I have to say that there has been quite a wait for this debate. I first applied for it in January, which was the second anniversary of the end of almost 11 years of fighting. Unfortunately, the lottery system that we have for such things—I am not complaining about it, but simply placing the matter on the record—meant that there was a six-month delay before I was finally lucky enough to have my name pulled out of the hat.

My desire for the debate arose partly as a result of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation visit to Sierra Leone from 10 to 17 November 2003. The delegation included my hon. Friends the Members for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), Lord Freeman and Lord McColl of Dulwich. I pay tribute to the delegation, because we had an extremely action-packed programme, and it was sometimes a little difficult to get to every place, but we all stayed good-tempered and had extremely good relations with everyone we met.

I should also thank the CPA staff in this country, who, in liaison with the Sierra Leone CPA and other bodies, organised an excellent programme for us. Likewise, I thank the Sierra Leone parliamentary staff; the Speaker, Justice Edward Cowan MP; and the acting Speaker—the Speaker was away for part of our visit—Elizabeth Alpha-Lavalie MP. Finally, I thank the Clerk of the Parliament, Mr. Joseph Carpenter, and all his staff—three parliamentary Clerks were with us for the whole of our visit.

Our visit was absolutely outstanding. The programme that was arranged for us—several changes were made to it as we were preparing for the visit—was absolutely impressive. If Sierra Leone can work with others in the same way that people there worked with us, the road to success is virtually certain.

Let me quickly run through our programme. Interestingly, many of our visits were called courtesy calls. One would imagine that a courtesy call would be a matter of, "Hello. Nice to meet you. How are you? Thank you for sparing a bit of time for us." However, each visit involved quite an intensive discussion of the problems facing Sierra Leone or a particular Department. Everywhere, there w is appreciation for the role that the British Government are playing in helping Sierra Leone on the road to recovery.

The delegation had a briefing with the High Commission. We had a substantial meeting with President Kabbah, followed by visits to the truth and reconciliation commission and the registrar of the United Nations special court. We met representatives of the army and went to the Horton academy, where great work is being done with the Sierra Leone armed forces. We went to the Milton Margai college of education and technology, the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone and to the Guma Valley Water Company, which supplies water for Freetown.

We also visited the British Council, which was excited about a major refurbishment that was about to begin—it was the first for 30 or more years. This week, I received a letter saying that the refurbishment was virtually completed. The British Council is working closely with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy to help strengthen and develop civic society, and it is playing a vital role. The Department for International Development and other Departments need to look a bit more closely at how they can support the British Council's work.

We then met Members of Parliament and talked about human rights in Sierra Leone. We had quite a debate about the world scene. I leave all that to hon. Members' imagination.

We visited a secondary school, the Prince of Wales school, and a major Sierra Leone company, Shankerdas, to see how it was doing. We saw a limb-fitting enterprise in Aberdeen village in Freetown. We made a call on the police and the chief justice. We went on an extensive tour of projects run by the national association for social action and reconstruction in and around Freetown. We also went to a place called Bumbuna, the site of a major hydroelectric project that was almost finished at the start of the war, to see what more needed to be done to bring it on stream and provide power for Freetown and many villages along the route to Freetown.

We had a little free time, but even that had an association with the future of Sierra Leone. On the Sunday we went to Lakka beach. Of course, questions arose about tourism and what could be done to make Sierra Leone a tourist destination and earn it many dollars. We had an exciting evening with the Sierra Leone national dancing troupe—again, arranged through the British Council. We saw a preview of the show that the troupe put on for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Nigeria. Our programme was action-packed.

Of course, visitors to the country see the legacy of war immediately, in the number of people on the streets of Freetown who are without arms or legs or are in wheelchairs. One is aware not only of the 75,000 or more people who died during the fighting but the thousands whose lives were wrecked by the disfigurement of the loss or arms or legs, or sometimes both.

A peace was made in January 2002. We were impressed by the huge effort of reconciliation and the forgiveness that is being shown in Sierra Leone, towards reconstructing the country and avoiding war in future. At the Aberdeen limb-fitting centre it was amazing to see the dedication of the staff, and the way in which people who had suffered in the war were trying to get on with their lives.

We are aware, too, of the huge importance of international aid for Sierra Leone, which is one of the poorest countries in the world. Part of the purpose of the visit was to discover how aid could be a basis on which Sierra Leone could generate its own wealth, and escape the vicious circle of poverty and aid that seems to be a permanent aspect of the existence of many African countries.

From the evidence of our visit and of the six or seven months since, I would say that so far the recovery has been successful. I do not say that problems do not remain. There are still massive problems. The Government in this country say that things are getting better, but there is much more to do. However, in Sierra Leone that is true, multiplied by 100 or even 1,000.

One reason why I feel that we can speak of success in Sierra Leone is that there has been peace for more than two years. In May 2002 successful, peaceful presidential and parliamentary elections were held, in which the opposition accepted the outcome even though they were disappointed with it. Everything has gone well. I was pleased, having feared that change was occurring too quickly. In the presidential and parliamentary elections, the Sierra Leone People's party virtually swept the board. President Kabbah had a huge majority and that of his party was overwhelming—akin to that of the Labour party here.

