponsor an independent work-for-food programme to spur others in the international community to contribute? If there is no offer of paid work for those men, we will inevitably see a return to banditry, rebel activity or lawlessness. It should be remembered that unpaid soldiers carried out widespread looting in the last years of Mobutu's regime. We must not repeat past failures that have caused so much misery.

Many child soldiers have also been recruited into the militias, mostly by force. A UN report in February estimated that in some cases up to 35 per cent. of frontline soldiers are children. I should be interested to hear whether DFID is able to offer any specialised assistance to rehabilitate those young people, many of whom have witnessed dreadful horrors during the years of conflict.

Earlier, I mentioned the involvement of Rwanda and Uganda and, to a lesser extent, Burundi in supporting rival militias in the eastern DRC. Substantial evidence exists to prove that foreign forces, together with groups in the DRC, have engaged in the systematic plunder of the country's natural resources and that the plunder was organised at the highest levels of state and military command.

Despite the formal withdrawal of troops from the DRC, there are numerous reports that Rwanda and Uganda continue to support, train and arm various militia and rebel groups still active in the DRC. Rwanda is also reported to be extremely close to the governors of North and South Kivu, both of whom are accused of building up substantial private armies.

In its last report published on 30 October, the UN panel of experts established that revenues from diamonds and gold, in addition to money raised at customs border posts, have enabled military and political actors to fund their military activities, including the purchase of arms. Amnesty International found that the warring factions committed serious human rights abuses, including unlawful killings, forced population displacement and torture, in order to control and profit from the DRC's natural resources. Congolese citizens, including children, have been forced to work in the mines as slave labour. International commercial traders, transporters and retailers, knowingly or unknowingly, have fed that cycle of abuse for their own profit and benefited from the lack of transparency in international business dealings in precious metals. The flow of arms, the exploitation and the continuation of conflict are inextricably linked. Breaking that vicious cycle will be the key to ending both the conflict and the illegal exploitation.

Given the existing partnership agreements and the level of aid flows to those countries from DFID, the UK Government are in a unique position of influence with regard to the involvement of both Rwanda and Uganda. As the Secretary of State will be aware, both countries have undertaken in their memorandum agreements to respect human rights and the sovereignty of the DRC. I urge the Government to use all their influence to stop those states from re-engaging in the DRC, either directly or indirectly through proxies, and to insist that they abide by the terms of UN Security Council resolution 1493, which imposed a military embargo on the areas. Will the Minister assure the House that the UK Government will enforce aid conditionality linked to human rights obligations?

The report of the UN panel of experts identified at least eight British companies that may have breached Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines for multinational enterprises, and a number of dossiers have been forwarded to the Department of Trade and Industry to be followed up. I welcome the recent comments from the DTI as reported in The Independent on Sunday on 30 November. The report stated that the DTI has been in contact with those companies and is pressing them for information. It is vital that we set a strong example at home, and I urge the Government to issue at the earliest opportunity a comprehensive official reaction to the conclusions of the report and to ensure that appropriate action is taken to prevent future abuses.

Finally, I again emphasise the scale of the humanitarian crisis. It is essential that the Congolese population, who have suffered so much, see some quick gains if there is to be any hope of stability in the next couple of years. In last month's report on the DRC to the UN Security Council, Kofi Annan stated:

"Despite the strenuous efforts of the international community, the humanitarian situation is catastrophic. Much more work-and substantial funding-is required to ensure the implementation of the Transitional Government's road map for economic and social reunification and reconstruction".

For too long the international community has failed to provide the resources, and the political will and attention, to achieve tangible peace in this troubled area. For now, we have an opportunity to redress that deficit and I strongly urge our Government to continue and add to their efforts to secure progress for the Congolese people, who deserve our support, and who also deserve peace and justice.

On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) requested that the Government make a response to the UN panel report. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), has today tabled a written statement to the House, which I understand has been available in the Library since 9.30 am. I have some copies with me. Would it be in order to circulate them to Members in the Chamber, if that would assist our debate?

There are means within the Chamber of distributing the documents without interrupting the debate.

:Although I shall be brief, I trust that I will be allowed a little injury time for that important intervention.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) on obtaining the debate, on her excellent introductory speech and on allowing some of us time to make a contribution. She has done marvellous work in this field. I know that she would want to join me in thanking and congratulating our hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), who is unfortunately unable to be with us today, on the work that she has done on the all-party group and on leading the important delegation in which my hon. Friends the Members for City of York (Hugh Bayley) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) took part. I am sure that they would agree that we were greatly assisted by the one-person secretariat, in the shape of Mr. Ben Shepherd. We all wish him well in his new responsibilities.

This is an important subject, and it is being raised at a significant time. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill that the regional problems that she described require regional solutions. Although it is right to analyse the problems and challenges in individual countries, it seems pointless simply to address what is happening in Uganda, Burundi or Rwanda, although I shall refer briefly to Uganda and Rwanda.

That point is underlined by the strong feeling that there is both a great challenge and tremendous potential in the region, which, if there is an international strategy, can offer hope for peace for the rest of the world. Britain is in a strong position to act because of DFID's excellent contribution. As a result of the resources that we are making available to individual countries in the region, as well as for other reasons, we are entitled to look afresh at the region's problems and challenges as the year ends, and at the opportunities for reaching a satisfactory conclusion.

I want to refer briefly to two countries that are pivotal in achieving that solution. We are looking forward to hearing from the Secretary of State about these matters, given his recent visit to the region. I was greatly troubled by comments reported in Ugandan and Kenyan newspapers on 14 November that were attributed to the United Nations official responsible for humanitarian aspects. I am sure that the comments were well informed and that the language was carefully chosen. We read that the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Jan Egeland, said after visiting northern Uganda that the humanitarian situation was worse in the region than anywhere else in the world, including Iraq or Palestine. That is a profound view, and if it has an influence in the region, it is well worth considering now. We are entitled to ask what the UN's response is to the advice that it is undoubtedly receiving.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill said, we are at an historic moment of opportunity for the great lakes region. There is a transitional national Government in the region, and security appears to be slowly returning in the east. The largest Burundian rebel group has signed a peace deal and joined the Government. Rwanda held elections this summer, for the first time since the genocide. It has come an enormously long way since the terrible genocide in 1994—a point to which I shall return. Given that that situation has been reached, we should be proud of the support given by the United Kingdom.

Three issues relevant to Rwanda deserve to be mentioned. Manifestly, the international community failed Rwanda in 1994, allowing 800,000 people to be killed in three months. As a permanent member of the Security Council, the United Kingdom must bear a burden of responsibility for that failure. Not only did the Government of the day fail Rwanda, but Parliament failed in its duty to hold the Government to account. It was not until six weeks after the genocide started that a debate about it was held in the House, by which time 500,000 people had already died. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) called an Adjournment debate and, as he said at the time, it is unthinkable that an atrocity could kill half a million people, but not be debated in Parliament. It is to be hoped that Parliament will take the opportunity of the 10th anniversary of the genocide in April 2004 to recognise those failings. At the very least, there should be a debate in the House on the prevention of genocide and the events of 1994.

Secondly, Holocaust memorial day in January 2004 is to be partly dedicated to Rwanda, and that is to be welcomed. Efforts are also being made to commemorate the genocide on the 10th anniversary itself. The Aegis Trust, a British charity, is raising funds to increase awareness and educate people about the genocide. It is also raising funds to preserve five of the most important genocide sites in Rwanda, some of which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill and others visited. They include the church at Ntarama, which lacks adequate funding and which the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegates visited in October 2002. Two sites are sponsored by donors, including the Governments of Sweden, Holland and Germany, and they will be ready by April 2004, in time for the 10th anniversary. The other three sites, including the church at Ntarama, are without a sponsor. It must be acknowledged that the Department for International Development provided £40,000 from the development awareness fund for educational materials, and that is to be welcomed.

However, it is a shame that a British charity, despite being supported by other European Governments, should receive such a low level of support from the United Kingdom. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is considering giving £50,000, which is a positive step, but just £250,000 would preserve for ever the memory of the 5,000 people who died at Ntarama as well as allow the building of a facility to teach the children of Rwanda about their past. I hope that the Secretary of State will give some thought to that important matter.

Thirdly, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Order. We have not been appointed yet.

I am very grateful to you, Mr. McWilliam. I keep saying that we learn something new in the House each day, and your advice is my learning experience for this morning.

Since 1997, the United Kingdom has been a loyal friend to Rwanda, and if we did not know that before we went to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, we know it now. Given the problems involved, we should he commended for that. However, being a loyal friend does not mean being uncritical. It is the reverse. Rwanda deserves the sympathy, attention and assistance of the world, but the international community should not turn a blind eye to concerns about that country's conduct.

Those worries are twofold. I refer first to this year's elections. Holding elections only nine years after the trauma of genocide is to be commended, and those elections were technically well organised. However, the monitors reported serious irregularities, which cannot be ignored. The EU monitoring team reported that the best placed opposition candidate was eliminated from the electoral contest before the start of campaigning and is currently in prison. Other opposition representatives simply disappeared. That is clearly unacceptable. Suggestions of ballot-stuffing, alterations of electoral rolls and intimidation on polling day are also extremely serious. The incumbent, Paul Kagame, won with 95 per cent. of the vote. That might be a convincing result, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) would agree that not even his tremendous charisma would produce such an astounding result, which gives rise to questions about its credibility.

All those issues fit with allegations of increasing authoritarianism, control and the closing down of political space in Rwanda. One respected analyst spoke of

"a formal election painted on top of an increasingly totalitarian state."

That is very worrying in the light of the progress that can be made. Rwanda has unique social pressures, and fears about open political life are understandable. Such a backdrop is simply unacceptable, given that Rwanda is capable of moving much further and faster towards genuine and acceptable democracy. The UK is the largest donor and is entitled to make its views known, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill would agree.

My hon. Friend mentioned Rwanda's involvement in the DRC. The recent dêtente between Kigali and Kinshasa is very welcome, but reports continue to be received of the Rwandan army's presence in the east of the DRC. There are also continuing allegations of support for various armed groups in the Congo. We must get the matter sorted out. The situation was unacceptable when we visited the DRC. There must be much more transparency, and we are closely watching the role of the United Nations. If the transitional Government in the Congo failed or fell due to Rwandan engagement, the attendant chaos would be disastrous for Rwanda as well as the Congo. It is incumbent on the UK, as a genuine friend of Rwanda, to use all its influence to see that that does not happen.

I am grateful for the consideration that my colleagues have given me. I am deeply worried that many of the traumas, conflicts and aspects of warfare, which my hon. Friend so eloquently outlined in her opening speech, revolve around the great mineral wealth that is not being widely shared among the very people whom we have in mind when we seek to reduce poverty. Sadly, the situation will continue until we have a strategy that ensures that that wealth, be it oil, diamonds or copper, is used to benefit the many and not the few. There is, however, no reason why the situation should continue in a rational, well-informed world.

:I will keep my remarks brief, as I am sure that all of us who have been involved with the all-party group on the great lake region and genocide prevention would like to leave as much time as possible for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to talk about his recent visit to the DRC. I am sure that it was as illuminating as our visit to the country a couple of months ago. I declare an interest as one of three hon. Members present who visited the DRC at the invitation of its transitional Government.

When one looks back on such visits, one realises how much one has to learn by visiting other parts of the world. I make no apology for following on from where my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) left off and talking about the security issue. As he said, there was consensus when we met parliamentarians from the DRC, who overall were a very impressive group of people trying to effect a democracy where there has never been any opportunity to have one before.

At that meeting we were given a message in no uncertain terms: the parliamentarians perceive the British Government as being far too close to the Government of Rwanda and failing to appreciate how much the people in the DRC feel that they are still under the cosh because of Rwandan infiltration. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) conducted herself very well in that difficult meeting. It is a pity that she is not present to hear that in person, but perhaps she will read it in Hansard. As parliamentarians, we are all used to difficult meetings, normally in our constituencies, but many of us have never experienced the intensity of feeling that was made abundantly clear at that meeting. However, we must move on from the security situation.

In that meeting, were any questions asked about the relationship with Uganda or its alleged support for different movements in the Congo?

It could equally be said that there was Ugandan influence. It was interesting that the group of people who came along to lobby us were very clear about their attitude towards Rwandans, but one did not have to tear away much of the veneer to understand that the Ugandans were also involved but were influencing the situation in a slightly more subtle way. The simple fact is that we want all foreign troops, apart from peacekeeping troops, out of the DRC. I hope that the Secretary of State will deal with that point.

One thing that I took away from the meeting with the parliamentarians was how strongly they all felt about the territorial integrity of the DRC. One goes to Africa and expects to be shocked to some extent by the artificial constructs of the nations that have been created and to find that tribal or other loyalties are much more important than the nation state. In the DRC, however, we have to throw away the rule book, because its people are passionate about their country. They may have many differences, and not many months before, some of them were at one another's throats—that was inevitable, as they come from warring factions but they taught me that their nation mattered to them and that they wanted an independent nation that was not subject to influence from other countries, much as they welcomed the presence of the peacekeeping troops.

As I said in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin), the parliamentarians asked for more troops, to the extent that they wanted the border with Rwanda to be completely controlled by the British Army. We had to tell them that it was not likely that we could bring that to bear, given Britain's other obligations in Iraq and so on, but that we would certainly pass on the need for more support.

As part of the visit, we went to Kisangani in the eastern part of the country. There we met several people from the chamber of commerce. If one wants to meet business people who thrive in adversity, they are the ones; somehow, they keep the spark of enterprise going in the most impossible of situations. Again, the security issue came up, but another message was that the DRC is bedevilled by the lack of investment in basic infrastructure. The simple fact is that the only way to get to Kisangani—unless one goes in by aircraft, which is not, of course, within the means of many Congolese—is to use the river, but the river has been unsafe. The business people were pleading for the roads to be rebuilt. They are keen to re-open their businesses but it is almost impossible for them to get out their wares, and that severely constrains how they can operate.

The Secretary of State may want to talk about his experiences and about how we start to rebuild enterprise. We discussed other issues to do with rebuilding the tax system and giving the DRC macroeconomic assistance—measures that will enable its Government to re-engineer the economy. However, only so much help can be given through Government; individual enterprises must also be encouraged. That can be done only if ways in which we can support their infrastructure needs are examined.

My next point is a result of a visit we made on our last day in the DRC. We met some of the country's children. The sight of non-governmental organisations and the Church intervening in the most desperate situations is always heartening. We were able to make that visit because of an invitation from the War Child UK charity, which is doing very good work in the capital city, Kinshasa, and elsewhere in the country. We need to recognise that long-term peace will become embedded in that country only if we are able to find ways to support civil society. We went to see children who were orphaned either directly by the war or as a result of AIDS or the other things that afflict Africa, and in particular that part of the continent.

Frighteningly, we also came across the concept of child witches. Children had been expelled from their families because their families were undergoing bad luck. That got associated with one or a number of members of the family, and they were put out on the street. That is the sort of situation that War Child UK faces. It is supporting measures to get those children under a roof and to give them some form of education. We must appreciate that civil society in such countries can be rebuilt—or built, in some cases—only with a lot of support in the form of both money and people. That has to be the way forward.

Nobody would disagree that security is the most important issue at present, but the economy has to be given an opportunity, too. The DRC is probably the richest country in the world—we can forget the United States. If the wealth in the DRC could be made to offer some form of national opportunity, many of its problems would be overcome. but for all the reasons that we know about, those resources are being pillaged and are not going where they should.

The third area that we must concentrate on is how we can help the civil society. Children and women must be helped in particular, and people must be brought back from the fighting and into civil society. Their future must be properly invested in.

Order. I have no power to impose time limits but, bearing it in mind that the object of the exercise is to allow the Minister to answer the debate, I would like Members to be brief.

:Like other hon. Members, I must declare an interest. In October, I went to the DRC with the all-party great lakes region and genocide prevention group. Although the programme was put together by our embassy—I am grateful for its support—the flights and accommodation were paid for by the DRC Government.

From the slave trade onwards, the Congo has been dealt a bad hand by history. The Belgian colonisation was particularly harsh. The first Prime Minister after independence was murdered shortly after he came to office. The country went through the Mobutu kleptocracy, and it has now emerged from five years of civil war. The establishment of the interim Administration is a fragile but precious moment in the country's history. They are the DRC's only hope of emerging from years of conflict and exploitation of its people by a succession of harsh and ruthless leaders.

We met President Joseph Kabila, who is intensely aware of the importance of maintaining the quadripartite alliance between the various groups that were until recently engaged in civil war. He knows that, were he to succeed in the elections in June 2005 and become elected as president of the country, he would need to find senior positions in a power-sharing Government for leaders of the other factions: Jean-Pierre Bemba, Zahidi Ngoma, Azarias Ruberwa and Abdoulaye Yerodia. Without the maintenance of that alliance between factions from different parts of the country, there is no hope for peace or for retaining the integrity of the Congo.

I would like our Government to provide technical assistance to the presidency—not just the president—so that all factions see that they are getting benefit and support from Britain. Technical assistance is required in three areas in particular: security reform, economic development and governance. Those of us who went to the Congo attended the state opening of the National Assembly and the Senate. This is a country with no tradition of parliamentary democracy at all; people arrived to represent the various factions in a grand Parliament building, built by the Chinese for the dictator Mobutu, without really knowing that the job of a Member of Parliament is to represent their constituency.

We in this House could give help through the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, and our Government could give help by bringing some Members of the DRC Parliament to London to work with us and see what a Parliament does. It is particularly important, before divisions emerge. to get MPs from the different factions working together in study groups and committees.

The single most important issue is the disarmament of the rebel groups. It would be extremely valuable, in terms of confidence-building, if Members of the Senate and the National Assembly from the different factions were brought together in a team and flown by MONUC, because that is the only way to get around the country, out to the east and north-east to see what is happening with disarmament and resettlement. They could then report back to Parliament, and people from one part of the country would see that others, formerly their enemies, are disarming under the MONUC umbrella. They could then return to their own part of the country with people from the faction to which they were formerly opposed, who would see that disarmament is happening there as well. That is a practical job for the new Parliament.