Although I do not think that this will happen in the United Kingdom on Thursday, it was interesting that in the local government elections—which went ahead successfully, so far as I could see; there was not a single item in the British press about them—while the governing party won convincingly outside Freetown, inside Freetown, where about 40 per cent. of the population live, the Opposition won the day. Although the Government are not too keen on it, that is a healthy step in the development of democracy in Sierra Leone. There was no news in the newspapers—in a sense, that was good—and I did not receive any faxes or phone calls from the politicians I know saying, "It is terrible, the electoral commission is fixing the election and the government are influencing it." It is clear that the elections were free and fair. That is another step on the road to successful recovery.

What elements did we consider to be important? The first thing that struck me was what I would call stability, although I note that last July, when President Kabbah was here and gave a speech to the Royal Commonwealth Society, he focused on national security. The two are linked—one needs stability; that is the basis for a continuing peace and for people's hopes for prosperity.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman at this early stage. He made an important point about the local elections being free and fair. In so far as that is so, it is extremely welcome, and I appreciate the importance that he attaches to it. However, is he aware of, and what thoughts does he have about, the report in the FreetownChronicle of 25 May, which says that the turnout in those elections was low? It went on to suggest that the elections were relatively badly organised, with candidates' names being put down for the wrong parties and so on. I do not cavil at the success of the elections in terms of freeness and fairness, but has the hon. Gentleman any concern on that front?

Local government elections generally have a poor turnout; I am not sure what the turnout was there. Let me take the opportunity to say something about the press in Freetown—I am not sure what happens elsewhere. The press in Freetown is thriving, and some elements of it might be regarded, particularly by the Government, as rather scurrilous. Nevertheless, it is allowed freedom of expression and there is no doubt that the paper that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is concerned about strengthening democracy.

There might have been problems, and they might have been accurately reflected in the report that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. However, consider this: in the run-up to the presidential and parliamentary elections, I had several phone calls and faxes asking me to look at A, B and C. I contacted the National Electoral Commission and tried to help however I could to deal with the problems. During the local government elections, I did not receive a single fax or phone call from any of the parties expressing concern about how things were going. I accept that there might be criticisms of the nature that the hon. Gentleman has described, but overall, the people it Sierra Leone were pleased that the local elections happened as they did.

On the issue of stability and the Government's confidence in the whole process, the support that we are giving through UNAMSIL is due to be drawn down by December. We discussed how easy that might be, particularly with countries like Liberia, and others a little further away such as Guinea and the Ivory Coast that still have an element of instability. Of course, it was the Liberian incursion into Sierra Leone that started the whole terrible process.

We had the feeling that UNAMSIL was aware of the need for flexibility. We are trying to create armed forces and a police force that can operate in a democracy, especially as they have been operating for many years in a free-for-all and have no real concept of how to work in a democracy. We were there when the Horton academy opened; there, the international military advisory and training team will provide invaluable training for officers in the Sierra Leone army on how to work in a democracy. Indeed, the vast of majority of the team—98 of its 114 members—are British officers. We stepped in on a group involved in an interesting conversation about some of the moral issues that people involved in the civil war had to deal with, and how such people should be treated in places such as the United Nations special court.

A lot of investment in stability is going on. The Sierra Leone truth and reconciliation commission, whom we met, is due to report this year. I have not yet seen its report; it had hoped to publish by the beginning of the year. Interestingly, it was also going to produce a report aimed at children, because so many children suffered in the war and were dragged directly into the fighting. I shall be interested to see that report. I imagine that the process will be rather like what happened in South Africa after the release of Nelson Mandela.

There is some controversy about whether there should be a United Nations special court. As it is voluntarily funded, it has not been able to match the heavy expenditure of some of the other special courts. The United Kingdom has given about £500,000 out of a £3.5 million budget to the court, but people were still concerned that it might not be sufficiently funded to try the nine to 11 people who were likely to be brought before it. However, I understand that that has now been done; perhaps that can be confirmed this morning.

We also met the chief justice. A major programme of law reform is being funded by international institutions and the British Government. That is important, as it gives the people of Sierra Leone the feeling that justice will be delivered in their country; the fact that there will be good governance is another part of that important process. In particular, corruption should be eliminated. There is an anti-corruption commission, and there have been new judicial appointments, including judges from the United Kingdom. Although I have not heard any reports lately, it appeared at the time of our visit that the process of dealing with corruption had begun to speed up. People were being investigated, and their cases were coming to court.

It is not connected with the fact that I had this debate, but I was interested to receive an e-mail from Victor Sylver, the editor of theSierra Herald in Freetown. He raised the issue of corruption in the context of something that the Americans have done, which I regard as rather odd. On 25 May, the Americans announced that there would be visa bars for corrupt officials in Sierra Leone. Some had already been placed on the list due to their corrupt practices, but the Americans were not going to tell the Sierra Leone Government who those people were. They were also looking at additional cases. Getting on the list did not require a conviction for corruption; the United States Government just had to have a reasonable belief that the officials were corrupt.

The editor of theSierra Herald, Victor Sylver, has expressed concern that we are not using sufficient strength to tackle corruption. and asks that our Government play a more proactive part in dealing with corruption. He thinks that there are about 300 corrupt officials in the system; however, that is only his guess. There is the important issue of whether our Government could speak to the Americans to try to ensure that the process is a bit more open. That might help to speed up the tackling of corruption in Sierry. Leone. Certainly, President Kabbah, in his speech to the Royal Commonweath Society, attached great importance to dealing with the problem.

On economic management, the record so far looks pretty good: there has been 6 to 7 per cent. growth in the past two years; inflation has remained relatively low; and agricultural production is up by about 6 per cent. The Government have a national recovery strategy and a poverty reduction strategy. Also, there is a partnership between the Department for International Development and the Sierra Leone Government. That long-term partnership for development has within it benchmarks and checks, and hard work is being done on it. I would like the Minister to comment on what he thinks is the longer-term future of British aid to Sierra Leone, because in 2002—03 there was a dip in aid spending. I will be interested to see what happens in future. There is also a privatisation programme, in which British advice is being given—I hope that none of the advisers had anything to do with Railtrack—and there are priorities for economic development.

Diamonds are obviously seen as being very important for the Sierra Leone Government. They want to make sure that they are producing clear diamonds that go through official channels, so that tax can be collected and Government programmes for redevelopment can go ahead. I was interested to read an article by Peter Penfold inThe World Today. It dates back to April 2002, just before the elections. He ventured to say that diamonds need not be seen as critical to the future of Sierra Leone. He mentioned its fertile soil, mineral resources, rice production, palm oil, coffee, cocoa, the fishing off its coast, and the oil deposits that are currently being explored. There is also the potential to develop the Mano River Union—bringing Guinea and Liberia into an economic union—and to exploit rutile deposits. With such natural resources, Sierra Leone has an excellent chance to recover.

Towards the end of his article, Peter Penfold said:

"In Sierra Leone, Di Wor Don Don",

as they would say in Freetown. He transmutes that into his English:

"The flames of conflict have been extinguished, but the embers are still warm and the wood remains tinder dry."

More than two years after that article, I think that we can say that we have overcome the worst problems to do with the reignition of fighting in Sierra Leone, and that things are going well.

We visited the Shankerdas factory, which is run by a Sierra Leone company. We were all impressed by the commitment of the owner to investing, despite the fact that much of the factory had been destroyed in the war. He gives a good example of having the confidence to invest in Sierra Leone, which British industry should take on board. There is the recently formed UK-Sierra Leone business forum, in which Lord Freeman has played a critical role. At the beginning of this year, we had a visit from the vice-president of Sierra Leone, Solomon Berewa, underlining his Government's commitment to get foreign investment—in particular, British investment—into the country.

A small company anxious to develop a significant project in Sierra Leone raised an issue with me recently. It found that when it made its first approaches to DFID, no one told it about the African infrastructure fund, which is organised by the Standard Bank but officially supported and sponsored by DFID. The company found out about the fund only through a meeting with a DTI official, and it will receive significant help for the project that it wants to develop.

The company also found that no one in the United Kingdom trade and industry body, which exists to help companies to invest abroad, had specific responsibility for Africa. I know from my work on Indonesia that there is certainly a consultant in that body with specific responsibilities for Indonesia and south-east Asia. This company felt that it needed someone, but that the DTI in its view of the world outside does not have a specific person with responsibilities for Africa. It would help if it did.

The small company also found that, although there was general advice and assistance, unlike in other countries, the Government did not stand by or give direct help and support to get its project off the ground. In the United Kingdom, the Government stand by and support both companies in the UK and companies investing in the UK in those areas that require special help. They are almost like sponsors if they think that a project is good. However, the company has found that it has not been given the extra hands-on help that other countries provide for their small and medium-sized enterprises. The Government could usefully look at that.

In infrastructure terms, we went to see the Bumbuna hydroelectric project, which was 95 per cent. completed when the civil war started. It now looks as though the Italian Government will provide the additional support to get that project off the ground, which will make significant improvements in providing the power needed not just for households but for economic development. Guma valley is a fantastic setting for the reservoir that supplies Freetown. Additional projects have also been spoken about because of the way in which Freetown is growing. I hope that we look at that again.

Besides all the natural resources and physical infrastructure are the personal resources. We visited Milton Margai college and a secondary school. When we consider that teachers and lecturers wait months for their salaries, and that it is incredibly difficult for children to afford to go to school, we should remind ourselves of people's commitment and determination to succeed. We have pulled back a little from secondary and university-type education funding and have focused on primary education, although I am pleased to say that all children in Sierra Leone now have access to such education.