While I was in the DRC, I was surprised by the enormous communication difficulties. One third of the budget of the UN peacekeeping mission, MONUC, goes on air transport, which is the only way to get about the country. No roads or railways are left. The river is open, but it is not a highway from one end of the country to the other because parts of it are impassable. Rebuilding roads and the crucial rail links connecting the navigable parts of the river must be a development priority.

The most immediate priority must be disarmament. I spent time talking to a British official called Peter Swarbrick who works for MONUC on that issue. He has experience of disarmament in post-civil war situations in Africa. When he worked in Sierra Leone, he was able to offer cash as an incentive to ex-combatants to hand in their weapons. Indeed, he had a tariff and would pay more for a better weapon. For example, he would pay the same for a good rifle as for two grenades or 50 rounds of ammunition, and that encouraged people to bring in more weapons. If someone came with a clapped-out rifle he would send them away and say, "Come back tomorrow with something worth while."

Now, Mr. Swarbrick can offer people nothing more than a receipt, which most people do not find attractive because it does not help them to eat. Cash as a direct incentive would be helpful. US Aid has provided MONUC with $650,000, which is not a great deal of money given that there are 20,000 irregular fighters who need to be disarmed and returned to neighbouring countries such as Rwanda and Uganda. A relatively small sum, such as £1 million, provided by DFID as an incentive to hand in weapons would be money well spent.

I know that the Government provide the multi-country demobilisation and reintegration programme with $25 million of support. That is a larger-scale project dealing with the wider costs of demobilisation, and every cent is needed because those costs are high. When a small group of irregular forces from Rwanda come and give up their weapons, it is MONUC's policy, quite rightly, to get those fighters out of the Congo as soon as possible within 24 or 48 hours before they change their mind. As there are no roads, the only way to do that is to charter an aeroplane, which costs $15,000 to $20,000 a time. The $25 million is therefore vital, and I hope that, if the disarmament process goes well and the money is used up, the Government will consider supplementing it.

Good progress has been made. When we were there in October, 2,600 combatants from neighbouring countries had been disarmed and returned to their countries. That figure is now 3,600. MONUC hoped to reach 4,000 by June 2004. That target will clearly be met, and I hope that it will be revised upwards to about 6,000. Peter Swarbrick thinks that once the figure goes above 5,000, people will begin to realise that MONUC means business and its credibility will improve.

I shall briefly say a word about AIDS. I was extremely impressed by the way that MONUC integrates attempts to combat AIDS into its work. Every soldier and civilian who works for it receives an AIDS policy identification card. Every military contingent that contributes to MONUC's forces is trained, before arrival, about the consequences and nature of AIDS in the DRC. Each unit is required to be properly supplied with equipment and must prepare to deliver at least one project working with the community to deal with the epidemic among the Congolese people. I recently read in the newspapers that Medecins sans Frontieres is carrying out a small-scale pilot scheme to treat HIV infection with antiretroviral drugs. If that can be done in rural, remote parts of the DRC, it can probably be done anywhere in Africa. However, treatment opportunities must not divert attention from work on prevention, without which the appalling epidemic will get much worse.

Finally, I shall make a comment about politics. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) and my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said, there is great resentment in Kinshasa about the role played by irregular and regular forces from Rwanda and Uganda in destabilising their country. I am sure that in Rwanda and Uganda there is also resentment towards elements from the DRC that are destabilising their countries. It would be impossible to draw up an effective economic development strategy for the DRC unless it was compatible with the strategies for neighbouring countries, and vice versa. I therefore ask DFID and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to work with all the Governments in the region to draw up a joint strategy for the region to which they all subscribe.

Rwanda, for example, wants to boost tourism, and I wish it well, but it will not get tourists to visit unless it stops supporting irregular forces in the region. Rwanda would have something to gain from a joint strategy, as would all the countries in the region. A joint strategy would need to address first the issue of security, secondly, that of resource exploitation, and thirdly, the economic development of the region, because in parts of the eastern Congo the trade routes are not to the Atlantic but to the Indian ocean through neighbouring countries. Finally, such a joint strategy would have to address the question of human rights.

First, I apologise to hon. Members for missing the greater part of the contribution to the debate made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin). I will make a few brief points.

The history of the Congo is possibly one of the most tragic of all the tragedies in African history, going back to the Belgian royal family's personal ownership of the country, the appalling exploitation and enslavement of people from that country in the 19th century and early 20th century, and the brutality of the numerous civil wars and insurgent conflicts that have taken place since the beginning of the 20th century. Independence was finally achieved in 1960, and the assassination of Patrice Lumumba in 1961 was one of the great tragedies of African history he could have contributed so much to African development.

My constituency has a link to that history. After the death of Patrice Lumumba, some of his family fled to the UK and settled in Finsbury Park, in my constituency. There has been a significant Congolese community in the constituency ever since then. The community is still growing, and I meet its members regularly. I hold a monthly advice bureau in a local church, with French translation available, to do my best to assist them.

I have had a number of lengthy discussions with members of the local Congolese community, who are very well informed and knowledgeable about the history of their country. Many of those people are very well qualified. Some were teachers, lawyers, doctors or public servants and some worked in private industry, but all were forced out of the Congo by a succession of dictatorships. The behaviour of those dictatorships has moulded the history of the country, and it moulds the attitudes of a large number of people. The excesses, the brutality, the executions and the corruption of those regimes is now known, and a number of western Governments and companies were complicit in that corruption. There are no clean hands in respect of relationships with the Congo.

There are some specific points that I want to put to the Chamber, to which I hope the Secretary of State can respond. First, I thank him for a copy of the written statement tabled today by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). The statement is interesting and important because it deals with a number of issues that have been raised with me by members of the Congolese community.

I shall deal with those issues quickly. The first is the presence of European peacekeeping forces under the aegis of the United Nations. There is concern that there are not sufficient numbers of them. There is also concern about the longevity of the operation, and whether there is a serious commitment to bringing about peace and disarmament.

I have been asked by members of the community in my constituency to raise the question of the disarmament of child soldiers when the militia groups have been run out of Goma and other cities. I understand the need to run the militia groups out of the cities, but I think that child soldiers should be disarmed and, if possible, taken into some kind of protective custody where they can rebuild their lives and get through the horrors of their experiences. I have met former child soldiers from Uganda; they live their lives with a series of flashbacks of being given guns at the age of eight or nine and told to go out and kill people. We have a specific responsibility to try to do something to rebuild the lives of those children.

I should like also to raise the question of the leakage of arms into the Congo from Rwanda, Uganda and Zimbabwe; it has been going on for a very long time. I welcome the Minister's statement and the intentions behind it. However, I wonder what will be done to police the operation effectively on the ground. It seems that the Rwandan and Ugandan Governments are sending out a series of mixed messages. They convey to the European Community and to western Governments the message that they are not in favour of intervention, that they want peace within the region and that they want to cooperate, but I suspect that the reality on the ground is very different. A blind eye is being turned to all kinds of insurgent groups, which are going into the eastern Congo and causing mayhem.

In the statement, the Minister specifically asks the UN to provide more detailed information about the link between the sale of natural resources from the Congo and the supply and development of arms in that country. I hope that that information can come to light. If specific, sustainable allegations can be made against any western companies, they should be vigorously pursued in the courts here and in the international and European courts. I suspect that that will not happen because the blue-chip companies that buy raw materials emanating from the Congo are not the exploiters. The exploitation is done by somebody else: the mining of gold, diamond and other minerals, and the logging that takes place, is done illegally by fairly shadowy groups that eventually sell the materials on to somebody far more respectable.

I have picked up a feeling from my local Congolese community that this is a war as much about minerals and exploitation as about anything else. That is the tragedy of the history of the Congo. At the end of a recent, lengthy meeting at the local church, one person laconically said to me, "This is the first war for mobile phones," and there is some truth in that. The minerals that the west craves, because they are so precious, are obviously extremely valuable to people in the Congo.

Although I welcome this debate and the statement, I get the feeling that we will have to go a lot further on the question. We must prevent the flow of arms into militia groups, prevent the continued destabilisation of the country and ensure that the minerals that we enjoy in this country have come here legitimately. We should ensure that the benefits from the sale of those minerals legitimately flow to the people of the Congo rather than to the shadowy world of middlemen, arms brokers and mineral dealers. That world is making a huge amount of money out of the horror, misery and devastation of a lot of very poor people in a country that has suffered so grievously over the last 200 years, largely at the hands of European exploiters.

I, too, shall try to be as brief as possible to allow the Secretary of State to respond. It has been an interesting debate and all the contributions were of a high quality. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) on her success. This is the third debate recently on the great lakes region. We have had two very thoughtful debates on Rwanda, and the contributions so far have been excellent.

I share the concern of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn). Having read the ministerial statement, I think that the issues are clear: corruption is endemic and there are problems with the funding of arms. I hope that the Minister will explain what part DFID will play in taking western countries to court to proceed with a criminal investigation. I hope that we will not see a whitewash, with business as usual for many of the western countries that have contributed to the nightmare of the past. It is important to remember the scale of the task ahead.

I shall not dwell too much on history, because a number of hon. Members have already gone over that. The DRC has 52 million people spread over a land-mass the size of western Europe. Peace and democracy are being pursued against a backdrop of dictatorship and violence. Between 3 million and 4 million people have died in the past five years, owing not only to war, but to AIDS, disease and famine. A report by the United Nations humanitarian assessment mission issued last Thursday serves to remind us of the problems and challenges faced by the DRC. The Government and the international community should know that in the eastern region there is malaria, malnutrition, waterborne disease and, more worryingly, that in the southern regions there are ongoing, disturbing reports of the pillaging of crops, and rape and violence against women and young girls.

Although much has been done in the past, it is important to recognise that various efforts are making a significant contribution to the way forward. I warmly welcome the World Bank's announcement last Tuesday of a $100 million programme to tackle HIV/AIDS in the DRC. According to recent surveys carried out this year among organisations fighting AIDS, the epidemic could threaten more than half of the DRC's 50 million people in the next 10 years.

Like so many of its neighbours, the DRC is gripped by this crisis, but it differs from its neighbours in the prevalence of AIDS in young people, among whom the incidence is almost 20 per cent. higher than in any of the neighbouring countries. Infection begins very early—from just 10 years old. There is a requirement for better health care, but the stigma that surrounds AIDS must also be dealt with. The calls for abstinence and preaching against the use of condoms are not working, and a new approach will have to be devised. I hope to hear from the Secretary of State about what more we can do through DFID.

I welcome the commitments that the Government, and DFID in particular, have given to the DRC and the surrounding region. I also welcome the press conference given by the Secretary of State, which was mentioned earlier, and announcements of further support. The adherence to basic human rights and the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration programme, about which we have heard much in the past hour, are all important causes that must be supported. We must move towards full democracy; the pressure must be kept up.

As with any country, there is also a role for civil society and, within that, a vibrant free press. There is some room for optimism here. The 2003 annual report of the national media watchdog, Journaliste en Danger, found an improving situation. Incidents of journalists being detained for more than 48 hours have fallen sharply, and this year has been particularly significant because, for the first time in six years, no journalist was imprisoned for their work. There is, however, further room for improvement. It will be interesting to see the response to any success by the new campaign to decriminalise press offences in the country.

There is clear consensus about the fact that the integration of various groups, whose battles have marred the DRC for so long, must be a priority. The DRC must be a country for all its people, not just any one group. People must be involved and consulted as part of that process. The commencement, just over a week ago, of the integration of former rebels into a new, unified force is a good example of that process in action; it must be replicated throughout the DRC and, more importantly, it must be sustained. There were clear symbols of reconciliation and good will in the ceremonies that were held: soldiers handed over the scarves that showed their subscription to various groups, specifically the Movement for the Liberation of the DRC and the Congolese Rally for Democracy. Many of those new soldiers will work with forces in Ituri, which is one of the most troubled regions. Other hon. Members have mentioned the problem of child soldiers, and I hope to hear the Secretary of State say what can be done to deal with that.

The importance of the DRC in Africa and the world, as has already been mentioned, lies not only in its geographical importance and mineral wealth but in the fact that it has borders with nine countries. Rather than being its strength, its mineral wealth its diamonds and gold-has too often been its weakness and has helped to fuel wars. Despite the official end of the occupancy of the eastern DRC by Rwandan and Ugandan forces, there are ongoing reports that troops remain for the exploitation of diamonds and other minerals.

Those concerns were shown to be justified by a leaked UN report, which accused both Rwanda and Uganda, as well as parts of the new transitional Government, of continuing to arm rebels to retain control over diamond and gold fields. That is highly damaging information that provides sobering evidence for all those interested in the DRC and its future. Perhaps worst of all are the reports that Etienne Tshisekedi is preparing a rebellion with the military and training support of Rwanda. There is evidence of arms shipments to the Congolese national army from Rwandan officers, in direct contravention of the UN arms embargo. Similar allegations have already been made about Uganda.

As with any new Government and new structures, much will be based on a foundation of trust. If the report that I mentioned is correct, certain elements in Rwanda continue to face problems from the past. We must look to, and be optimistic about, the future. We are all aware of the special relationship that seemed to exist between the previous Secretary of State for International Development and Africa, and we hope that that special relationship can continue.

Behind the politics, international relations and even the arms trade—if that continues—are the people of the DRC, who deserve a bright, more peaceful, and less impoverished future. For too long, they have suffered at the hands of war and disease. The investment being made in the DRC is a start, but we know that it depends on the success of democracy and the preservation of peace. The UK Government's role in helping the DRC with those two tasks is clear: they must put all their energies into that role.

In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) spoke with knowledge, authority and compassion. She was followed by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) and the hon. Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew), for City of York (Hugh Bayley), for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett), all of whom made wise and thoughtful speeches. I am keen, as is everyone else, to hear what the Secretary of State has to say, so I shall try to create a precedent of brevity.

There is a moment of hope, what with a transitional Government in the DRC, a peace deal in Burundi and elections last summer in Rwanda, but the fragility of that arrangement has already been commented upon. Of course, I would welcome an overview from the Secretary of State on what the Government are doing, both alone and in concert with others, to sustain that fragile peace.

In all, there have been four reports from the UN Security Council about the exploitation of natural resources. There is the all-party parliamentary group report on the subject, and a plethora of non-governmental organisation group reports, too. Until now, there has not been an official Government response. I welcome the fact that today there is a written ministerial statement on the subject, and I hope that the Secretary of State will not take it amiss when I say that there will almost certainly need to be a further airing of the issues in the main Chamber and an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny.

In the terrible crisis that we are debating, Burundi has often been ignored, yet 300,000 people have been killed there in the 10-year civil war. The fact of the power-sharing deal between the Tutsi Government and Hutu rebel forces is welcome, but the Secretary of State will recognise that there is now a requirement for the demobilisation of former fighters and for the repatriation of some 800,000 Burundian refugees in Tanzania. There is, of course, an African Union presence, but that presence is both under-resourced and inexperienced. Many observers with knowledge of the subject believe that there is a need for a UN mandate and a UN force. I shall welcome the Secretary of State's comments on that point.

The all-party group on the great lakes region and genocide prevention has welcomed the report of the UN panel of experts on illegal exploitation of natural resources and other forms of wealth in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Will the Secretary of State give a commitment today that the Government will make a statement on the subject and ensure—this is critical—that any report is acted on both by the European Union and the UN?

I urge the Secretary of State to commission evaluations of the implications for DFID country programmes of Ugandan and Rwandan involvement in the DRC. He will be well aware of the memorandum of understanding between the Rwandan and British Governments. Although aid is vital, and it would be chronically irresponsible to suggest its removal, it is both reasonable and sensible for the Government to use aid as a lever to ensure proper behaviour, including the nurture of democracy and respect for human rights.

Many of us believe that the UN should seek an expansion of its personnel and resources in the DRC. Faster demobilisation and resettlement in line with the example of the quick start programme is required and, of course, there is a need for a UN arms embargo on the entire region. I would welcome the Secretary of State's remarks on that front, too.

During the Secretary of State's recent visit, he referred to the $38 million that the UK Government are providing to fight poverty and counter disease. That is very welcome, and I certainly do not cavil at it for one moment but, for the purposes of clarification, I would appreciate it if he would make it clear whether that is the $38 million that has already been referred to on previous occasions or a new tranche of funding.

The Secretary of State will be aware—the hon.Members for Glasgow, Maryhill and for City of York referred to the matter—of UN Security Council resolution 1484, which was passed on 30 May, which demanded cessation of all support to armed groups and militias, in particular the provision of weapons and any other military material. What assessment has he made thus far of the effectiveness of the enforcement of that decree? Child soldiers have been referred to, and I also want an update from the Secretary of State on what progress has been made on that point.

Democracy building, the pursuit of good governance and respect for political pluralism are clearly of the essence; they are prerequisites of sustainable progress. I wonder whether, in addition to the idea of a delegation of Congolese parliamentarians coming to the UK, the Secretary of State would in all seriousness consider a group of ex-parliamentarians from this country—who perhaps have a little time on their hands—going to the DRC and making their expertise available. I know that he will take it in the proper spirit when I say that I can think of nobody better to lead that delegation than someone whose career in the House spanned half a century: his father. Natural self-effacement may prevent the right hon. Gentleman from responding to that point, but I hope that it will not, because I make a serious suggestion and I would appreciate his reply.

There is economic work to be done. I make two suggestions that have also been made by others. First, DFID should collaborate with the Department of Trade and Industry to fund a permanent representative at the UK embassy in Kinshasa to encourage direct British investment in the DRC. There are huge commercial opportunities if only they can be properly exploited. Secondly, the UK should offer its expertise in construction, surveying, engineering and road building to help reconstruct the DRC's transport infrastructure. We all want to hear what the Secretary of State has to say—I certainly do—and I look forward to his reply.

I join hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) on securing this important debate. I echo what the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said about the speeches that we have heard. They reflect the outstanding job done by the all-party group on the great lakes region and genocide prevention. I also join Members in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) for her chairing of that group.