I conclude by quoting from an early-day motion that I tabled after the successful presidential elections. It gained 400 signatures, which is the second highest ever in the history of Parliament; it is a tribute to Sierra Leone that so many hon. Members signed it. The motion was

"That this House…looks forward to the new Government of President Kabbah extending democracy to local government, rooting out corruption, promoting freedom justice and prosperity with continuing international support for the rebuilding and renewal of the Sierra Leone economy and civic society; praises the opposition parties for committing themselves to the democratic process and looks forward to them playing an effective role in Parliament and in helping to strengthen civic society."

All that is happening to some extent, and my best wishes go to the Sierra Leone Government and our own Government as they provide continuing assistance to make that a success.

rose

Order. Hon. Members wishing to speak should bear it in mind that the wind-ups should start no later than 10.30 am.

The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) has done us all a service in persistently balloting for this debate and giving us an opportunity to comment on Sierra Leone. As the Register of Members' Interests shows, I am still a practising member of the Bar. I am now joint head of my chambers, and we are proud that President Kabbah was formerly a member of our chambers.

My predecessor as head of chambers, Desmond Da Silva, is prosecuting the war crimes in Sierra Leone. His connections go back a long time; many years ago he defended President Kabbah in a treason trial in Freetown. It is appropriate that Desmond should be prosecuting war crimes in Freetown now.

The war crimes were horrific. The hon. Member for Bridgend gave a summary of them. What happened during the years of conflict in Sierra Leone was horrific, and the indictment goes to many pages. It is important that a clear signal should go out to the world that those responsible for war crimes, whether perpetrated in Rwanda, the former Republic of Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone or wherever, will be brought to justice.

I have a concern, which I have raised in the House before, about the most serious indictment against Taylor, who has been given asylum in Nigeria. I understand the realpolitik of getting him out of Liberia, but there is a valid UN indictment against him. I hope that the Nigerian Government will find an appropriate time in the future to ensure that Taylor stands trial in Freetown. After all, all of us who support the Commission for Africa and the New Partnership for Africa's Development put great store on peer review. Nigeria is a leading member of the Commonwealth and one of the architects of NEPAD. If peer review does not work to bring Taylor to justice—if Nigeria does not ensure that he is brought to justice—that would be a great sadness. No one in Sierra Leone will feel fully safe until Taylor is brought to trial.

I am slightly more pessimistic than the hon. Member for Bridgend, and that may be because I had the opportunity of travelling outside Freetown. Sometimes we underestimate the impact of the war on Sierra Leone. I do not gainsay anything that the hon. Gentleman said. However, we must recognise that Sierra Leone is right down at the bottom of the United Nations Development Programme leagues of development.

The conflict led to two things. First, it led to double migration. There was substantial migration from the countryside—the rural areas—into Freetown. People with initiative and get-up-and-go, got up and went to Freetown. That has meant that there is little leadership left in the countryside. I was fortunate enough to spend several days on an island south of Sierra Leone called Bonthe. I am patron of a small non-governmental organisation caller Friends of Africa, which has provided funding for two community bakeries and a new fishing boat in Bonthe; many of the fishing boats were destroyed.

Bonthe was really prosperous in years gone by. It produced large amounts of rice, palm oil, piassava—the material from which brooms are made—and coconuts. The Wellesbourne research station helped with the development of a particular sort of coconut. There is no agricultural production in Bonthe at present, but the area is fertile and can produce large amounts of rice. I suspect that one of the reasons why the Opposition parties have done so well in the Freetown local elections is that the cost of rice there has been at record levels recently—the highest that it has ever been. That is because Sierra Leone is having to import rice; that is a crazy situation.

Leadership is not something that one can just whistle up. However, I suggest to the Minister that perhaps we ought to engage with non-governmental organisations such as Farm Africa to see what can be done in the countryside in Sierra Leone to get agriculture moving again. I asked a taxi driver in Freetown where he came from. He told me that he was a tractor driver in Bonthe. There are no tractors left in Bonthe and it has no electricity. The power station has gone, as has the infrastructure. The only people showing any real leadership are the Members of Parliament, many of whom are very impressive. I mean no criticism by that; the people have gone through a terrible war.

There has been another migration from Freetown to the UK and to Baltimore in the United States. The Select Committee is carrying out an inquiry into migration development, and held a fascinating meeting, organised by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), with the Sierra Leonean diaspora in Southwark town hall. One of the things that we want to understand better is the work and the role of diasporas in development.

I do not know the size of the Under-Secretary's private office. I suspect that he has four or five people working for him. He has three or four officials here today. I do not criticise that. That is fine; the Cabinet Office is a huge Department. I suggest, however, that he visits Solomon Berewa, the Vice-President of Sierra Leone, who has one Secretary. That is no criticism of Solomon Berewa; it is simply the resource that is available. The burdens on him, on President Kabbah and on other Ministers are phenomenal. They desperately need officials who can help to formulate policy. The Department for International Development will soon move to budget control, but all that we require is people to write the cheques. We should be training all these good officials to help to develop policy elsewhere. I have other thoughts on the matter, which I shall express another time.