The debate has shown clearly that the challenges facing the Democratic Republic of the Congo are, frankly, enormous. It has a population of about 55 million, is located in the very heart of Africa and has a miserable history of conflict, war, dictatorship, corruption and exploitation, often illegal, of its great national resources. It also has enormous levels of poverty.

One of the DRC's problems is that there are few reliable statistics. However, the best estimates are that 80 per cent. of its population live on less than $1 a day. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill set out with great clarity the history, which I do not intend to go back over. I will simply say that the level of suffering experienced by the DRC's people is hard for us to imagine. If, prior to the TV cameras entering Bunia, most people in this country had been asked to name the place where between 3 million and 3.5 million lost their lives over the last five years, I doubt that many could have identified the site of what has been described as "Africa's hidden first world war."

That history means that it is all the more important that the international community now offers support to the transitional national Government, whose inauguration in July brought together the different factions and was a significant event. They are working towards implementation of the global accord and particularly towards presidential and parliamentary elections in two to three years.

I learned very forcefully during my visit last week that the depth of the DRC's crisis over the past decade means that the scale of the challenges facing the TNG is too difficult for us to appreciate. My hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) was right to talk about the fragility of the situation and the "preciousness" of the TNG. That point was also made by the hon. Member for Buckingham. For the DRC to establish itself as a state and to be capable of bringing its people security, a concentrated long-term effort is required.

President Kabila said to me, and it was echoed in the debate, that it is not a question of restoring people's faith in the Government. He said that the task is to persuade people that there is such a thing as a Government, who can provide for them. It is not about rebuilding the country; it is about constructing a state for the very first time in the history of a place that is the size of western Europe and where many of the things that we take for granted as representing the signs and institutions of a functioning state do not exist.

Establishing those institutions, encouraging economic activity, weaving together a social fabric where one does not exist and ending the culture of impunity, which has been such a feature of the DRC's history, will take time. We must recognise that in dealing with that challenge the TNG must take on powerful and established interests that dislike change and will resist it.

On parliamentary links, the hon. Member for Buckingham made a serious point, as others did, about the importance of giving the benefit of our expertise and enabling parliamentarians in the DRC to learn how they might go about the job. Later this week I will meet the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, and I will put to it his extremely important suggestion.

Historically, the UK has not had a great presence in the DRC, but we are stepping up our involvement. We are looking to establish a long-term development partnership similar to those that we have developed with other countries in the region, such as Uganda and Rwanda, with whom we have had a close historical relationship. We recently finalised the DFID country engagement plan, which sets out our proposals. In a sense, we anticipated the all-party group's very good report, which will be formally launched later today. It asked the Government to step up their involvement in the DRC, and we have done so, as I said when I was there last week.

The size of our current programme is $38 million, or £23 million. That is on top of the approximately £70 million contribution that we make through multilateral institutions such as the EU, the IMF, the World Bank and others. We have already announced that, but we are looking to increase our involvement. When I was in the DRC, I described our involvement as support for success, because the international community, the TNG and the people of the DRC must march forward together, step in step, to address the country's problems.

Our work will involve two main tasks: ensuring a successful transition and helping the TNG to establish basic systems of governance. That means supporting the transition institutions, which we are doing, demobilising and reintegrating ex-combatants, which is fundamental to the country's future—I shall come in a moment to the subject of child soldiers—and reforming the army and the police.

We are offering specific support for peace-building. In the east, where there is no question but that things are extremely difficult, the UK contributed £3 million to the interim emergency multinational force. We also pushed for the inclusion in the UN resolution of text on blocking arms supplies, although I am the first to say that enforcement is difficult in a country where many state institutions do not exist. We are contributing about £2.5 million to support community-based peace-building programmes, including those managed by Christian Aid and CAFOD—the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development—in the eastern DRC.

On child soldiers, we are funding a UNICEF child disarmament demobilisation and reintegration programme to the tune of £2 million. We are doing that now, before the funding for the multi-country demobilisation and reintegration programme, which we will also support, kicks in.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill mentioned debt. The DRC has an interim poverty reduction strategy paper; that has reached decision point, and we hope that it will reach completion point in 2005. The UK has agreed to write off the debts that it is owed, and we have also released the $4.8 million that we pledged towards an international financing package to enable the DRC to clear its arrears to the African Development Bank.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) alluded to HIV/AIDS. The infection rate is about 6 per cent., but, again, statistics are hard to come by. I visited a project run by Fondation Femme Plus in Kinshasa, which cares for women with HIV. The stigma that they experience is a real problem in the country, but the foundation does outstanding work. The visit was a very moving occasion. We are also funding a condom distribution programme.

A number of references were made to the UN panel report and to the written statement tabled today by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), which sets out the Government response. I understand that hon. Members, having reflected on it, will wish to pursue some of the points in it. I simply say that the situation in the DRC has been a major problem, as everyone has identified. However, as the statement forcefully illustrates, one needs evidence to pursue those responsible and to deal with the culture of impunity—one needs a complainant and specific instances. Frankly, part of the difficulty with the UN panel report has been the lack of specific evidence.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not able, in conversation with people in the UN, to elicit any commitment to provide such evidence?

We have repeatedly made that point to those who worked on the report. Everyone understands the problem, but there must be sufficient evidence to pursue specific individuals and companies. The problem so far has been the lack of evidence.

There has been a huge international effort to end the conflict, and it is important that members of the international community come together to consider the great lakes in a wider context. The great lakes conference, which is planned for next year, will provide a chance to do so.

I reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) and other hon. Members that, in our relations with Uganda and Rwanda, we make it very clear that, having withdrawn their forces, they should stay out because the DRC needs its integrity and stability. I also recognise my right hon. Friend's point about the serious situation in northern Uganda.

I met several people in the DRC. Expectations are very high but few people would have thought five years ago that we would have reached the point that we have today. That is why we should stick with the TNG. It matters that we should be involved, as there is now a window of opportunity to build a different future for the country. I welcome today's debate for all those reasons.

This is not the first time that I have risen in the Chamber to speak in a debate called "Mortgage Regulation". I am sure that the Minister and her officials entertain the hope that it might be the last-a hope that I freely admit to sharing.

The subject of mortgage regulation is better when it is in the background. When it is to the fore, it almost certainly means that a large number of people are being taken for a ride. Only one central principle informs my remarks today: if it looks like a horse, smells like horse, bites like a horse and kicks like a horse, then it is a horse and should be treated like a horse. Applied to mortgages, the message translates like this: if it looks like a mortgage and loans money like a mortgage, and if that money is secured against a house like a mortgage and does not have to be repaid until some time in the future like a mortgage, then it is a mortgage and should be regulated like a mortgage.

My remarks relate mainly to the market for the financial products commonly known as equity release mortgages. That market requires comprehensive, simple and transparent regulation, because the products on sale are multifarious, complex and opaque. In short, this is a high-risk market. How and why has this market developed, and why does it present such a high risk of mis-selling? Let us consider the good news. Despite rises in house prices, inflation in the United Kingdom is the lowest that it has been for more than 30 years, and our interest and mortgage rates are the lowest for more than 40 years. That means that the average mortgage payer is saving £2,750 a year under this Government compared with the previous Conservative Administration, and is spending 10 per cent. less of its disposable income on housing costs.

However, all that has a dramatic effect on the market. As yesterday's Evening Standard reported on its front page:

"House prices in the south east of England are predicted to rise by 8 per cent. next year."

That phenomenon is not restricted to London. The front page of The Western Mail today predicts that prices in Wales will rise by an astonishing 14 per cent. next year. For anyone who is still upwardly mobile in the housing market, and who is buying a larger house, the money that they are saving on their mortgage payments does not go into their bank account, but accrues to them in the form of equity in their home. Only those who are static or trading down receive the full benefits of the reduced mortgage rates over time.

We therefore have a market in which the following have come together: a dramatic increase in property prices at the same time as a low in equity performance; an ageing population at the same time as a savings crisis of £27 billion; and increased confidence in the housing market just when confidence in the stock market has dipped. Those indicators all point to an increase in the equity release market, which appears to be the perfect solution to these problems and just what is needed for a property-rich but cash-poor older generation. Estimates put the unmortgaged equity of pensioners at some £459 billion, so it is clear that there is a market to be tapped. The Council of Mortgage Lenders estimates that that market could be worth more than £50 billion over the next 10 years, from a starting point of what Prudential estimates was only £850 million taken out in equity release schemes last year.

It is clear that we are entering new territory. Who is entering that territory? It is not the young or even the middle-aged couple who still dream of moving up one more time to their perfect home, but the couple who have found that their pension pot did not quite buy them the annuity that they had imagined it would. They may be the victims of pension mis-selling or of the Equitable Life debacle, who are finding that life in retirement on less than half their projected income is not at all comfortable. They have a lovely big house but they cannot afford its upkeep.

Equity release is then suggested, perhaps to people who are getting on in years, who may be impatient with long forms or contracts and complicated explanations. Some may have got to the stage in life where they are not as sharp as they once were, and are therefore vulnerable to those who would sell them a product that does not correspond to their real needs. Equity rich, cash poor and slightly senile: the perfect victim for a whole new generation of financial service vultures.

My attacks are not aimed at the industry as a whole. Equity release is a valuable product, and in a carefully regulated environment with informed consumers, it is a worthwhile one. It can be a good and efficient way to ease financial worry for those in retirement who want to top up their pensions and for those with additional savings who understand the dangers associated with the product. Disreputable companies are in the minority, but we are discussing high-risk products, and with such products a proper regulatory structure is essential. That structure is even more important when it is clear that the industry will face great changes over the next few years.

We are on a new frontier with the equity release market. The next few years will see the industry drive hard into that territory. Increased longevity, an ageing population and a shortfall in pensions contributions make it a fertile land that is increasingly attractive for companies speculating on the fortunes that lie ahead. It is therefore essential to put in place a regulatory system that will prevent the cowboys from exploiting that market.

There is good news: the Financial Services Authority has already come to the rescue. Mortgage regulation by the FSA starts next year and lifetime mortgages will be included in it. I welcome that move. It will come as no shock to the Minister to hear me welcome the Treasury decision to hand over the regulation of mortgages to the FSA; she knows how hard I campaigned for it. Sadly, however, that is where my praise stops, for the simple reason that that is where the regulatory approach stops and where things start to get a little confusing.

Although the FSA will regulate lifetime mortgages, second charges, which consumers regard as no different from equity release products, will be regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Well, no, that would be too simple. If one's second charge is more than £25,000, I am afraid that for now and the foreseeable future, it will have no regulatory framework because there is a £25,000 limit in the 1974 Act. The bigger the second charge on one's home, the less regulation is in place for one's protection. I am confident that the Department of Trade and Industry is committed in principle to lifting the limit, but since it requires primary legislation, we cannot expect to see it for some time.

In that time, we can expect to see many people fall foul of the cowboys and through the gaps in the regulatory system. There is an exception to that: where the second charge has been taken out through one of the main high street banks that are already regulated by the FSA, the constraint in the 1974 Act will not apply and those people will continue to enjoy the protection of the FSA. As far as second charges go, all is clear as mud. A transaction is not regulated by the FSA but by the 1974 Act, unless more than £25,000 is taken out, in which case it is not regulated by anyone, unless it has been done through a high street bank, in which case it is regulated by the FSA. That is perverse. Companies that have good reputations and wide public confidence are subject to the strict regime of the FSA for second charges of more than £25,000, but companies that do not have good reputations and are most likely to pose a threat to the consumer in a high-risk market are encouraged by being exempt from all regulation to pick off second charge customers.

Our story would be simple if it ended there. Sadly, it does not. We now turn to home reversion schemes, which are typically marketed at the elderly, whereby people sell a percentage of their property for an agreed amount. In return, they receive a lump sum, an income or both. On the death of that person, the company still owns a share in the property and will take it when the house is sold. The company will have benefited from any increase in property prices in the intervening years. Therefore, the transaction is largely predicated on an ever-rising property market, so that the equity released when the house is sold is greater than the initial money put in.

The great difficulty with such schemes is that there is no clarity about the true cost of the money that is released. Let me give an example. A home is worth £100,000. The owner agrees to sell to the reversion company 75 per cent. of the property for £30,000. He receives £30,000 now and, when he dies in 15 years' time, the property is sold for £200,000. The company takes £150,000—its 75 per cent. Share—and the estate receives £50,000. Against the company's notional profit of £120,000 must be set the interest on £30,000 for the 15-year period, which would he just over £47,000 at 6.5 per cent. interest. The company's true profit is just under £73,000. That is a terribly expensive deal when compared with interest-only or rolled-up interest equity release products. Of course, it depends on how house prices change during the intervening period. In principle, that is unknowable, but it makes for a product that is highly opaque.

Home reversion is regarded as a property sale and not akin to the standard equity release products, although it is based on similar principles. Sadly, it is not regulated in a similar way; in fact, it is not regulated at all. There is no regulatory structure for home reversion policies—no regulatory authority, no recourse for bad selling and no compensation.

We must remember that the target market for the product is the old and the infirm, who are often the most easily persuaded. That is pure cowboy territory. The current regulatory system leaves us with the good, the bad and the ugly. The good is the properly regulated system for lifetime mortgages, which will come under the powerful gaze of the FSA next autumn. The bad is the patchwork regulation that is offered for second charge products. It is an over-complicated and under-regulated system. The ugly is the situation in which many people will find themselves if they turn to home reversion schemes, which fall under an unregulated part of the market that will, by its very nature, attract the less reputable and most despicable characters in the industry.

The attraction of home reversion schemes will only increase as the FSA rides into town to regulate lifetime mortgages and kick out the cowboys. Those cowboys will turn to the unregulated section of the market, in which there is no need to consider the consumer's needs and no recourse for consumers if they are offered the wrong product.

My customary role is that of a critic of the financial services industry for burying the details in the small print. Sadly, we are one step ahead of that today and I must criticise the regulatory system itself for its lack of clarity and transparency. How can the Government seriously turn to the industry and ask for clarity and transparency—the hallmarks of a properly regulated industry—if they cannot even create a regulatory structure that is simple, transparent and comprehensive?

My fear is that as the market grows, it will attract less reputable companies. We are talking about the least regulated areas of the market and clients who will be some of the most vulnerable people. We have seen that combination before and it is not a good mix. I share those views with many others, including the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which wants home reversion schemes to be regulated; Age Concern, which wants to see the elderly protected; and even John Tiner, the chief executive of the FSA. In a recent speech to the CML, John Tiner pointed out that

"confused customers are more susceptible to a heavy sales pitch."

He asked the rhetorical question:

"how many borrowers actually understand the value of the product features they have been sold?"

As the CML notes, the current regulatory regime is likely to lead to confusion among consumers, who will not appreciate the difference between regulated and non-regulated equity release products.

The Treasury is examining the area and has a consultation document on home reversion schemes, but to me it seems all too clear that all the products should be regulated as one under the same regulatory umbrella. If 77 per cent. of consumers complain about confusing advertising and 68 per cent. complain that they cannot understand the term "APR", how will they understand the regulatory structures of equity release products, let alone the products themselves? The products are allied to properties and the buying of properties. To the consumer, that is simple. If it looks, smells, bites and kicks like a horse, it is a horse and should be treated like a horse. If it looks like a mortgage and loans a person money like a mortgage., and if that money is secured against their house like a mortgage and they do not have to repay it until some time in the future like a mortgage, it is a mortgage and should be regulated like a mortgage.

I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on securing another debate on this important subject. I will respond to some of his more general comments before turning to the specifics of the regulation of equity release. He will acknowledge that, since the Government came to power in 1997, the new framework for regulation has been substantially and radically improved. The setting up of the FSA, which brought together nine sectoral regulators and created a single ombudsman scheme and a single financial services scheme, has clarified the landscape for the typical consumer and made it much easier to negotiate what used to be complicated decisions. We have moved a long way forward in the past six years.

Of course, it is always difficult to draw boundaries, and my hon. Friend points to the operation of consumer credit. He will be aware that, last week, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry launched the consumer credit White Paper, which introduces greater transparency and simplicity of rules on advertising. It will ensure that consumers understand credit agreements both before they enter into such an agreement and after one has been concluded. It will introduce standardised rules for calculating terms such as the APR. People will have the confidence of knowing the amount that they have to repay. It will enable, for the first time, the conclusion of on-line agreements, making the process much easier for consumers. It will introduce a strengthened licensing regime to enable the Office of Fair Trading to fine rogue traders and to establish whether a firm is fit and proper to be in the consumer credit market. The £25,000 limit will be abolished under the terms of the White Paper. I think my hon. Friend will agree that that will be a significant move forward and will clarify the existing situation.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The abolition of the £25,000 limit will make a difference, but can she shed any light on the time scale in which that will take place? One of the most worrying concerns that people have is that it may be long enough for some serious mis-selling to take place.

As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, the timing will depend on primary legislation. I could not possibly preempt the contents of any future Queen's Speech, but he will realise that this whole area is a priority for the Government. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 had not been reformed for 30 years. We spent considerable time working on the details of the White Paper to ensure that the proposals were sensible and workable, and that we got them right. As soon as parliamentary time allows, we will legislate. That will be a move forward for consumers.

My hon. Friend will also recognise that all banks and building societies are already regulated by the FSA. Irrespective of the value of the loan, consumers still have recourse to the financial ombudsman service. I hope that that goes some way to meet his point. He also, rightly, raised the issue of macro-economic stability, which brings huge benefits for consumers who are planning their future finances. Although the level of debt has risen in recent years, the level of assets has also risen sharply and net household wealth is up by more than 50 per cent. since 1997. The household financial balance sheet has not slipped significantly into the red as it did in the late 1980s. The macro-economic environment is much more conducive to long-term planning.

I turn now to the specific points that my hon. Friend made about mortgages. Of course, he is right to point out that a mortgage is one of the biggest financial decisions that a consumer makes. Equity release falls into that category too. These are significant financial decisions. It is absolutely essential to protect consumers adequately. Indeed, I should point out that the FSA is the only statutory regulator in the world, as far as we aware, that has consumer protection as one of its statutory objectives. As he knows, there will be better protection for consumers when the regulation of mortgages and mortgage advice comes into force on 31 October 2004. The new regime will give the borrower greater confidence in the decisions that he or she is making.

Regulation of mortgages, alongside the regulation of general insurance, will also simplify the regulatory landscape by ensuring that there is a single regulator for mortgage advice, general insurance and retail investment business. As my hon. Friend said, the FSA will regulate the selling of mortgages by first legal charges on UK property where at least 40 per cent. is residential accommodation to be occupied by the borrower or their immediate family. That definition was derived following consultation and is designed to protect loans when a person's home may be at risk as a result of being sold an unsuitable product.

As my hon. Friend will know, equity release schemes allow home owners to release the value of their property above any amount owed on a mortgage, and as he pointed out, the market is not only fairly large at the moment, but is set to grow even further in the future. Many people would argue that that is good and that people should be allowed to release equity from their homes. Whether one agrees or not, it is probable not only that today's generation of the elderly will want to release equity, but that today's generation of young people will try to build up equity in housing as an alternative to traditional pension provision to secure a decent retirement income. That could prove a risky strategy, but as a Government we must acknowledge it and design sufficiently robust policy to ensure that if it happens, it does so in a secure environment.

As my hon. Friend pointed out, there are two basic schemes: mortgage-backed equity release schemes, which are also called lifetime mortgages, and home reversion equity release plans. The first type, lifetime mortgages, will be regulated by the FSA from 31 October 2004, but the second type, home reversions, are sale and purchase arrangements rather than financial services products. As such, they fall outside the scope of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

The pensions Green Paper, "Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement", which was published in December 2002, stated that the Treasury would be

"looking at options to create a level playing field for the regulation of equity release and home reversion plans to protect consumers and make the market work better".

In the wake of that Green Paper, my officials held a number of discussions with stakeholders in the first half of this year. Although stakeholders were unable to provide any evidence of significant consumer detriment at present, they were concerned about the projected expansion of the home reversion market and the potential for consumer detriment in the future.

It was in the light of those concerns that we announced that the Government would carry out an open consultation on whether home reversion equity release plans should be regulated by the FSA. We published our consultation paper on 11 November, and responses are expected by 13 February 2004. The primary purpose of the consultation will be to arrive at a more in-depth analysis of the costs and benefits of regulation. As I am sure that my hon. Friend knows, we never extend the scope of regulation without considering the costs and benefits extremely carefully.

We hope that the consultation will provide evidence on consumer detriment in particular, and on the basis of that evidence, we will need to establish whether regulation would be appropriate.

Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the most difficult aspects is that because the scheme's maturity is evident only when the person dies, ipso facto, no one who remembers what was said when the contract was made can make a complaint? In such a situation, it is much more difficult to show the fault.

That is precisely the sort of issue that we hope the consultation will draw out. We are also interested in evidence as to whether the current system of voluntary protection works or whether, as my hon. Friend is suggesting, it does not protect consumers adequately. It is only right that we ask people to submit evidence so that we can make an informed judgment on the issues. He is right to draw attention to the issue, and in the interim period, the FSA is already working on information that it can provide to consumers on the pros and cons of engaging in equity release, so that they can make an informed decision without having to wait for any subsequent regulatory decision that the Treasury may make.

I commence by thanking Mr. Speaker for granting this most important debate. I know that that is much appreciated by many people involved with education and schooling and by communities as a whole.

As hon. Members will know, the Government announced their provisional settlement for local education authorities, and therefore for schools, at the end of October. They then added to what they had to say in the middle of November and added to that after the pre-Budget report. I am sure that the Government hope that they have learned the lessons from last year, after which most local education authorities, teachers and schools were left frantic with worry about how they were to balance their budgets.

I am sorry to disappoint the Minister, but in the south-west—England's most rural region—the LEAs still appear to be hard done by. There are two reasons for that. Traditionally, little account is taken of rurality in allocating the funding. I accept that some account is taken of rurality, but ministerial answers that I have examined about how the figure is arrived refer to a "sparsity factor" in the

"primary sub-block and LEA central functions sub-block"— — [Official Report, 8 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 92W.]

whatever that means. I would appreciate it if the Minister could shed some light on that.

The other reason that the south-west appears to be badly served by this year's and previous years' funding is that, as the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers informed me, the south-west area attracts many experienced teachers who, by definition, are more expensive than younger teachers working in inner-city areas outside the south-west.

My county, Somerset, has particular problems. I shall examine in detail the settlement for Somerset in respect to education, which was very poor relative to other counties and LEAs. The county council referred to its funding level from the Government as being "on the floor", with overall funding per pupil at £2,832, compared with an English average of £3,097. There is no denying that, on Government calculations, Somerset was meant to spend £250 less per pupil than the national average in England and-believe it or not-this year it is expected to spend £265 less than the national average.

Last year, all moneys in Somerset LEA were passported, as they were meant to be, and I am pleased to tell the Minister that it has been decided that that will also be the case for the forthcoming year. He may be aware that there is a debate raging in our county about how well or efficiently the LEA spends the meagre money that it is given by the county. It is fair to say, however, that historically the county has spent more on education than it needs to. I hasten to add that that is at the cost of the quality of the roads, and it is to the tune of £20 million a year. However, that matter can be debated another time.

Some of us, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger), question how efficient the administration of central resources are in Somerset's LEA. However, I believe that that is also a debate for another time.

My hon. Friend is being very kind in his words—I shall certainly not be. Does he agree that the Liberal Democrat-controlled county council has put up the cost of running county hall from £433 million two years ago to £549 million now? There are 500 extra employees. Those controlling the council are passporting the money because we have said that if they do not, we will make their lives hell.

My hon. Friend makes a good point about the fact that the Liberal Democrat-controlled council has seemed to be rather free with council tax payers' money. That said, there is all-party agreement on a number of aspects of funding in Somerset. Indeed, the Minister's party has joined my party and the Liberal Democrats in combating what they regard as a meagre funding settlement.

Apart from the low base level of funding that Somerset has had, there are severe pressure points, on which there is universal agreement in the county. Let us first consider transport, which is £8 million over budget. It looks as if inflation in the demand-led school transport budget will go up again next year, as new contracts negotiated between the county and the bus companies look as if they will rise by 16 per cent. Pressures elsewhere in transport also impact on the education budget.

Much work also needs to be done on special educational needs. As a hospitable county, Somerset seems to attract more and more youngsters with learning difficulties and severe learning needs. I am informed that the fact that the formula on which the Government rely includes information about children with low birth weight partly contributes to the gap between what the county is given and what the Government expect us to provide for. I point that out because a significant number of families move to Somerset from elsewhere and some have children with extreme levels of need. That means that the budget is estimated to have to rise by some 10 per cent. for next year.

With regard to the severe pressure points, Somerset has a problem with early-years funding. The Government are looking towards funding for three and four-year-olds. They are considering increasing the funding that they provide to some LEAs that have a large increase in the number of three-year-olds who are expected to be funded. Somerset has a large increase, but it is not quite large enough to qualify for the grant that some LEAs are receiving.

I apologise to the Minister because I may have to leave the debate early as a result of unbreakable commitments later today, but I shall make a fairly non-controversial point. Does the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) agree that one problem is that rural areas have to cope with the existence of small schools? They are very important to local communities and perhaps contribute to their economic regeneration. Nevertheless, all the economic regeneration benefit comes from the education budget. It sounds as if his constituency might be experiencing the same sort of pressures as in Powys.

One could add that there is a fourth pressure point, although it is only on the horizon in Somerset; it might already be there in Powys. Two small schools in my constituency—Langford Budville and Nynehead—which are on the edge of a smallish town, Wellington, are being asked to consider whether they can justify having 26, 27 or 30-odd pupils. The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about rurality. Both schools provide a focal point for their community. He is right to say that the community receives that benefit from the education budget.

One way of making education part of the community is through the use of computers. I am told that although one of those schools has an excellent computer suite, something is missing. Initially, the villagers were keen to get involved and to go to the school and learn about computers. As time goes on, more and more families have computers, but they treat them purely as typing machines or use them only for internet surfing, although much more can be done with them. Local authorities could consider how to provide intermediate and advanced courses and enhance the skills of people in rural areas. That would be very important.

There is a further point on the rurality angle, and the hon. Gentleman's constituency may also suffer from this problem. Both the villages I mentioned are close to a town. They are lovely villages, but young families cannot afford to live in them even though their parents still live there. The children of those families use those schools, however, not because the schools in Wellington are poor, but because they get an extra element of child care by being in the same village as their grandparents. A large social element would be destroyed if those schools were closed down. The hon. Gentleman's main point is a good one.

I too apologise for the fact that I may have to leave the debate. On the issue of rural schools, does the hon. Gentleman agree that much of the cost of educating children in small schools is enlarged because of the overheads of bureaucracy? Innovative schemes could be put in place to cut the overheads and the cost of education in small schools.

That is true. I am sure that there are many innovative schemes whereby a number of small schools could club together. They could put in an administration level for all the schools involved and therefore justify a top-quality professional management. I am sorry to say that, with the large amount of paperwork that the Department for Education and Skills hands out, it is difficult for heads to process that paperwork and find time to teach. I know that that happens in Somerset and, I am sure, in the hon. Gentleman's local education authority as well. I am aware that the Government are making money available, but it would be helpful if the Minister could explain—perhaps not in this debate, but in writing to me—how initiatives are working in the south-west. I should appreciate that.

As I said earlier, we all welcome the fact that the funding announcement was made earlier in the financial year than was the case last year. The very late funding announcements last year meant that schools up and down the country suffered problems. Schools were unable to deal efficiently with the budget problems that arose. I appreciate that the Government have said that they do not want to re-run those problems, and I do not blame them. Judging by the amount of humble pie that the Secretary of State has had to eat in recent months—his Ministers too, I assume—when apologising for the problems of earlier this calendar year, I can understand why the Government do not want a re-run of the funding fiasco. They trumpeted an 11.6 per cent. increase last year; on anyone's terms, that looked generous. However, according to the independent study conducted for the National Union of Teachers, half of all primary schools and two thirds of secondary schools lost staff. That is 9,000 teachers and 12,000 support staff—21,000 trained individuals taken off of the total school staff roll.

This year, the Government estimate inflationary costs of 3.4 per cent. Last year, they estimated a similarly low figure, but it came out at 8 per cent. All hon. Members want to know how that level of miscalculation will be avoided this year. Schools had to prune expenditure on books, equipment, extra-curricular activities, special needs, training and maintenance. They used up their reserves and had to set budget deficits and use creative accounting. They launched fund-raising appeals among parents. That is a voluntary, localised stealth tax, as schools demanded more and more from parents, who thought that their children's education had already been paid for in their taxation.

Despite such fund-raising, according to the NUT, class sizes rose in half of secondary schools, numbers of lessons were cut, vocational courses were abandoned, and teachers taught subjects for which they were not best qualified. Senior teachers were replaced by junior teachers, purely for financial reasons. As someone who—was never very good at any of these subjects—I preferred to concentrate on history—I am sorry to say that science, modern languages and maths were the losers. I should hate to see someone with my lack of capability at those three subjects failing because, sadly, no effort in schools was put into those three main subjects. I think that we all accept that they are vital to this country's future economy.

This year's rescue package, as somebody unkindly called it, is a shuffling of the same pack of cards. Teachers that have left schools—certainly those in Somerset—will not return under the settlement, nor will classroom assistants suddenly return to the classroom. I am sure that the Government will protest that they have been generous with taxpayers' money, and have given what they could to LEAs and schools. However, the flat-rate funding in place will have a perverse impact. The more pupils that a decent, growing school attracts, the smaller funding increase it will receive.

Will the Minister explain what the letters sent to LEAs mean, and whether some of what has appeared in the press is scaremongering or fact? The Guardian, which is no friend of my party, has said that the way in which the Government have put together the formula is a return to old Labour, because it removes the incentive for schools to build up their numbers and excel. One of the letters sent to LEAs on the 10 December acknowledges:

"We recognise there is concern in some authorities about appearing to reward schools with poor financial management, or penalise those who have taken harsh decisions to stay within budget this year".

The letter, which is on the website of the Department for Education and Skills, continues:

"It may be necessary in effect to write off parts of those schools' deficits."

That is most definitely a return to the old Labour style of running a Department. I am further intrigued by another letter from the DFES, which says:

"If any LEA can put forward a compelling argument that additional transitional funds are needed in the short term, then the Government will bring forward grant payments."

In the light of that, what is Somerset's position?

The impact on Somerset of the past few years' funding has been interesting and I have asked several questions of Ministers in the Department for Education and Skills. In 1997, 67 per cent. of pupils in Somerset achieved level 4 or above in English key stage 2. That figure is now 74 per cent. Even taking into account grade inflation, that appears to be good. However, the national average has risen from 63 to 75 per cent. In mathematics, the figures in Somerset have risen from 63 per cent. attaining level 4 or more, to 72 per cent. However, the national average has risen from 62 to 73 per cent. Therefore, we have gone from outperforming to underperforming.

I know that the relative decline is not due to the excellent teaching staff in Somerset—comparing LEA to LEA on a teacher-for-teacher basis, we have many more excellent, experienced teachers. It is certainly not due to the pupils or parents. It can be due only to the fact that Somerset receives below-average funding, which discriminates against it. That is also the case in many LEAs in the south-west.

The Somerset schools forum feels strongly that the problem is inadequate funding rather than poor budget management in schools. After six years, the institutionalised manipulation of funding levels is beginning adversely to affect Somerset. Calculations made by Somerset's LEA show that, although it will receive £10.2 million next year, the cost pressures on Somerset will leave it more than £2 million short. Only two other LEAs are in such a poor position. The Minister's settlement, which he has trumpeted as fair, has provided many LEAs with headroom. Unfortunately, Somerset has negative headroom. That cannot be allowed to continue.

rose—

Order. I have no power to limit the length of speeches, but hon. Members should remember that the object of the exercise is to give the Minister sufficient time to reply to the Member who began the debate.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) on securing a debate on what is an important subject for our constituents. A debate on school funding should start with the "thank yous". I visit schools in my constituency frequently, and in every school I see hard-working and dedicated members of staff doing tremendous work. I refer to the teachers, the growing numbers of teaching assistants, those who work in the schools' offices, which are still dreadfully under-resourced, caretaker staff and, if the school has kitchens, the kitchen staff. They all contribute to the quality of the education. I would also add a "thank you" to the pupils, who apply themselves and work hard, and their parents, who support them in their learning.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned classroom assistants, who do such a valuable job, so does he agree that the difficulties over funding have limited schools' opportunities to develop the careers of classroom and teaching assistants, some of whom want to go on to teaching? There is no money to promote them, pay them extra or even encourage them to stay in the job.

I thought that the hon. Lady was going to ask me to thank Members of Parliament for their support for education too, which I am glad to do. Just a month ago, I asked a parliamentary question about the pay and training for teaching assistants, so she can see that I share her concern and endorse what she says. It is important that there is proper support in their training, pay—which is vital—and career path for the future.

I must not overlook the governors, who manage schools and wrestle with the difficult problems—which the hon. Member for Taunton mentioned—of balancing their budgets. I also add a "thank you" to the Government, and not only because I am a supporter. The capital increases in our schools are indisputably noticeable. Every school that I visit has received investment for new developments, and even teachers who give me a hard time about school funding give credit for that capital investment. A lot of that is traditional public sector spending on capital investment, but it is accompanied by innovative schemes for private finance initiatives. In my constituency, the brand new Sir Graham Balfour high school and the modernised Cooper Perry primary school are prime examples of delightful developments resulting from the additional funding provided by PFI.

Those are my "thank yous". I should like to add a "thank you" for the increase in the revenue budget for education, but that is where the wheel falls off and I join the other hon. Members who are going to complain about funding. Much of the problem is with the distribution mechanism that the Government use to send funding to local education authorities. I want to concentrate on that aspect on behalf of both Staffordshire LEA and all the local authorities that are at the bottom of the funding pile year after year, in particular the 40 worst funded authorities, which collectively call themselves the F40 campaign group for fairer funding.

Although we are disappointed with the distribution process, the change in formula this year represented some success for the F40 campaign. We asked for a minimum funding for each pupil wherever he or she is educated, and we have that now. In next year's budget, wherever a pupil goes to school in England, the basic funding will be £2,111.59 per primary pupil and £2,826.23 per secondary pupil, unless the pre-Budget report takes those figures slightly higher. Those figures can be found in a written answer from the Secretary of State on 11 December at column 609W.

The written answer also refers to some figures that the Secretary of State put in the Library, which helpfully give a breakdown of the average per pupil that each LEA has received on top of the basic amount for additional education need and in additional cost allowances and sparsity payments. That provides valuable source material for those who want to argue about the relative weights given to the additional factors.

That brings me to a second point on which the F40 campaign has already been successful. We argued for fewer add-ons to the basic amount and less of the complexity of the old calculation and, in that sense, we were successful. Many of the old add-ons were scrapped, and we now have only the three that I just mentioned: additional educational need, additional cost allowance and sparsity. What has gone wrong this year with the new formula, leaving aside other cost pressures, such as additional pension fund and national insurance contributions, is that, as there is a transition from an old system to a new system, the Government have slipped in some transitional measures, such as budget support grants, which have confused the situation. I believe that many such measures will fall out over time. The big debate for the future is whether the system of having floors and ceilings, so that no one gets below a minimum increase or above the maximum increase, will continue indefinitely or, again, fall out over time.

I would like to talk about Staffordshire and the complaint about how the formula is affecting us. On the overall settlement for the country, I still see, as is traditional, Staffordshire down near the foot of the table showing the richest and poorest authorities. However, the gap between the bottom and top is wider this year under the new formula than it was last year. That is a disappointing development. In the last year of the standard spending assessment, the bottom authority got 73 per cent. of what the top authority got; this year, under the new system, the bottom authority got only 66 per cent. of the formula spending share of the highest.