We should think about the possibility of a fund to help to recruit Sierra Leoneans in London and in Maryland who would like to return to Sierra Leone to help to rebuild it but who, in the intervening years of conflict, have taken on obligations here such as mortgages, families and schooling commitments, and would be reluctant to return to earn the money that one can earn as a civil servant in Sierra Leone, but who have a great amount to offer to their country.

My hon. Friend is making a series of interesting and original observations. Given the importance of leadership by example, is he politely suggesting that the Under-Secretary should second at least half his private office to Sierra Leone so that it can do the sort of work that he has in mind?

I was not being quite as mischievous as that. Rather, I was saying that vie in Whitehall are privileged to have some very able civil servants. Indeed, I believe that DFID has the highest number of fast-stream entrants in the civil set vice. The Under-Secretary's private office has about four times the resource available to the Vice-President of Sierra Leone. It sometimes falls badly from our mouths and the mouths of colleagues in the US to make allegations about corruption when often there is not corruption but gross inefficiency born out of a lack of resource. How can one or two people be expected to grapple with the policy issues of a whole country?

In an earlier incarnation as a junior Minister, I was privileged to help to privatise the electricity industry. I know how complex these things are. The privatisation bureau in Freetown simply will not work with a tiny number of staff. Perhaps we could think of ways of encouraging by financial means members of the Sierra Leonean community in this country, without financial prejudice to themselves, to return to Sierra Leone to help to rebuild it in key areas of public policy with a shortage of skilled resource.

Diamonds were the root cause of the conflict. Notwithstanding the best efforts of many—not least of President Kabbah—Sierra Leone is still receiving far too little of the proceeds of diamond wealth. It has some of the best diamonds in the world. It is suggested that a 3 per cent. tax should be levied. That is a tiny amount, but if it were levied on all diamonds, it would make a huge difference to the income of the Sierra Leonean Government. We must address this issue. DFID has been working hard on the development of a new diamond code and new systems, but we cannot be allowed to fall back to a system where outside influences simply spirit the diamonds over the borders into Liberia and other neighbouring countries.

One of the reasons that there was great pressure for a war crimes tribunal in Sierra Leone—I suspect that the Sierra Leoneans, left on their own, would have preferred a truth and reconciliation commission, as in South Africa—was that when people started trying to find the bank accounts for al-Qaeda, they could not. One of the reasons was that al-Qaeda had been using a lot of conflict diamonds for arms sales and other sales. Conflict diamonds are easily transportable and one does not require bank accounts. In these days of heavy regulation and heavy money laundering, diamonds are moveable. We have to encourage a system in Sierra Leone where there is transparency about diamond sales and where more of the proceeds of the sale of diamonds go to the benefit of the people of Sierra Leone.

I know that DFID is on a watershed as far as Sierra Leone is concerned. It did excellent work in the post conflict period. That involved a great deal of work helping ex-militia members to do worthwhile jobs—rather like the community service programme in the UK—and a lot of repair to the immediate infrastructure. DFID has now to decide whether it will move to budgetary support and which bits of the economy it will support by way of budget help. I suspect that it will be a case of different countries providing support—for example, Italy supporting electricity. I want to recommend two areas that I hope that DFID might support.

There was much destruction in the schools. Rebel troops had used schools throughout the countryside as headquarters and many school buildings were destroyed. Non-governmental organisations such as Plan International have done excellent work, but the schooling system has been devastated. One of the consequences of people not going to school in a country such as Sierra Leone is that people fall back on their own language. English is a great—excuse the oxymoron—lingua franca in Sierra Leone. It brings people together, and gives them access to the outside world. If people do not have the opportunity to get to school they are cut off, not only from the outside world but from the other parts of Sierra Leone. It is a disuniting feature. I hope that we can think in terms of offering budgetary support for education in Sierra Leone.

The other area of concern is primary health. Sierra Leone is an unaccompanied post for Foreign Office officials. Why? It is considered unsafe by the FCO for wives and children to go to Sierra Leone, not because of rebels or the dangers of muggings on the street, but simply because of the lack of basic health care, even in Freetown. At the moment, the international community is supported by a field hospital run by the Jordanians, which will probably pull out when the UN peacekeeping troops start to run down. Frankly, outside Freetown, if anyone gets sick, they die. It is as simple as that—they die. If there are any complications—gallstones, any slight problems—there are not the medical resources to deal with them.

The EU has built a number of clinics around the country, so the physical buildings are there. However, one day I spent some time resting in a clinic because the car in which I was travelling had broken down. There is no kit, no equipment, no drugs and no support. Some very good ladies are working as community midwives, but there is no support.

I would make the following requests to the Government and the Minister. First, so far as war crimes are concerned, the job will not be complete until Taylor is brought to trial. We have to recognise that there has been a considerable movement of leadership from the countryside to Freetown and from Freetown to the rest of the world. We need to think of ways to reinforce civil society and the machinery of government in Sierra Leone. We need to give thought to how we will give budgetary support to health and to education, and to how we will ensure that the wealth of Sierra Leone—primarily diamond wealth—is used to the benefit of the people of Sierra Leone and is not ripped off for the benefit of others in other parts of the world, who make no contribution to the people of Sierra Leone.