Of course, the complaint of hon. Members in the south-east is different to the complaint raised in Staffordshire. I would say that the south-east has had an advantageous funding system for 10 years; its complaint is that this year, under the new formula, it has lost that. The benefit went completely over the heads of those in Staffordshire, and went in the main to metropolitan authorities. Certainly, shire counties missed out on it.

In Staffordshire, I recently met all secondary head teachers in one group. Under the new system, they repeated the disappointment that they had expressed in previous years about poor funding, the difficulty that that causes them in managing their budgets, and the effect that that has on the morale of those who work in their schools. I give the Minister a couple of examples of what they are up against as a result of the new formula. We should bear in mind the fact that Staffordshire is next door to Stoke-on-Trent in the north and Wolverhampton in the south, both of which benefit from excellence in cities funding, education action zones and specific grants. Stafford gets none of those.

I was told the following story by the head teacher of Walton high school, which, according to academic league tables, is the best public school—[Interruption.] Sorry, best public sector school in Stafford. Is not the terminology confusing? That school lost two young teachers this year, one to a Wolverhampton school, and one to a Stoke school, both of which offered additional responsibility allowances that the head teacher of Walton could not justify paying the new teachers on grounds of experience—they were brand new, although good, teachers. Equally, she could not match from her budget the figures offered and pay the extra. So the school lost two promising young teachers because of the additional funds that the next-door neighbours had.

I was told a shockingly worse tale—although I realise that it is just an anecdote—in which a head teacher went to see a neighbouring school in Stoke-on-Trent to look at its facilities. The head teacher was very impressed with the extra funding that the school had been given to develop its information and communications technology programmes. The other head teacher said, "Yes, we bought absolutely everything that we needed for our school's ICT requirements, and we still had some money left over from the Government grant, so we bought billiard tables for year 11." That shocking story was told to a head teacher who is struggling from one year to the next.

It is no surprise that, when schools were given the short-term ability to use money from capital funds in their current account to tide them over difficulties this year, 59 schools in Staffordshire took advantage of it, to the tune of nearly £1 million. The upper pay scale is encouraging for teachers' career development, but there are schools in Staffordshire that just cannot find the money for their contribution to the extra pay for teachers who get through the threshold and on to the upper pay scale. The national work load agreement is worrying schools that cannot make ends meet because they will now have to find more money soon.

The Minister should take back to his Department the complaints made in Staffordshire. That situation is replicated across the local authorities involved in the F40 campaign. The F40 group met at Lutterworth on 11 October to review the new formula and to decide whether it could announce that its campaign was complete and that all its members could retire from campaigning work. I am afraid that its members decided unanimously that the new arrangements were not good enough, so the campaign goes on, as my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards well knows from the correspondence that he has received since then.

F40 would like not just a minimum funding increase—that, effectively, is the floor at the moment but minimum funding, with a reduced, and not expanded, gap between the highest and lowest-funded authorities. F40 will now work on a model to try to achieve that, so that when the Government are next willing to look at changes to their formula, the arguments of F40 can be fully taken into account. I hope that the Minister finds that constructive approach appealing. In the meantime, I ask him to look at the examples of unfairness that I have given him, and see what can be done this year, and for each of the next three years, to try to stamp them out.

May I begin by expressing my appreciation of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) for securing this important debate and for opening it so skilfully? I thank also the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) for his remarks.

I will need to read the record carefully, but I think that I agree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Stafford said. I certainly agree that there has been a significant increase in capital expenditure in Worcestershire—which is appreciated. The Minister knows that I am a fair man, and that I do not want to score party points where there are none to be scored. Where the Government deserve congratulation, I shall offer it. I appreciate the increase in capital expenditure, which has borne significant fruit in my constituency. I say "thank you" for that.

I should also like to thank the Government for this year's settlement for schools, which removes the appalling pressure that schools were under last year. Budgets this year will be a great deal easier to manage.

It was a little galling to sit through Prime Minister's questions today, however, and hear a Warwickshire Member pay tribute to his schools' achievements. If we in Worcestershire were given the extra money that Warwickshire gets, there would be similar improvements in Worcestershire schools. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Stafford has just said: the distribution of resources simply is not fair and does not work.

Last year, there were particular difficulties—there are party points to be scored here. The Government's problem was that although they gave a generous cash increase to school funding, their own changes put up costs even further. Instead of saying that it was a generous settlement, Ministers should have said, "We've given you quite a lot of money—all that we can afford—but we know that your costs have gone up too. It is going to be tough this year. but bear with us." They did not say that, but tried to pretend, as Ministers have done under different Governments, that their settlement was frightfully generous. It was not generous given the extra costs that schools had to bear.

I freely acknowledge that this year is a bit different. This year, there is real-terms growth in funding in my county. I shall not make unfair points, but the basic problem remains—as the hon. Member for Stafford said so clearly during his very fine speech—that a number of counties, particularly shire counties, are being left behind.

A few weeks ago, I was at a meeting of head teachers in my constituency, and we heard a story of a teacher who had moved from Birmingham to a local first school. On the first day, the teacher asked, "Where are the laptops for every member of my class?" The head teacher said, "We can't afford laptops for every member of the class." On the second day, the teacher asked, "Where is my laptop?" The head teacher said, "I'm afraid you'll have to buy it out of your salary." The third day, the teacher asked, "Where's my classroom assistant?" The head teacher said, "There isn't one; we can't afford one."

Worcestershire is surrounded by better-funded authorities. Many of the teachers who teach in those better-funded authorities live in Worcestershire, and they write to me to say how much better funded are the authorities where they work. Teachers who teach in Birmingham tell me that they do not know what to do with the money that they have got for their schools. I see a look of disbelief on the Minister's face, but it is true and I can show him the letters. I could show him the article from The Birmingham Post a couple of weeks ago, which talked about the huge cash balances that many Birmingham schools have. Worcestershire schools, however, do not have huge cash balances; they have run them down over the past couple of years because of the severe financial pressure from which they suffer.

We find it difficult to understand why we are so uniquely disadvantaged in Worcestershire. There are national pay scales, except of course for London where there is a particular issue about weighting, which I fully accept. It is quite right that London schools should get significantly more money than schools elsewhere in the country—I have no argument with that. Employment costs are higher in London; teachers get London weighting and that is reasonable. However, teachers elsewhere get the same salary wherever they are because national pay scales apply. The ancillary costs related to education for things such as textbooks, heating, lighting and the building are broadly the same. The national curriculum also had a big impact on levelling authorities' expenditure on education over their historical levels. I accept the case for London Weighting—I do not challenge it for a minute—but there are some interesting questions for the Minister to answer about area cost adjustment.

I apologise to you, Mr. McWilliam, because I am not able to stay until the end of the debate.

There are also problems in the high-cost areas. For example, in Surrey housing costs are as much as, if not more, than in some parts of London. We are losing 25 per cent. of our staff every year. Surrey is a training county without a training budget. Additional costs accrue to such cliff-edge areas. We are spending some £50 a year on training alone—and yet we have to do all those things.

I am interested in what the hon. Lady said. I half agree with it. I acknowledge that the Audit Commission said recently in its review of local government finance that the Government had shifted resources from the south-east to elsewhere in the country. I agree with that finding, I have read that report, I am interested in it, and it is true. Counties like Surrey have suffered. They have, however, received an area cost adjustment for a long time. Teachers' salaries are modestly higher in my constituency than in the hon. Lady's—although I should not make too much of that.Nevertheless, they are certainly in line with the salaries paid in Surrey. I accept that in the hon. Lady's constituency higher salaries still are, perhaps, needed to retain teachers. The actual costs incurred by schools are marginally higher in Worcestershire and Staffordshire than in counties in the south-east.

My theory is that the area cost adjustment is a device used by civil servants to favour their own schools. This is not and should not be a party political debate. Civil servants live in the south-east of England and they want their schools to be well funded for a long time. Ministers of both Conservative and Labour Administrations have gone along with that for too long. It is time to recognise that schools outside the south-east deserve a fairer deal than they have had so far.

Ministers in debates like this often respond by saying that similar children in similar circumstances get the same level of funding—I suspect that that is in the Minister's script today—but that is not true or right. It is, perhaps, true of the basic funding formula, but school funding does not stop there. Funding is also affected by the area cost adjustment and the other top-up sources of funds from central Government, which the hon. Member for Stafford enumerated during his speech, which was good. The problem in Worcestershire is that historically, before the days of the national curriculum, the Conservative-controlled Administration were able to spend relatively low sums on education, compared with elsewhere in the country, and deliver an adequate outcome. However, with the national curriculum, the pressures on education have changed all that. If the Conservative Administration of the 1980s had faced the problems of the 21st century, they would have spent a great deal more money.

The old funding formula reflected historic patterns of expenditure. A history of low spending would be used as the base on which the percentage increases were built. A new funding formula was introduced last year. I was delighted about that. Sadly, however, that has enshrined the old status quo. I am not normally cynical, and I apologise to the Minister for being so, but my cynical judgment is that the per pupil entitlement and the deprivation-sparsity top-ups were rigged to deliver roughly the same outcomes as the old formula. Therefore, Worcestershire did not benefit from the new formula as it should have. The gap between our neighbours and us has grown in cash and relative terms since 1997. Although I chose that date quite arbitrarily, the Minister probably appreciates its significance. The gap has grown because the formula has not been amended as I had hoped it would be, because top-ups—which we do not get—have been paid from central funds to neighbouring authorities, and because of the area cost adjustment.

It is important to recognise that the rules of compound interest apply to school funding formulae. In other words, if a school starts from a low base and gets 6 or 7 per cent., that is welcome because it eases the budgets. However, if the neighbouring authority—let us say Birmingham or Warwickshire—gets the same percentage from a higher base, they get more and the gap grows. Worcestershire is grateful for this year's settlement; it would not be bad if the county were an island. However, it is not. It is joined on every side by other local education authorities that are fishing in the same pool for teachers—and often, at the boundaries, for pupils. The LEAs around Worcestershire can offer a better deal on equipment and facilities for pupils and teachers alike. That is getting worse, and I am concerned about it.

I am delighted that the Minister for School Standards will meet a group of nine members of the Worcestershire head teachers forum on 27 January to examine the issues. The Minister listened to Worcestershire's case in a marvellous way, and I am grateful to him beyond words. He answered at length questions that were often bad-tempered—because we feel strongly about this matter in Worcestershire—and he responded with his usual intellectual honesty. l am grateful to him for that. However, we are getting to crunch time in Worcestershire. The gap between our neighbours and us grows and grows, making it increasingly difficult for Worcestershire to offer the quality of education that it should, compared with Warwickshire, Gloucestershire, Birmingham and the black country.

This is not the Minister's job, but the matter is made worse by the view of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on resource equalisation: not only do we lose area cost adjustment because our salaries are apparently not high enough to merit that but, miraculously, our house prices are too high and therefore it is judged that we could raise more in council tax. To have an area of the country where house prices are high and labour costs are low is challenging to say the least. I read economics at university and although my knowledge of it is now a bit ropy I know that it is difficult to sustain high house prices on the basis of low wage costs. That suggests that what I have been saying to Ministers for some time is true: people live in Worcestershire but work in Birmingham—or Warwickshire or Gloucestershire. Many teachers do that.

House prices are high and labour costs are low, so we lose both ways. We lose about 10 million on area cost adjustment and £13.4 million on resource equalisation—a total of nearly £24 million a year. If the county were to get its hands on even some of that, it would make a big difference. The rules are not joined up; they are not delivering the right outcome for schools in my constituency and throughout the county.

I have expressed my reservations about the formula, which gives the wrong balance of weights—it gives too much to deprivation. That should be reformed. I have also expressed my views about area cost adjustment. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) is interested in that, and it is a shame that he is not present because he has criticised Conservative Members for not attending past debates, but that is another matter. The Government have two choices: either area cost adjustment goes—which there is now a case for—and every LEA outside London, where there is London weighting, gets a similar level of resource and similar children in similar circumstances are truly valued equally, or Worcestershire gets it, because it is surrounded by counties that get it, and that is putting us at a huge disadvantage.

The other issue is top-up funds—excellence clusters, excellence in cities, leadership incentive grant, education action zones and pathfinder projects. I have tried to find out what these bring to the county. I have had two sets of answers from the Department for Education and Skills. One of them was about pathfinder projects, which promised that a table was enclosed but it was not. I have yet to see it so I do not know what the situation on pathfinder projects is. I am sure that that table will be produced. I raised the matter with the Department in a question—reference No. 141463—asked on 8 December. I would love to know the situation with regard to pathfinder projects, but I do not.

I have asked questions on education action zones, excellence clusters, excellence in cities and the leadership incentive grant. The hon. Member for Worcester has taken me to task for not asking about specialist schools. I will be asking about them now. As for other direct sources of funding, I shall ask about early years, excellence challenge, behaviour and attendance, and standards funds moneys too, because I want to debate the facts.

Let us consider the answers that I received to questions on several issues—reference Nos. 141460, 141424, 141425 and 141426. I congratulate the officials who deal with the leadership incentive grant because they answered my question about it. The officials whose attention was drawn to the other three issues did not. The Minister should have looked before he signed the answer to the question. The information that I received was complete gibberish. The Table Office has allowed me to re-ask the question. I have asked the hon. Gentleman to respond to the points in the questions with reference Nos. 141460, 141424 and 141425, in the manner that was used to answer the one with reference No. 141426. I look forward to receiving that answer. Frankly, the answers had been stuck on a word processor without captions, titles or explanations and were not in the requested form. I received a scandalously inadequate response.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but there are those of us in Worcestershire who believe that the answer was given in such a form to deny us information. That worries me. The matter is subject to revision when I receive the answers to the other questions, but the Worcester head teachers forum has considered the answers that I have received so far and about £300,824,000 is paid in top-up moneys, of which Worcestershire receives £375,000 under the leadership incentive grant moneys, which is 0.1 per cent. of the total. That destroys the Minister's argument that similar pupils in similar circumstances are funded similarly; they are not. Area cost adjustment of top-up funds makes a big difference.

In press releases, members of the governing party in Worcestershire say, "Funding gap closes again". I do not know how they reach that conclusion. The funding gap has not closed again; it has widened again. I have challenged the hon. Member who wrote the press release to withdraw it from his website, because his statement is not true. I have given the game away as there is only one male Labour Member in Worcestershire. The funding gap has widened. Yes, I am pleased about the extra money. Yes, I am pleased that school budgets will not be pressurised, but Warwickshire and Birmingham, in particular, have again done better than us. We cannot continue in such a way. Head teachers, parents, governors and pupils in Worcestershire are paying a heavy price for the steady erosion of Worcestershire's relative position in the funding table.

It is also true that the Labour party is trying to make such matters a party political issue in Worcestershire. I have tried to avoid doing so. Legitimate arguments can be advanced about how education is funded nationally. I am willing to stand up and defend my position on the funding of public services, especially the health service. I had real worries about the Government's strategy of pouring in money without first reforming the service. Pouring money into Worcestershire's education service is a thoroughly good action to take. It needs more money to bring us up to the levels of the neighbouring authorities.

Party politics should not be involved. Yes, here in Westminster we should argue about the total quantum and how it is raised. We should argue about public-private structures, organisation and so on. As local Members of Parliament in Worcestershire, we should be determined and clear about the fact that our county deserves a fair share of whatever a Conservative, a Labour or—God knows—a Liberal Democrat Administration might offer. I say to the Minister that the situation is deteriorating day by day, year by year. Worcestershire demands and deserves a fairer deal.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) on initiating the debate, which will surely not be the last such debate. It is certainly not the first debate that we have had on school funding. The Government's reaction to the issue passed through three distinct phases. First, they were surprised that there was a problem. Secondly, they confessed that they had some part in the problem and had not expected it, and they currently want amendment of life and an intention to do better hence forward. There was a degree of repentance on their part. That is all very welcome. I will not rehearse the reasons why the problem arose in the first place, because all hon. Members present are fairly familiar with them. In a nutshell, they were a combination of unexpected school costs and a rejigging of the local authority formula.

As the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) mentioned, rejigging the local authority formula was a highly contentious act. It was an attempt to arrive at a more equitable and fair formula, but it clearly has not satisfied many hon. Members or their constituents. None the less, it was planned and its effects could have been anticipated, and the Government are remiss for not having done so.

Recently, however, the Government have given a great deal of reassurance in various ways over fixed periods. First, reassurance was given that the formula spending share was going to increase by between 5 per cent. and 6.8 per cent. per pupil, and a vigorous announcement was made that the local authorities would have to passport fully the schools' funds. The Minister made it clear that if that did not happen, he would ensure that it would. Subsequently, a ministerial announcement guaranteed broadly 4 per cent. per pupil. There are variations, depending on whether the school roll goes up or down, but the increase was good so far as most schools were concerned. The general figure seemed to exceed the headline figure that the Government gave for increased school costs.

There was also the reversal of the previous policy on standards funds and the restoration of standards funds to schools. There was the offer of transitional support-a limited, possibly insufficient amount-to areas that had especially difficult problems, and the opportunity for local authorities to knock on the open door of the Secretary of State to ask for money if they really needed it and could not cope without it. I understand, however, that that was in the form of a loan rather than a direct grant. There was the promising development of an early settlement of all these finances so that schools could anticipate their financial situation, however good or bad it might be, and of an early, and fairly extensive, settlement of teachers' pay.

The Government have done much to give schools some of the reassurance that they did not have last year. However, fundamental uncertainties remain about the implementation of the workload agreement, and about exactly how schools will use their balances and how they used them last time. There are new rules about balances, which will affect how schools dispose of their funds. There is also the continuing and contentious nature of what we used to call the rate support grant, which has a greater adverse effect on county areas than on, say, metropolitan areas, which must be recognised. It must be recognised that county areas have a particular problem with that grant. None the less, the Government attempted to smooth things over with the local government settlement—more reassurance. They offered £300 million to authorities that would have specific problems in funding education in full without damaging other services. That was followed by the December pre-Budget statement, which promised extra money yet again.

On the face of it, it is hard to tell whether the Government have done the job that they intended to do. They have made certain moves, but the $64,000 question is, "Are they out of the woods and have they resolved their problems?" I suspect that the Government team will ask themselves that question over Christmas, and will continue to ask it until the school budgets pan out later in 2004. This is a nail-biting time for the Department for Education and Skills, which has taken steps to ensure that there is no repetition of 2003 but is not entirely sure that that will happen.

The jury is still out on several matters. We can say with certainty that the Government have made all these announcements very early to help schools and LEAs this year and have done their best to indicate figures for two years, not one. Does the hon. Gentleman welcome those factors unequivocally?

It is certainly preferable for schools to have an early statement about what their future financial affairs might be like. Bursars and head teachers throughout the country will be happier with the situation in 2004 than the one at the start of 2003. That can only be good, and the Government are to be applauded. However, it is fair to summarise what the Government have done as a series of ad-hoc adjustments. It has been a scissors-and-paste job. Schools, and everyone else, would like a permanent fix. I do not see how the Government can arrange such a permanent fix, although it may be broadening the scope of the debate to say that they are on the horns of a dilemma.

One solution, which would to some extent avoid a repetition of the same events in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, is to move rapidly in the direction of new localism. The Government could roll things back, fix a generally fair level of support for local authorities and let them get on with it. In other words, they could simply set standards and back out. I am sure that they have absolutely no intention of doing that because, like the previous Government, they seem to have decided that education, and certainly schooling, are far too important to be left to local authorities, and so they want more levers to direct and control the process.

Clearly, the Government could go in the reverse direction. They could go the whole hog and adopt a command-and-control version of education similar to that adopted in France. They do not want to go down that road either, and so they are left with a somewhat awkward system that is difficult to manage and which will never guarantee schools the financial stability that they would hope for and that would be the best possible scenario.

The system involves resources being channelled into education via local authorities—with disputes over whether that is done fairly—through various versions of school formulae, and could involve disagreement about whether the arrangements are as adequate as they could be. There is also a range of special schemes, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire mentioned. The effects of those schemes are difficult to assess and they can give rise to grievances in schools that do not benefit from them.

A high degree of central prescription underlies the distribution of resources, and a necessary consequence is that there will always be local anomalies and unjustifiable differences that people cannot defend intellectually—they simply observe that they occur. What the Government have done means that if a school had a windfall funding increase to deal with the circumstances of this financial year, that would be incorporated into its budget. If a school had an unfortunate variation this year that was not systematic, but occurred because of a temporary adjustment that it had to make, that would be bolted into its budget. That has been acknowledged and, in a sense, tolerated by Ministers.

Issues related to fairness. equity and the way in which the system pans out on the ground in areas such as Somerset and Worcestershire will always be around and will be almost unavoidable until the Government choose to empower local authorities as before and to introduce greater local discretion, or go in the other direction and divest local authorities of their residual powers.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Worcestershire the local education authority has already decided to spend more than the Government recommend? It is already spending above the formula spending share reckoned by the Government, and still the shortfall exists. There is some empowerment already, but at a heavy cost to the council tax payer.

I quite agree. I have a lot of sympathy for what has been said about Worcestershire because I used to serve on a local authority that, unlike Worcester, traditionally and habitually, over decades, spent above what Governments recommended, and we found it extraordinarily difficult to maintain educational expenditure at the required level given the nature of the rate support grant each year. Often other services had to be cut and reduced to maintain the funds for a school, and in some cases add to them.

I suggest that the Minister should seriously review the possibility of adopting a solution for the funding of schools that is something more than the scissors-and-paste job that we experienced this year, because, sure as eggs are eggs, the same details, data and offers from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other sources will not be around in subsequent years. Schools genuinely want stability, continuity and a good level of funding for decades to come.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) on securing the debate and introducing it so eloquently. He spoke with real passion about the problems that affect his community in Somerset, the way in which the funding formula may have penalised that area and the impact that that has had on the local education authority. I was particularly interested in his comments about some of the central costs of LEAs, such as school transport costs, which are a real burden in many rural communities.

The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) made a characteristically "yes, but" speech. He thanked everyone lavishly in the style of an Oscar winner, and then expressed his qualifications. I have a lot of sympathy with what he said. Representing a constituency in south-east England, I am perhaps a beneficiary of the delay in fully implementing the changes to the funding mechanism announced last year.

As a beneficiary, the question arises of when the transitional process will restart. This year it would appear that, given the narrowness of the gap between the floor and the ceiling, the process has stalled. When do Ministers expect the transition to be completed? If we are to plan staff numbers and the development of schools in the long term, we need a clear timetable for the completion of the transition. The hon. Gentleman also made a point about work load to which I will return later. He hit on an issue that affects many schools to which I have spoken over the past few weeks.

I turn to the remarks made with typical passion by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), in which he expressed the concerns of Worcestershire and made some very telling points. His point about area cost adjustment is interesting because we should see whether the Chancellor extends his commitment to introduce regional pay bargaining in a national formula to greater issues arising on that front in the future. The distribution of funding causes many people concern because it is difficult to understand the disparity in allocation between neighbouring LEAs. It is a concern that we have heard expressed by Members up and down the country over the past year.

I was also taken by the numbers mentioned in the Department's allocation of direct funding to local schools to which my hon. Friend referred. I think that 0.1 per cent. of direct funding went to Worcestershire. There is a lot of concern that that money has been targeted away from shire counties and at inner-city areas. There is also concern over whether schools in shire counties are receiving an adequate level of resources to improve educational standards.

I am sure that my hon. Friend would wish to confirm that we have no argument about schools in deprived areas receiving additional funding; it is the extent of the discrepancy that concerns us.

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We also need to remember that schools in those areas have had more funding, but that the gap between the best and the worst schools has continued to widen rather than narrow under this Government. I know that all too well, having looked at the numbers for the north-east of England—the area that I come from—and seen the increasing disparity between the best and worst schools and how even people in deprived areas are losing out.

The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) made a very good summary of why we are currently where we are. He envisioned that as long as the system is in existence we would be trapped in debates about school funding for years to come. The Government know that next year they must have no repeat of the problems that have bedevilled the 2003–04 financial year.

I am the first to acknowledge that the Government have taken great steps to try to remedy some of the problems that we saw in 2003–04. The transitional funding of £121 million to help schools that are in deficit is an important aspect of that. The relatively high increase in the schools formula spending share per pupil is much higher than that envisaged by the Secretary of State when he made his announcement in October. The narrowness of the gap between the floor and the ceiling has greatly helped those LEAs that would lose out if the redistribution of funding were to happen again this year. My concern is whether that is enough.

One reason why we had so many problems in the 2003–04 financial year was that the Government underestimated the cost pressures facing schools. The Secretary of State referred to cost pressures of 3.4 per cent in his statement on 29 October. Some of the correspondence that I have had from schools across the country states that they believe that number to be optimistic. One primary school in Dorset said that it needed an increase of 6 to 7 per cent. but the formula spending share per pupil went up by only 5 per cent. in that county.

A high school in Norfolk—not in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, I am pleased to say—needs an increase of 7 per cent., yet the county's LEA increase this year is 6 per cent. In Northamptonshire, a senior school needs an increase of some 6.5 per cent., but the county's increase is only 5.8 per cent. Schools are uncertain whether the money that has been promised by the Government will be sufficient to cope with the cost pressures that they predict for the 2004–05 financial year.

Let me return to transitional funding, which is an important tool in the Government's armoury for trying to improve the deficit situation faced by so many schools. The hon. Member for Southport expressed concern that the transitional scheme will actually reward schools that have not managed their books properly. That is prompted by a comment that came out of the questions and answers produced by the Department for Education and Skills at the time that transitional funding was announced. Schools that have taken steps to manage their way out of the problem need more support, but we are in danger of rewarding the poor performance of those schools that have not done that. I am not sure that any of us would like that to take place.

Transitional funding does not tackle the problems of schools that managed their way out of the current financial year's situation by using reserves or devolved capital expenditure. Let me give some examples: a school in Northamptonshire used £46,000 of its reserves to balance its books, but it will not benefit from the targeted transitional funding, which is meant to go to schools that had a deficit, and a community college in Northamptonshire has used £90,000 of reserves to tackle its problem. The list goes on and on. Many other schools have been identified. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) is no longer in her place, because schools in her constituency are affected as well. One primary school in Guildford had to use its reserves, as well as the capital expenditure that was earmarked for that year, to balance its books.

Surrey county council estimates that schools have used some £10 million of their reserves to balance their books, but they will not get any transitional target grants for 2004–05. It appears that there is no way in the forthcoming financial year to protect schools that have taken such action. Teachers in my constituency express to me their concern that, although they avoided redundancies and staff losses in 2003–04, the pain will hit in 2004–05 if the spending increase is not sufficient. That is a real concern for many schools that managed to tide their schools over this financial year because of prudent financial management in earlier years.

Let me raise a matter that is important to schools, although it may appear to be a point of detail. The Secretary of State announced that KPMG were to provide hands-on support to schools with budgetary problems. Will the Minister confirm that that will be limited to half a day per school? I believe that schools had originally been given the impression that there would be two days per school. Having worked for a firm of chartered accountants myself, I suspect that half a day will not be enough to get to grips with some of the complex issues affecting our schools.

The issue raised by the hon. Member for Stafford, to which I wish to return, is the work load initiative. There is a real concern that the money in the 2004–05 settlement will not be sufficient to implement some of the much-needed work load reforms that are so fundamental to retaining good teachers in our system. I shall repeat some remarks that schools have made to me. A school in Guildford said:

"We may have to cut some teaching jobs in the school in order to provide sufficient funding for the employment of Teaching Assistants to comply with the new Workforce Reforms."

What a perverse world we live in where, in order to make the work load reforms work, we must reduce the number of teachers in a school. I think that many people would scratch their heads and wonder whether the work load reform initiative has been properly funded.

A school in Northampton, which was a pilot for some of the reforms, pointed out that when its pilot money runs out on 31 March 2004, it will have to make redundant some of the teaching assistants employed as part of the pilot project. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention, but it is the unintended consequence of the way in which funding works. It echoes the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire about the amount of money that is funded directly to schools from the DFES. Quite often, that money is for a finite period, but the expectation is that those schools will continue to provide that service once the initial pilot money has gone. In its submission to the next spending review, the Local Government Association said that it is difficult for LEAs that are on the floor of their settlement to envisage how they will meet the costs related to some of the work load reform initiatives proposed by the Government.

I want finally to touch on the implications of the formula for spending share per pupil—a methodology that the Government have set out. It is becoming more and more difficult for LEAs to devote additional resources to schools that have particular needs. Money cannot be transferred between schools as easily, if the expectation is that schools will get, in the example of Barking and Dagenham, some 5 per cent. extra per pupil. There are limits to schools' discretion. Perhaps we are witnessing a move by the Government to introduce national funding of schools. The fair funding formula, showing the average amount per pupil plus various allowances, would indicate that that may be where the Government are heading. Will the Minister comment on that? He has, perhaps, more time than he initially imagined to respond to hon. Members' queries.

As the hon. Member for Southport said, the Government are watching and waiting, having heard loud voices of complaint arising from the inequities of the 2003–04 spending review. It is clearly important for the Minister, as well as for schools, teachers, heads, governors and LEAs, that the spending formula is right. I am concerned whether the Government have understood, after last year's debacle, the problems of cost pressures facing schools. Have they properly appreciated that, if such pressures are not properly addressed, what might appear to be a minor shortfall of, for example, £20,000 on a school budget, means two thirds of a teacher? Have they tackled the issue facing so many schools of how to bail themselves out using their reserves or capital expenditure? Those problems might bite in 2004–05, not in the current financial year. It is a question that we cannot answer today, but we shall watch how schools respond to the financial settlement.

We have had a very good debate in a constructive spirit. Colleagues on both sides of the Chamber have sought, quite properly, to represent their constituency concerns and to raise some of the broader issues that we undoubtedly face on school funding. I should like to echo the comments of hon. Members who have spoken during the debate in thanking all those who work so hard in our schools: the teachers and head teachers, other school staff, and parents, pupils and governors. Regardless of party politics, there is much for us all to celebrate in the achievements that we see in our schools.

I shall seek to respond to some of the specific concerns that have been raised in the debate. I apologise to hon. Members if I do not address every concern, but I shall endeavour to write to all those to whom I am not able to respond fully today. I shall then conclude by making some general remarks.

I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) on securing this debate. He raised several important and challenging issues related to schools funding, with particular reference to the situation in his county of Somerset. My starting point in addressing what he said is that I do not underestimate some of the difficulties that have occurred this year.

Schools and LEAs in all parts of the country are confronted with a number of issues. Some of the cost pressures about which hon. Members spoke apply to both rural and urban areas, and to the north, the south and the midlands. However, the combined changes that were made last year have had a different impact in different parts of the country.

The hon. Member for Taunton spoke, in particular, about rurality, and about how to address the needs of rural schools. He was right to do so, although that goes some way beyond the specific focus of today's debate. He also mentioned the question of school transport. I am acutely aware of the cost pressure that that issue incurs, and of the frequent inequity for children and their parents in the system for getting access to school transport. That is why we announced in the Queen's Speech that we intend to publish a draft Bill to examine and address that specific issue.

I have responsibility in the Department for work with rural schools. We now have a rural schools group, which brings together head teachers from secondary, primary and special schools to examine particular issues, such as transport, and access to information and communications technology, to which the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) referred when making the contrast between the situation in his constituency and that in a city such as Birmingham.

The hon. Member for Taunton, in responding to an intervention, made a point about small schools. It is important that we have sufficient flexibility to recognise the particular circumstances of small schools, especially those in rural areas. That is why we introduced the important presumption against closure of rural schools. Earlier this year, I visited a school in Cornwall, which had only 17 pupils in the entire school. I was struck by the excellence in that school, and how that was achieved. I would prefer that we only closed schools in extreme circumstances, and accept the his point that one implication of that is that we need to examine the funding arrangements.

We said this year that we want to have a minimum per pupil increase in every school. Part of the reason for that is that we want to give a guarantee of stability. However, we also recognise that in many schools, and particularly in primary schools, pupil numbers are falling significantly. We want to ensure that sufficient flexibility is given to those schools for them not to suffer as a result of their decreasing pupil numbers. I endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Taunton about the importance of some of our initiatives, for example the relevance of specialist schools to rural as well as to urban areas.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the undertaking that we have given that authorities can apply to bring forward future years' grant into this year, and asked whether Somerset would be eligible to do that. I understand that no approach has been made to the Department by the authorities in Somerset, but that there is still sufficient time for them to do so if they wish to make use of that provision.

In Somerset, there has recently been a significant increase in the numbers of teachers and of other staff working in schools. I want to strive for that position to be sustained in the future rather than being reversed. I understand that Somerset has an excellent record on education, which has been recognised in many ways by Ofsted and the comprehensive performance assessment process.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that progress made in primary schools at key stage 2 is slightly behind national progress. However, at secondary level, good progress has been made in recent years. The figures for the five A* to C GCSE measure are above the national average. Somerset does particularly well in the value added measure between key stage 2 and key stage 3. I would be happy to examine that further, but I understand that the Department has a positive view of the progress that Somerset is making and we want that to continue.

Several hon. Members referred to the increases in capital investment in schools in recent years, and I appreciate the non-partisan way in which the issue was addressed. There has been significant improvement. Capital investment in 1997–98 in Somerset was just below £4 million, whereas this year it is just below £20 million. I do not underestimate the scale of the challenge that we face in ensuring that school buildings and equipment are fit for the 21st century. We must accept that all Governments over the decades have failed to address that sufficiently, but I am pleased that we are now seeking to do so

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) raised several issues, including the ongoing F40 campaign. I understand his concern, which overlapped with the subsequent speech by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire. It is clear that it is a difficult issue to get right. It would be difficult to address the problem with a national formula, but it would be equally challenging to leave it to local authorities and communities to determine for themselves. My hon. Friend rightly said that we have sought to identify a basic amount of money that everyone should receive, while recognising that further factors must be considered.

I acknowledge what my hon. Friend said about the contrasts between neighbouring authorities, such as Stoke and Wolverhampton, and he raised two specific issues, one of which was raised by other hon. Members. The first point was about the upper pay spine. We are acutely aware that head teachers are concerned about the affordability of the next stage of the pay reform. Following the School Teachers Review Body's announcement, we have been involved in discussions with head teachers associations and the Local Government Association on ensuring an outcome that is affordable, has clear criteria for schools, and rewards good performance by teachers so that they can make the desired progress.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) raised the issue of work load, and it is critical to get that right. There has been a fundamental change in recent years with an increase in the number of additional adults, such as classroom assistants or learning mentors, working in schools. Central Government must ensure that that trend can be sustained and afforded. Indeed, we hope that it can be increased, so that the terms of the national work load agreement can be implemented in schools and communities across the country. We are working with all signatories of the national work load agreement, including the majority of unions, head teachers associations and the Local Government Association, to see how to proceed most reasonably.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire passionately raised the position of their counties and drew contrasts with the positions of neighbouring authorities. I know that a delegation from Worcestershire is going to discuss its position with my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards in January. I particularly appreciate that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that there are additional costs in London that merit an uplift within the system. He also acknowledged that it is right to have a factor for deprivation, and he said that there should be a debate on how far that is weighted against others.

As hon. Members will know, the formula introduced this year is the product of detailed work that has attempted to get the combination of factors right. We have listened to the concerns of rural schools, hence the introduction of the sparsity element in the primary, central LEA part of the formula. We have listened to the concerns of urban schools about the impact of factors such as deprivation, pupil mobility, and pupils speaking English as an additional language, and incorporated that into the formula. I accept that it continues to leave gaps. I believe that we all accept that there will always be gaps in per pupil funding, for the reasons that hon. Members have acknowledged throughout the debate, but we need to continue to examine the implementation of that funding in future years. I very much appreciate the serious point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire that the rules of compound interest apply. That aspect of the debate will continue.