I would like to start by thanking the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for organising an excellent and worthwhile visit. I particularly want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) who was assiduous and tireless in keeping us together and focused on the job in hand. That was done with good humour and we formed a positive and friendly group. He is right to put a positive approach on our findings in Sierra Leone, because it is a country that is emerging from a horrendous anti vile conflict. Until the embers and difficulties from that finally start to be put to rest, it is tough to put together an emerging democracy that will go places and will capitalise on the immense wealth and potential that there is in that country.

I believe that the satisfactory conclusions of the recent local elections bode well and that there is an overwhelming determination among all people in civic life to ensure that they do not descend back into civil war. Without that determination it is difficult to be hopeful. Wherever we went, whether it was to see the emerging police force, the schools or the colleges or to the rural areas in Bumbuna, the determination not to return to that situation was evident. That is a hopeful sign.

Following some work that I had been doing earlier last year with the British Council in Malawi, I was interested to look at the work being done by the 50/50 Group of Sierra Leone. I was impressed at the way in which Sierra Leone and the 50/50 Group, which, for those who do not know, aims to get 50:50 gender representation in most areas of democracy and public life, are going about it.

In a debate about at the international role of women, which I think took place in March in Westminster Hall, I used the example of Sierra Leone and what we were hearing from the ministry that is responsible for economic affairs about its policy on grants and small loans for small businesses. It was increasingly focusing on small businesses and small agricultural concerns that were headed by women or run by a co-operative group of women in local communities. It said that in that way there was far more certainty that the grant or small loan would be put towards growing the vegetables or towards making the clothes or textiles for the community for which the money was sought and, indeed, that the loans would be repaid. Therefore, it now has a conscious policy of working through small businesses that are headed by women. The meal that we had at one of the best restaurants in Freetown, which was mentioned in our report, was a tribute to how successful some of those small businesses are.

The restaurant was run by a member and key organiser of the 50/50 Group. That group has produced a good Sierra Leone women's manifesto. Some of the proposals took me back to the work that we have done in this place on the post-conflict situation in Northern Ireland. I will quote a couple of those that relate to peace-building. It urged its Government

"to include at least 30 percent. of women in all Peace Missions and conflict management teams."

That took us into the detail of quotas. In addition it wanted them

"to train both women and men in mediation, lobbying and negotiation skills."

We saw some of that in the peace and reconciliation movement that was taking place. Similarly, in the move towards democracy, the parties are taking steps to include more women candidates in the elections. I have not heard what the results of the local elections are in terms of gender representation, but if anyone has those figures, I would be interested to find out. We also all felt that we should pay tribute to the work of the British Council and Mr. Rajiv Bendre, who was doing a superb job.

My main point is about the value and sustainability of democracy. I was left concerned that, in a country where resources for anything in the public sector are so scarce, democracy is underfunded. The way in which Sierra Leone Members of Parliament were struggling with the resource side of their jobs was risky to say the least. Such a situation can so easily lapse into corruption and a lowering of esteem among the population. When we were planning to visit the half-finished hydroelectric project at Bumbuna, the woman MP who was hosting the trip said, "I'll have to leave the day before, of course, because although I may have the opportunity of a ride in the official Land Rover today, normally I have to use public transport, which might take one or two days". We have problems going to and from our constituencies, but we are not crowded on to buses for two days.

I came away feeling that the difficulties, hardships and problems faced by the elected representatives whom we met in the Parliament there were massive. I urge the Minister to take on board the point about finance, both in relation to the Government's own funding and in consultation with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, the British Council and any other bodies that are there actively to support such work. Funding should not just go into salaries—they are very low indeed—but into the resources available to Members of Parliament and local councils.

May I add something? My point has nothing to do with the physical movement of people around the country, but the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, in association with the National Democratic Institute, is developing an internet resource for Members of Parliament in Sierra Leone.

Yes, I appreciate that point. As many Members there told us, training programmes in how to make best use of resources and link them with offices in constituencies are an absolute must.

We also discovered that an understanding of both NEPAD and the overall policies for Africa were not filtering through to ordinary parliamentarians there. The parliamentarians whom we met made very little mention of HIV/AIDS, although the problem is not so acute there as it is in sub-Saharan Africa. On those two issues, I wondered whether there were not positive signs for the future, including the increasing importance of the Economic Community of West African States—ECOWAS—and the regional element of government in Africa as a whole, in improving the infrastructure of democracy. People may say, "It's bureaucracy and a waste of money". However, in an emerging continent such as Africa, such programmes are not a waste of money and are a way of making progress, rather than reverting to civil war or corruption. Our Government and DFID rightly place great emphasis on good governance, but the seeds of corruption are laid when public expectation is much greater than the politicians' capacity to deliver. The politicians then look for other means of maintaining their status within their communities, which can lead them down the road of lining their pockets, giving jobs to their families and so forth.