I will ensure that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire gets a proper and clear reply to his parliamentary questions. I understand that there are 15 specialist schools in Worcestershire, which clearly benefit from additional funding, in addition to the leadership incentive grant moneys to which he referred. In the past 12 months, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that we want every secondary school in the country that qualifies under the criteria to be able to be a specialist school. That will bring great benefit to Worcestershire, as it will to other parts of the country.

We are also considering how some of the projects that have been funded through schemes such as excellence in cities and behaviour support—the hon. Gentleman listed some of them—can be drawn out and applied to other parts of the country. Last week, I announced that the primary programme for excellence in cities is being extended to other primary schools with a high level of deprivation. That will include some rural schools and schools outside the traditional excellence in cities areas. I appreciate the concern that a focus on areas of high deprivation can have several impacts, one of which is to ignore small pockets of deprivation in otherwise fairly wealthy areas. Again, we must debate that further.

The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) said that this would be a nail-biting time for the DFES. Certainly, we are determined to get these things right. He described the future debate as being between new localism and command and control. I am tempted to use my remaining three minutes to respond to that, but that is a broader debate, which we will need to conduct elsewhere if I am to do justice to other points raised this afternoon.

The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Fareham, talked about the importance of the Government recognising some of the serious differences between areas and the discretion that local authorities may or may not have. In all honesty, we have done a mixture of things. On the one hand, we have been more prescriptive by saying that there should be a minimum increase for each school, which obviously reduces some of the discretion that LEAs used to have. On the other hand, we have told LEAs that the remaining money gives them the headroom, as we describe it, to apply it, and more flexibility about how they do so. They need not necessarily apply it through the traditional local formula. They have that ability, and we strongly encourage them to use it, as we believe that it is important that such support is given.

The hon. Member for Fareham also made a very important point about the transitional support, which is the additional money that we have identified for the LEAs that received a relatively small increase this year and to whom we plan to give a similarly small increase next year. That will ensure that everyone receives a minimum increase of 12 per cent. across the two years. He asked whether that might reward mismanagement. We do not want to do that. We want to ensure that schools that have had to exercise certain short-term measures are given the support that they need for longterm stability. He is right to say that, in some cases, that will include schools whose budgets have gone into deficit this year. However, the money is not meant exclusively for those schools. It can be used to assist schools that have had to raid their reserves in the way that he described, if the LEA and the Government agree. It can also be used for schools that have had to divert money from capital into revenue. We do not want a school to have to make a permanent shift from capital into revenue because of the obvious damage that that could do to its ability to maintain its school buildings and to do other work required to provide capital support for the school.

I assure hon. Members that the Government recognise that we have a shared responsibility to learn the lessons from this year. We have found additional funds, including funds that the Chancellor announced last week for local government, which we believe will make a difference. We have reversed the cuts that were to be made to the standards funds for the coming year and the year after, and we believe that that will be beneficial. We have sought to give a basic guarantee to schools in all communities that they will receive an increase that will enable them to plan for this year and the following year. Crucially, we have a two-year pay deal on the table which will make budgets far more predictable for all schools in the country.

We have had a good, constructive debate—I am sure that it will not be the last debate on schools funding in this Chamber—and I have been pleased to take part in it.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the subject of missing persons in Kosovo.

As with so many things, the issue was brought to my attention by a constituent who came to my surgery. He had been involved for many years with the charity Hope and Aid Direct, which delivers materials and goods to Kosovo. Over the years, he has naturally become attached to some of the families that he has met. It was because he was so obviously emotional about the subject that I thought that it was worthy of a little more attention than a standard letter to the Minister and my thinking that I had discharged my duty by doing that.

The basic problem is this: the Office of Missing Persons and Forensics—that is a bit of a mouthful, so I shall now refer to it as the OMPF—which is a part of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, stated on 12 November that there are 3,638 missing people in Kosovo, of whom 2,842 are believed to be Albanian. There are also about 1,000 missing Serbians.

I do not know whether the figures are entirely accurate, because I gather that the number of missing persons changes almost daily as previously unidentified remains are identified, the fate of those missing persons is established and, from time to time, new cases are reported. I understand that the number of remains exhumed and not identified is approaching the number of missing persons. The main problem appears to be that the pace with which bodies are returned is extremely slow. Obviously, people want to know what has happened to their loved ones and without proof of their fate many people cannot properly move on in their lives.

According to a statement published by Amnesty International in August, the OMPF's current priorities are

"the exhumation and examination of grave sites, and the return of positively identified bodies to their families for burial".

As most of the work on the former has been more or less completed, unless more sites are found, clearly the emphasis should be on identification.

On 8 May, the first group of remains that were identified using DNA analysis were handed over. The bodies are handed over to UNMIK at the administrative border between Serbia and Kosovo. The bodies had been identified, but were then handed over to the OMPF for further forensic examination, and even then the families had to wait until 1 August before they were able to bury friends and relatives. At that time, the families had been waiting for the first release of bodies for four years after the war had ended, and only 37 were released at that stage. Recently—early in December—there was a further handover of bodies, when another 44 were released.

The handing over of bodies in dribs and drabs is adding to the anguish felt by those families. I am told that each release has the effect of reawakening some of the old tensions. I may be wrong, but I am told that a lot of people go to the site where the bodies are released to check whether anybody they know or any family member is there. If not, it adds to the anguish. That may not be the situation, but that is the way it has been put to me, and I should be interested to receive clarification from the Minister if possible.

To date, only 157 bodies have been returned to their families. It would be in the best interests of everyone if the process was speeded up in some way. Last week, my constituent and I met a couple of officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The meeting was useful, but worryingly, it was apparent that no one really understood why all the bodies had not been transferred and what had caused the delay. I am pleased that officials undertook to try to establish where the blockages in the system are, the reason for them and any possible solutions. I therefore hope that the Minister will enlighten us further, but I understand that, because of staff changes, that might not be possible.

In order to understand why feelings are running so high, it is worth putting the matter in its historical context. Many of the bodies were originally found in mass graves. One of the most famous locations is Batajnica, where some of the graves contained as many as 300 bodies. The bodies were exhumed and examined, and the initial task was to try to establish the cause of death. The process included taking many photographs to help identification and gathering bone samples that could be used for subsequent DNA analysis. Much of that work took place more than a year ago. It is believed that the bodies in Batajnica were victims of atrocities committed in the Kosovo conflict two years earlier. The "clean-up", as it is sometimes referred to, is understood to have been organised by Slobodan Milosevic's officials to destroy evidence of the widespread massacres that Serbian forces committed in Kosovo in 1999.

Prior to that, a refrigerated lorry was discovered. It was pulled out of the Danube at Kladovo in eastern Serbia in April 1999. The Serbian Government tried to hush up the story, but the news spread very quickly as it was the first known incidence of Serbian atrocities. Admittedly, the Serbian Government set up a working group to investigate the matter, but that investigation met with only limited success. Several similar incidents followed, but according to the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, the Serbian Interior Ministry under Milosevic is believed to have blocked all investigations into the first lorry load of corpses.

Milivoje Srzentic, the prosecutor from Negotin, said that he asked the state prosecutor at the time why no investigation was taking place. Majstorovic apparently answered, "Because nothing has happened." It has since been reported that Vlajko Stojiljkovic, who was Milosevic's Interior Minister, and Vlastimir Djordjevic, then chief of public security, instructed the district chief of police to refrain from launching any investigation. They ordered him to transfer the bodies to Belgrade and the case was declared a state secret. However, evidence to The Hague tribunal shows that the day after the discovery of the lorry on 7 April 1999, the corpses were taken by truck to the police training compound in Petrovo Selo in eastern Serbia and destroyed by 30 kg of explosives.

The director of the Belgrade-based Humanitarian Law Centre, Natasa Kandic, condemned the affair as a heinous crime. She believes that the people in the freezer lorry were likely to have been on the list of Albanians who had been missing since the Kosovo conflict, and she has called for an investigation into the removal of evidence. She stated that there were serious indications that the Serbian police and the Yugoslav army jointly destroyed evidence of atrocities committed against Kosovo Albanians during the NATO bombardment.

An investigation by Kandic concluded that between 24 March and 12 June 1999, the bodies of at least 800 murdered Albanians were transported from their initial burial sites to secret locations in Kosovo and Serbia, where the corpses were then burned or reburied. I stress that we are talking not just about active young men, but about old people, women and children. After the conflict, the Yugoslav army launched an investigation into the conduct of 245 soldiers. Charges for crimes were brought against 183 of them, but none of them related to the more high-profile cases—including those involving refrigerated lorries. Officers in the new regime and new members of the judiciary were expected to comment on the freezer lorry affair, but the Serbian Justice Minister and the Police Minister both declined to do so.

In May 2001, the Serbian Interior Ministry announced that a special police investigative unit had been set up to investigate the case under the guidance of Dragan Karleusa. Hopes were high that the names of those involved in the apparent cover-up would be revealed in days. Karleusa told a press conference at the end of May 2001 that his team had established that a working meeting was held in Slobodan Milosevic's office in March 1999 and that at that meeting Milosevic had ordered the then Interior Minister to take measures to cover up all traces of the crimes.

The working group questioned several police generals, but all of them denied involvement in or knowledge of the mass graves. Karleusa has not said whether efforts were made to interrogate Colonel Zivko Trajkovic, the Serbian SAJ police commander who was in command of the Batajnica and Petrovo Selo bases in which the mass graves had been discovered. Sadly, since those statements were made, some time ago, no arrests have been made, no charges have been pressed and the police force has turned a deaf ear to most questions asked. Understandably, there is a great deal of anger that the issues do not appear to have been adequately investigated, and the fact that the identification issues are still rumbling on is not helping matters.

It is known that the authorities can move swiftly when it suits them. It might be useful to point out the case of the Bitici brothers, Albanians who happened to have American citizenship. They were each sentenced to 15 days in prison for illegally entering Yugoslavia. They served their sentence but a year later their bodies were discovered in one of the two mass graves at a police training camp at Petrovo Selo. The bodies were wrapped in wire, there were blinds over their eyes, they had head wounds and they had clearly been shot. They were discovered on 8 July 2001 and their identity was determined very quickly, by August 2001. They were identified by FBI pathologists working at the Belgrade forensic institute, so admittedly they were part of a different system.

However, it is worth mentioning the speed of identification of those bodies in order to highlight the fact that the delays are not due to science. If suitable samples are available for cross-referencing—these are usually obtained easily—there is no scientific reason why the identification of the bodies is taking so long. Indeed, this week, Saddam Hussein was positively identified within 24 hours, so identification is not always a prolonged process. All of this leads people to believe that the reasons for the delay are political. Allegations have been made that the bodies are being used as bargaining counters in some macabre political game. That is the nub of the issue, and it is what concerns me most.

I have visited Kosovo as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. Part of the reason for that visit was to witness the role of the British Army in peacekeeping. I visited at an interesting time, because the Queen's Royal Lancers were handing over their chunk of the country to a Czech peacekeeping unit. The different reactions of the public to the British and Czech soldiers were fascinating. It was very clear to me that some of the tensions in Kosovo are bubbling dangerously close to the surface.

As a result of that visit, I am aware of the great capability that the British forces have in providing the necessary infrastructure wherever they are. They are probably second to none in that respect, as I hope the Minister agrees. Even though there are now fewer troops in Kosovo, it strikes me that there is a great deal of expertise.

Clearly, the first step is to establish through UNMIK the precise reasons for the delay. In some respects, it is difficult to suggest what to do next if one does not know the reason. If the reason turns out to be infrastructure limitations, I would urge the Minister to try to use the resources that I have mentioned to provide the facilities to clear the backlog of bodies quickly. It could be that the delay is due to human resources, so it might be helpful to try to establish how long the process of identification takes for any particular individual, because I appreciate that with mass graves there is some sample contamination.

It might be helpful to come up with a clear timetable showing how many bodies can be released and by when so that expectations are not unduly raised and are managed positively. I ask the Minister to consider whether there is any expertise that we can lend to speed up the process and what could be done in that direction. The bigger picture is that Kosovo is a country that we went to war with for real humanitarian purposes, and so much has been done there already that this request seems almost like a drop in the ocean; but to the families, many of whom will be facing a fifth Christmas without their loved ones, the resources would be well spent, and very timely.

There might be fears that once the bodies were returned there would be immense political pressure to identify the perpetrators of the crimes. That may well be so, and I can understand that, but I sincerely hope that that is not being used as an excuse to duck the issue. It is too late to do anything for this Christmas, but I urge the Minister to do all that he can to ensure that there will not be a sixth Christmas of uncertainty.

This is an important debate on a fundamental issue, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) for initiating it. She has visited Kosovo, and she has responded to a constituent much involved in that field of work who has come to see her. It is entirely to her honour as a hard-working constituency Member that she has found time to raise the issue.

The broader subject of forensic pathology and the identification of remains is, tragically, a pressing issue throughout the world. I have visited the forensic pathology laboratory in Guatemala City, which is partly supported by Her Majesty's Government. There, one sees young men and women examining the exhumed skulls and bones of people killed in massacres 20 years ago. I fear that there will be years and years of agony in Iraq as the victims of Saddam Hussein's torture and mass murder are exhumed from the mass graves into which he flung them.

Although not directly germane to that point, it is entirely to Britain's credit that we took the lead in using military force to free the people of Kosovo from the terror that they faced from Milosevic, and that we were prepared to use military force to free the people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein—in both cases, of course, without UN authorisation. However, I hope that, after this weekend's discovery, the whole House will unite in backing the Government and the Prime Minister, who showed courage in being prepared to use our authority and military forces in both Kosovo and Iraq to take things forward.

The hon. Lady raised many valid points about the continued suffering of the many families in Kosovo who lost relatives during the 1999 conflict. No one can fail to be moved by the humanitarian catastrophe and the blood shed across the Balkans and in the rest of Europe and our own country in the 1990s, and there can be no hon. Member who has not, in his or her constituency advice surgery, met asylum seekers and others displaced as a result of that violence, which was without parallel in Europe after the second world war.

Since becoming a member of the Government in 2001, I have sought to visit the Balkans regularly, and I am happy to report that each time I am struck by the fact that it feels less and less like a region that has suffered brutal repression and war. Real progress has been and is being made, not just in rebuilding economies, but in the healing and reconciliation process. For example, last week, another war criminal was sentenced for his part in the massacre at Srebrenice. A dialogue was launched between Belgrade and Pristina on 14 October 2003, and that was a key step in beginning the normalisation of the difficult relationship between Kosovan Albanians and the Serbs who live in Kosovo, as well as the Serbian nation and its capital city of Belgrade.

The war is still there, however. It continues for thousands of families who are unable to put the events behind them due to the simple fact that their husbands, sons and daughters were taken away and have never come back. In this country, we have a doctrine of habeas corpus, which we apply to arrests and criminal investigations, but there is also a sense that until families know the location of the body of a missing person to whom they were close, and until there is a body to grieve over, they are trapped in the continual emotional torment of wondering, "What if my son, my father or my uncle is still alive?" That is the tragic situation faced by many families from all ethnic groups and communities throughout the Balkans.

From the moment that the UN entered Kosovo in June 1999 and established its mission, UNMIK, it has been a key priority to try to find those who went missing in the conflict. That was never going to be an easy task, and until 2000 it was made more difficult by the fact that Milosevic was still in power in Belgrade. After the fall of Milosevic, UNMIK set up a dedicated Office of Missing Persons and Forensics to pool the expertise of those working on the task in Kosovo. The OMPF is creating a combined database of statistics and files on missing persons from the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague, the International Committee of the Red Cross and police data. It also has an outreach office in Belgrade to facilitate closer cooperation with the Belgrade authorities.

The scale of the issue is immense. In June 1999, the UN estimated that 6,000 people of all ethnicities were missing as a result of the conflict in Kosovo. The latest version of the consolidated list of missing persons, issued by the OMPF on 9 December, states that 3,638 are still reported missing.

Missing persons is one of the most highly politicised and deeply divisive issues in post-conflict Kosovo. Obtaining accurate information about the location of mass graves is a problem. The wounds from the conflict are still very raw—we are only four years on from it. The hon. Lady referred to the tension that she could feel as one contingent of national troops replaced another. I have experienced that, too. There is still a sense of two communities finding it difficult to live in peace with each other.

It is possible that those who have information are afraid or unwilling to pass it on to the authorities. We therefore need to assist UNMIK and what is called its pillar which is responsible for law and order: any witnesses who come forward must be supported. That becomes logistically difficult if entire families have to be moved outside Kosovo. That is why we must work with the UN and the Kosovo provisional institutions of self-Government—the PISG, in the jargon—to build a safe and secure environment in Kosovo so that all its citizens feel protected.

A credible local police service is an important contribution to that. I have had the pleasure of meeting serving UK police officers in Pristina who are helping to train and lead the new Kosovan police service: 122 of our police officers are attached to UNMIK. That is an important British contribution to this work.

There is also the issue of the identification and return of remains to Kosovo. Progress has been made, but UNMIK and Belgrade have more to do on that. In 2000, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe reported the existence of 4,392 bodies from the conflict in Kosovo. Since then, another 150 bodies have been found. So far, 4,019 bodies have been exhumed and 2,212 have been identified. In addition, approximately 800 bodies have been exhumed from the mass graves at Batajnica and Petrovo Selo in Serbia, the majority of which are unidentified, but 157 of those that have been identified have been returned to Kosovo.

The creation of the International Commission on Missing Persons for the Former Yugoslavia was announced long ago—at the G7 summit in Lyon in France in 1996. However, delays in this process cause great distress to families waiting for news. There are harrowing descriptions of relatives arriving on the border with Serbia to try to find their relatives among the unnamed bodies returned to Kosovo. No one should have to go through that sort of trauma, but no one should have to suffer civil war either.

The hon. Lady asked why the bodies exhumed in Serbia cannot be returned to Kosovo more quickly. In fact, bodies need to be identified and returned not only in Belgrade, but in Kosovo. There have been long delays in returning the remains of loved ones who have been identified, which cause huge distress for the families. I confirm that as a priority I am asking our embassy in Belgrade and our mission in Pristina to call upon the ICMP and the OMPF to raise that. I have not yet received responses, but I assure the hon. Lady that I shall maintain pressure and write to her when I hear of developments.