Huge resources were rightly going into the development of the police and the security forces in order to solidify the move towards democracy. I agree with the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) that they now need to be linked more closely with the democratic process and to start to be matched by the necessary investment in the public service sector—the education and health services. Most of all, it is important to recognise and pay tribute to the huge determination that is being shown by the elected representatives and the people in all areas of civic government throughout Sierra Leone to make a go of things and to take the country forward to prosperity— well, prosperity is perhaps a long time in the future for them, but a little more prosperity is something that they can aim for and achieve.

I thank the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) for securing the debate. This is riot the first time that he has kept Sierra Leone on the agenda in this place. Unlike him, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), although I have been to a number of African countries I have never been to Sierra Leone, so I will bow to their expertise and first-hand experience.

The nightmare that has been lived through by the old and young in that country has left many scars, both physical and emotional, and it will take years for them to heal, if they ever do. Sierra Leone is a country with a long and tragic history that stretches back to the slave trade. The flow of slavery was reversed in 1787 when freed slaves were returned to Sierra Leone. Thousands of liberated slaves made their way to Freetown, and many stayed there. It became one of Britain's first colonies in west Africa.

That history is important. Other African nations lost their youngest, strongest and best to slavery. One would have hoped that Sierra Leone, where the reverse effectively happened, would be different from those other African nations, which have ended up with long civil wars. The people have experienced the worst of human nature because they were the victims of slavery and they must have relished plans for the start of a new life in a new country, yet that was not the case. Crimes against mankind have been committed in Sierra Leone, bringing the country close to hell on earth, with executions, amputations of limbs, ears and lips, mass rapes and more.

The story of the boy soldiers sums up the tragedy of Sierra Leone. I recently read about one 12-year-old boy who said:

"The rebels told me to join them, but I said no. Then they killed my smaller brother. I changed my mind. The rebels trained me for a month. They gave me an AK47. I was good at using the guns. The first time we went out on patrol, we attacked a village and we killed so many people. I don't know how many people I killed, because I was just shooting. I couldn't see anything. They just told me to shoot."

He also said that they always gave him blood to drink before he went into battle, and that they encouraged him to kill people. There are stories of children being injected with cocaine before they carried out their roles as soldiers. That is not a childhood; no child should start life like that. We must do what we can to ensure that Sierra Leone puts the past behind it and moves on to the future. With that start in life for some, what hope is there for a future?

I share the optimism of the hon. Member for Bridgend. We must all have hope for the future, or we would we give up. That applies to parliamentarians, including those in the Department for International Development and the Government generally, as well as non-governmental organisations—many NGOs are doing good work out there—the EU and the UN. We must keep the flickering flame of hope alive and hope that it will burn brighter for those who were child soldiers, so that when they put down their guns they can play in the sunshine like children anywhere else in the world.

The history of the country and its civil war is important, because what is happening now in Sierra Leone is a direct result of that. Much attention has been paid to the special court—the first war crime tribunal to sit in the country—but many are asking whether the guilty will get away with murder. I certainly hope that they will not. If the tribunal is to deliver justice, and the chief prosecutor, David Crane, is to deliver what Sierra Leoneans expect, there must be full and open trials. They should be no less than we would expect here, or anywhere else in the world.

If many people continue to go hungry and without clean drinking water or basic education while money is being spent on justice, the court will have even more to prove, because those with aching stomachs and no shelter at night want to see that the money has been well spent. With a budget of $85 million, and having been four years in the planning, it must now get on with the job. The UN has a lot riding on the court: war criminals must not go unpunished.

While the court gets on with the job, those involved in the judicial process are taking a real risk with their personal security. We should pay tribute to them, and hope that they remain safe throughout the process. What can the Government do to help to ensure that adequate security is maintained for those people so close to the end of the process, which must be effective and thorough?

Is it true that only 13 people have been indicted and that only nine are in custody after one of the greatest human tragedies of all time? After 11 horrendous years of violence, what can our Government do to bring all those responsible to justice?

The nightmare that was the reality for the people of Sierra Leone unfolded over 11 years and is well documented, yet, to some degree. it is forgotten by many. I have said many times in this House that it takes television news crews to make a difference because, try as we might in this place to keep an issue on the agenda, nothing does it better than having an image on TV. Fifteen years on from Tiananmen square, who can forget the image of the student standing in front of a tank? Why was there so little coverage of the trouble in Sierra Leone? It was not so much forgotten by the west as never really given the appropriate volume of coverage. It may well be that the news crews were in Kosovo at that time, where battles were being fought over human rights violations and the systematic killing of an entire race by the Serbian-led army of Milosevic. Whatever the reason, few cameras followed the struggle in Sierra Leone, where the same human rights violations were occurring in the most depraved of ways over long periods of time.

Sadly, more and more of those who obtain such images for our newspapers and television screens pay an ever-increasing price. On Sunday BBC cameraman Simon Cumbers paid with his life. We wish his colleague, who is critically ill, a speedy recovery.