A key obstacle to the process is the fact that the Serbian police did not begin to discover or exhume the mass graves in Serbia until March 2001, with the arrival of a reforming Government in Belgrade after the ousting of Milosevic. Further delays have arisen over the best way to identify the remains. Should one use traditional forensic techniques or DNA testing? DNA testing relies on matching the DNA of a family member with that of a victim. Post-mortem and ante-mortem data, such as physical characteristics, clothing and location, can provide crucial circumstantial information, which makes finding DNA matches easier.

That has now been resolved, and the ICMP and UNMIK signed a memorandum of understanding on 26 November 2003. I hope that we now move forward, and, in passing, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), who has been heavily involved with other organisations working in the field of forensics and in identifying victims of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia.

Is there a problem with the fact that the identification process has to be carried out twice—once in Serbia, and once when the remains are returned to Kosovo? The difficulty is that the OMPF would not be complying with its formal obligations to co-operate with war crimes prosecutors if it did not carry out a forensic examination to determine the true cause of death. However, we must look again to see whether we can have one examination rather than two.

The next question is: why are not all the exhumed remains returned en masse from Serbia to Kosovo? I am told that one reason is that if the bodies were returned to Kosovo en masse before identification, there would be greater delays in their return to their families because the local capacity for identifying remains would be further overloaded. Indeed, those of us who visit Kosovo from time to time see that the state administration is limited in what it can do.

Since taking up ministerial office and during my visits to Belgrade and Pristina, I have regularly raised the issue of missing persons and returns. Most recently, I visited in April this year. I spoke to the families of Serbian missing persons in Belgrade, and I had extensive discussions with Prime Minister Rexhepi of the Kosovan provisional Administration.

The international community has to take the issue seriously. It is true that the Serbian Government have exposed to their people what Milosevic had done in Serbia's name during the Kosovo conflict. That came as a shock to many Serbians, who had been genuinely unaware of the scale of the attacks on Kosovar Albanians. I do not think that the Government were using the bodies that were discovered politically-as in Iraq, it is important that we understand the crimes with which people are being charged.

The UK Government have so far provided £750,000 to organisations working to locate and identify persons missing as a result of the armed conflicts in the Balkans. We will continue to play close attention to the matter, and I invite the hon. Lady to stay in contact with me on this issue on behalf of her constituents. I congratulate her again on placing this matter in the record of the House of Commons. It will be of great interest and perhaps some comfort that she is a champion of the families in Kosovo and Serbia who are seeking to come to terms with the great losses that they have suffered.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue in Westminster Hall today. People hear of many roads around the United Kingdom, including the M25, M1, A1 and M6. The A180 is not exactly top of the list of well-known roads, but it is the main dual carriageway to the wonderful conurbation of Grimsby and Cleethorpes, serving all the major industry and ports in that area. People should know of this road, because it must be one of the noisiest in the UK—it certainly is as far as I and the residents who live alongside it are concerned. Whether one is driving along the road or is a resident alongside it, the noise is very noticeable, to the extent that if my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and I were in a car together, we would not even be able to hear each other speak. Mind you, there are times when we may not wish to hear each other.

People in our constituencies have been campaigning for many years to have the concrete surface of the road resurfaced with low-noise material. In the past, when the residents of the village of Habrough in my constituency and the residents of Great Coates in my hon. Friend's constituency were campaigning, there was no provision for funding of such a measure. I was therefore very pleased that the 10-year transport plan, which was announced in July 2000, stated that 60 per cent. of the trunk road network would be given lower-noise surfacing. That was good news for the residents of our areas. Following that, and having supported the residents' campaign for low-noise material, I embarked on a series of parliamentary questions to try to find out exactly what was happening.

I asked for a statement and, on 2 May 2001, Tim Matthews from the Highways Agency replied via the then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who is now my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning. He said that they were looking into the criteria. The answer states:

"It is anticipated that the final set of criteria will be announced this summer and will then be applied to determine the priority of concrete trunk roads, including the A180, for resurfacing." [Official Report, 2 May 2001; Vol. 367, c. 635W.]

At that point, we seemed to be getting closer to our objective.

We had further good news on 17 October 2001, when the list of priority roads was announced. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and I were pleased that, according to the list, the A180 from Habrough to Stallingborough and from Great Coates to Pyewipe was due to be resurfaced with low-noise material. The list explicitly stated that those stretches of road were likely to be resurfaced in the following three years: 2002–03, 2003–04 and 2004–05. At least we knew that our roads were on the list and would be resurfaced and that the residents would at last have some peace and quiet.

However, every time that I asked further parliamentary questions about when exactly the A180 would be resurfaced, I found the replies increasingly confusing and sometimes evasive. We were never given a firm date—the answer was always, "It will be sometime in this period if money is available and if we need maintenance to be carried out on the road." I praise the Government for making money available, but the excitement expressed by my constituents at the initial announcement has been dissipated. They were promised that the work would be done, but as time went on, it kept getting put back.

I want to support both my hon. Friend's arguments and the efforts of the local people who have petitioned us both and kept up the pressure to get the noise reduction work done. I confess that I am a frequent maker of that noise, as I drive through my hon. Friend's constituency, although I always write to her as a parliamentary courtesy to tell her that I am doing that. The noise is a real problem, but there does not seem to be any sense of urgency in the Highways Agency's approach or in any of the developments that only a couple of years ago the Government led us to believe would be delivered.

As ever, my hon. Friend and neighbour from Great Grimsby encapsulates the essence of the debate in a couple of articulate lines. By the way, that is my Christmas present to him—being nice to him.

I received a parliamentary answer on 28 November 2002, and it demonstrates what my hon. Friend was saying. The errors in the answer were dreadful and astonishing. Habrough, one of the main villages in the area, was continually described as Harborough, which it is not. As we know, that town is represented by another MP. The answer said:

"Resurfacing of two concrete sections of the A180, between

Harborough"—

which should be Habrough—

and Stallingborough and between Great Coates and Pyewipe, is due to be undertaken by 2001."

According to that, the work should already have been done, but I presume that it meant to say that work was due to be undertaken by 2010 under the 10-year transport plan. The answer then said that

"current indications are that maintenance work will not be needed between Great Coates and Pyewipe before 2005 and it is probable that this work will be undertaken later."—[Official Report, 28 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 453W.]

Later than what 2005 or 2001? We could not tell.

The situation worsened when the then Minister of State for Transport, now the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worley (Mr. Spellar), announced the scheme to reduce traffic noise alongside trunk roads. That scheme was in the 10-year transport plan, but when we looked at the list of roads included, we found the A180 almost at the end, below nearly every other road in the UK. Furthermore, the stretches of road covered by the work had changed the A180 Habrough to Grimsby and the A180/M180 to Ulceby. A whole new section had been included, which I understand goes through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey).

The A 180 is the road that links my constituency to those of my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Cleethorpes (Shona Mclsaac). These days, I use it largely to go to see Grimsby Town play at Blundell Park, and driving home on that noisy road can only add to the gloom and despondency that I feel after coming home from a football match.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes mentioned the M180, which runs into the A 180, and she will be aware that it has recently been resurfaced by the Highways Agency, improving the life of the people living in those villages. I received some letters from people in Belton to say how much better it is. Does my hon. Friend agree that it adds to local people's frustration when they see that one section of the road has been completed while the other end of the A180 remains to be done?

My hon. Friend, and other neighbour, also expresses his point well. The M180 has been resurfaced, and my constituents tell me that the reduction in noise is such that it is almost as though their car engines have cut out. I am sure that they say that to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole before his drive from his constituency to Grimsby to watch the football match. People drive on the A180, where everything is juddering and making a noise—and they cannot hear the radio or traffic announcements-but suddenly, on the newly tarmacked section, it is quiet. They wonder what is happening to the car. I am so unused to low-noise surfaces that I once took my car in to be checked because I kept not hearing the engine. When I was travelling on the newly tarmacked surfaces I thought that the engine was not running properly.

The fact that one bit is done but another is not increases people's frustration. It was depressing to see the two stretches of road in question at the bottom of the list. However, it was more depressing for residents to read that there was a programme for the resurfacing of concrete roads from 2007–08 to 2010–11. Given that we were initially assured that that was likely to happen in the financial year 2004–05, hon. Members can appreciate the sense of upset experienced by all the people who had previously rejoiced when they were told that the A180 was to be resurfaced. That sense is beautifully expressed in an e-mail that I received from John Specht, a resident of Habrough, who has campaigned on this issue for many years. He and other residents of the village, such as Ann Standland, have been stalwarts. The e-mail is headed, "WHAT ON EARTH IS GOING ON?" It continues:

"A report in this evening's local paper tells us that our road will not be resurfaced until 2007!! Or even 2011!! ….We have been promised for about 3 years now that the A180 would be done in 2004–5. A very good explanation needs to be forthcoming."

I should like the Minister to provide some explanations and guarantees. We want to know when this road will be resurfaced. My staff contacted the Department for Transport and tried to clarify what was happening. We received a reply, which suggested that some of the sections were to be done in 2004–05, but it was not clear. That date is riot to be found anywhere in the documents produced and put on the record in the House. That has not been corrected. If these sections of road are to be resurfaced, I want that fact and the date it will be done put on the record.

I received a reply following my attempt to ascertain—as my constituent Mr. Specht said—what on earth was going on. It said:

"A number of schemes for resurfacing of the A180 were combined in the recent announcement and included in the table for 2007–08 to 2010–11, which is when some of the later contracts will be carried out. We would not resurface the whole of the A180 in one contract and the schemes have been placed in the programme based on maintenance need, funding availability and network occupancy. It is planned to start resurfacing the A180 in 2004–05, subject to funding with the A180 Harborough-Stallingborough section."

Again, there is no mention of Habrough. I want my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm today that that will happen.

I realise that recent debates in this Chamber have been secured by other hon. Members who have experienced problems with noisy roads. I appreciate that when it is announced that money will be available for resurfacing, Members of Parliament representing their constituents will campaign for it to be allocated to their schemes. I hope that I have demonstrated that the residents who live beside this stretch of the A180 have been told for years that the work will be done. The Highways Agency has no sense of urgency, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby said. I hope that the Minister is able to tell my hon. Friends here today, the residents of that part of Lincolnshire and me that they will have their road resurfaced in the future.

As this is the last debate in the Chamber before Christmas, I would like to wish you, Mr. McWilliam, the Minister, my hon. Friends, our wonderful constituents and staff an absolutely wonderful Christmas. The Christmas present that I want for those residents in my constituency is a little more silent night.

I start by replying to those felicitations for Christmas and heartily send them back to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and our hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey). I cannot do much about the appalling performance of Grimsby Town but let me try to put into context some of the matters raised. Having been a West Ham fan for far too long, pots and kettles spring to mind in my decrying Grimsby Town.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes on securing the debate and on her assiduous campaigning for the residents beside the A180. She could not have put the problems of her constituents more starkly I do not mean this in anything other than an endearing way when she described how, of all hon. Members, she and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby could not hear each other in a conversation along the road. Knowing both of them, it tells me how noisy the road is on those particular sections.

To further show how noisy the road is, I cannot hear the Minister on the "Today" programme.

That may be a good rather than a bad thing. I must also say purely in passing and not to offend anyone in the Highways Agency that the mischievous little "r" has crept into the map given to me too. When I subsequently talk about Habrough to Stallingborough, that is what I mean and not "Harbrough", as it is called on the map.

Let me start my speech back to front because I have loads of pages and on the last two, it says:

"I will now turn to the resurfacing that my hon Friend has raised on the A180 trunk road."

If I have time I will go backwards.

As my hon. Friend has said, the Secretary of State announced in April the timetable for the removal of all concrete surfaces on the motorway and trunk road network by 2010–11. The work to resurface the entire stretch of the A180 between Barnetby and Grimsby was scheduled for completion in six stages between 2007 and 2011. The six stages, with apologies for any misspelling or mispronunciation as I know that pronunciation gets dodgy when one goes north of Watford, are Barnetby le Wold to Croxton, Croxton to Ulceby, Ulceby to Brocklesby junction, Habrough to Stallingborough, Stallingborough to Great Coates, and the section to which my hon. Friend alluded—Great Coates to Pyewipe.

I am able to confirm—subject to funding—that we intend to deliver the Habrough to Stallingborough section in 2004–05. I will do my absolute level best into the new year to ensure that it does prevail.

I hope that my three hon. Friends will do their level best, by badgering me and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) who is currently in a Select Committee sitting and sends his apologies, which is why it falls to me to respond to ensure that at least the Habrough to Stallingborough section is delivered in the coming year if funds are available. Inasmuch as I can reciprocate and give a Christmas present to my hon. Friends from the area, I can say that to them. I hope that that section will be delivered next year. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport and I will do all that we can to ensure delivery of that element, if funds are available.

In order that the Minister's colleague does not get an even worse earache from my lobbying, would the Minister advise the wonderful trio who are here today of anyone else who should be lobbied to secure the funding?

It is not for me to tell such experienced parliamentarians where to direct their fire. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is in Committee rather than here, I have been introduced to the wonders and delights of the A180. Although he is the Minister with responsibility for roads, not me, the stereo is in place. We would welcome any assiduous parliamentary colleagues, which my three hon. Friends are, keeping the pressure on us. If the funding is available, we will do all that we can to ensure that at least that part of the route is delivered, with the remaining sections being delivered between 2007 and 2011 as originally scheduled.

The six schemes to resurface the A180 with low-noise surfacing will bring benefits to my hon. Friend's constituents who live and work in the many villages along the route. I am grateful for the opportunity to confirm, at least as far as I can, that the Habrough to Stallingborough part will be brought forward in 2004-05. 1 look forward to passing on my hon. Friend's concerns and campaigning to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, because the quieter roads programme is absolutely essential for some communities that are spread along key trunk roads. That was the key reason for the announcement of the programme in the first instance.

By the way, I take on board entirely—perhaps we can explore it afterwards—why the M 180 being thrown into the pot was another let-down and disappointment. Actually, it is quite the reverse. It does not belong in the element at all.

It is done.

Precisely so. Why we are saying that it will not be done until some time between 2007 and 2011 beggars belief.

The matter is important not just because of civil amenities, quality of life and the other matters to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes referred. Roads such as the A180 are real lifelines. Such thoroughfares are of importance to communities in this part of the country, as elsewhere, which is why we recognise that the programme must be carried through to fruition by 2011.

I suppose that the listing of priorities on a year-to-year basis will always be something of a movable feast. Many roads across the network have been this is the wrong way to put it, but let me say it anyway lovingly neglected over time, given what they were originally built with and the adjustments and modifications that should have been made since. As a result, some are in a greater state of deterioration than first envisaged when inspected for this programme. Therefore, priorities shift somewhat.

However, we recognise that traffic noise is a concern for many people, and we gave a commitment in the White Paper "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England", which stated:

"In future, whenever a road needs to be resurfaced, we shall ensure that the most appropriate noise reducing surfaces are used for those areas where noise is a particular concern."

My hon. Friend has gone through the criteria that we sought to employ to deal with that, and now the programme really is in place. It is essential that things should be delivered in the way that we anticipated. Some 5 per cent. of the trunk road network, at some 70 different locations, is constructed with a concrete surface. Clearly, given the scale of the problem, the work cannot be completed overnight. My three hon. Friends have the experience to know that.

We must ensure that cases are dealt with in order of priority hence the criteria and we must also ensure the effective use of resources to minimise disruption to road users. As my hon. Friend said, the Government announced the criteria in October 2001, bearing in mind need, funding and the use of the road, and we are working to ensure that things remain on schedule between 2004–05 and 2011. A number of roads have proved to be in a great state of disrepair and deterioration, to such an extent that safety as well as noise reduction has become an issue. Naturally, those roads have moved up the list of priorities.

As I said at the start, all three of my hon. Friends can be assured that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport and I will do all that we can—with the single caveat "subject to funding"—to ensure that the promise that the Habrough to Stallingborough section will be delivered in 2004–05 is stuck to. All three of my colleagues will seek to ensure that the promise is kept. I would ask them to keep their eyes firmly on the ball when subsequent priority lists come out, in order to ensure that the other five elements of the A180 scheme come to fruition between 2007 and 2011. Such roads are important in terms of their interconnectivity for all communities, as well as for the peace and quiet of those who live alongside or close to them. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes for raising the matter.

Very briefly, does my hon. Friend accept that, apart from its importance to the communities that live alongside it, the road is essential for all the industry in the area? The Humber ports are the busiest in the United Kingdom; we have car importing and exporting and oil refineries. The road is used by many heavy goods vehicles and the volume of traffic is expected to increase. I felt as though the Minister was portraying us as a quiet little part of Lincolnshire, whereas we are the industrial heartland of the country.

I am enormously grateful for the clarification; I did not mean to give that impression at all. A look at the map will remind us of the geography and topography of the region, and the relationship between Cleethorpes, Sunderland and the Humber area. The A180 is important; the interconnectivity of the route is vital far more so than that of similar routes for the industrial and economic lifeblood of the region. I shall try to ensure that Habrough, not Harborough, and Stallingborough, not Leninborough, retain priority for funding in the next year, and I know that my three hon. Friends will work together to ensure that that is done for their constituents

In absolute conclusion, I wish my hon. Friends very well for the break and the same to you, Mr. McWilliam, to colleagues and to staff of the House. I hope that everyone has a rest, because the only certainty is that we all need one. I know that those who live close to or alongside the A180 also need a rest and I shall endeavour to ensure, with colleagues and with the funding caveat, that they get one, at least between Habrough and Stallingborough, and subsequently in the other five sections.

Order. I thank the Minister for his felicitations for the holidays on behalf of the staff and myself, and I thank the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona Mclsaac) for her best wishes. In turn, as this is the last sitting of 2003, I wish all of you a very merry Christmas and a happy, prosperous and safe new year.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.