There are still too few images of Sierra Leone on our televisions, but, hopefully, the world will become more aware of what is happening there, so that the court can not only do its job, but be effective enough to ensure that this is the last time that Sierra Leone experiences anything like its recent past. Although some of the main culprits are dead, others such as the former Liberian President, Charles Taylor, who is exiled in Nigeria, must be brought to justice. What is being done to put pressure on countries that can help to ensure that Charles Taylor and others are brought to justice?

The UK and the UN deserve credit for their involvement in Sierra Leone, which has been a success, but it is time to support that success with peace and security. Can the Minister detail any future plans to train forces to support democracy in Sierra Leone? My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) has reaffirmed Lib-Dem support for U K Government action on a number of occasions. A well trained police force is as vital as trained armed forces. Will the Minister say what future plans he has for continuing with police training in Sierra Leone?

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough mentioned AIDS. It is true that the percentage of people suffering from HIV and AIDS in Sierra Leone is not yet as high as in other sub-Saharan countries, but there is always a risk of the increasing prevalence of AIDS. Once a country gets back on to its feet, mobility and transport increase, people have more disposable income, move around more and ate more economically active, so there is a danger that HIV and AIDS will spread. Education is the key to stop that happening. If our Government, through DFID and NGOs, can support educational projects to teach people how best to avoid AIDs, it will be money well spent.

Has DFID assessed the food aid requirement for Sierra Leone? As the hon. Member for Banbury said, there is the capacity dramatically to increase production in the country, but it has not been used often. Basic support, like basic technology, can make a huge difference. The same is true of the mining industry, which stopped completely in some areas of the country during the civil war. What support is available to get the mining industry up and running and avoid corruption as the income starts to flow? Sierra Leone has been working with other countries through the Mano River Union, but that needs to get back on track and be revitalised so that the hope and optimism can be turned into reality for the people.

UNICEF's humanitarian action document reveals that only 35 per cent. of the requested funds have materialised. By a December 2003, only $4.4 million of the $12.4 million was received. What can our Government do to help UNICEF achieve its funding target? The scale of the problems facing Sierra Leone is daunting. About 70,000 people died as a result of 11 years of civil war. Another harrowing fact is that every year approximately 100,000 children die from immunisable diseases—malaria, measles and so on. During the civil war, almost 3 million children died. Funding for health must be a priority, and within that must come access to clean drinking water, which is only available to about 40 per cent. of the population and is urgently needed.

Sierra Leone has suffered too much in the past. We must play our part co help its children have a peaceful future.

I begin by warmly congratulating the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), both on his persistence in seeking to secure the debate and on the compelling speech that he made on introducing it. Similarly, I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who made a characteristically thoughtful contribution to the debate, and the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett), for developing some of the key features of the problems facing Sierra Leone.

As all who have attended the debate will know, the fighting in Sierra Leone has been savage. The human rights violations that took place during the civil war are as mind-boggling as those that have been witnessed in any country in the world. The damage to the country's infrastructure and its population has been immense. The challenge of change and reconstruction is monumental and urgent. I shall focus on a number of specific points, to highlight the issues for the Minister, in the hope of a useful, informative response.

First, the Under-Secretary will know that his Department is committing £5 million over three years to the African Agricultural Technology Foundation; it is mentioned in its 2004 annual report. That project is important to Sierra Leone, because it supplies affordable agricultural technology to African farmers. The economy of Sierra Leone and the people generally would greatly benefit from a rejuvenated agricultural sector. Can the hon. Gentleman offer some indication of the output so far achieved as a result of the welcome input that his Department has made on that front?

Secondly, the Department funds a community reintegration project to provide employment for ex-combatants and to resettle internally displaced persons, while rebuilding essential infrastructure in the Port Loco and Kambia districts. I think that I am right in saying that that project has now been running for three years. It is an important project, and its purposes are laudable. It would be useful to us arid to others outside to know the Minister's assessment of what progress has been made through that project.

Thirdly, I am concerned to know what assessment the Minister has made of the law development project. At the heart of the country's problems are the phenomena of lawlessness and corruption, and an absence of the transparency that we take for granted as a necessary condition for a healthy, functioning democracy. The objective of improving and strengthening the country's legal institutions, which is supported by DFID, is of the first importance. What can the Minister tell us about progress in that respect?

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury made an important point when he said that the absence of schooling in substantial parts of the country was effectively a force for fragmentation—and, at its worst, for disintegration. Health, too, is important. My hon. Friend spoke about primary health care, and a number of those hon. Members who referred to the importance of the fight against AIDS acknowledged that the problem was not a pandemic on the scale found in other countries, notably in sub-Saharan Africa. It is important to focus also on malaria in Sierra Leone.

The Minister will be aware that Médecins Sans Frontières has urged donor countries to help Sierra Leone introduce new drugs in order to overcome local resistance to traditional malaria treatments. The disease has reached a truly critical stage in the country, and whatever the Minister can tell us about his Department's efforts on that front would be of interest to all hon. Members.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West referred to the need to train the police. He was right to do so. The reality is that the Sierra Leone police force is fundamentally weak. It has too few personnel; it suffers from inadequate funding; and, to date, it has received relatively poor training. That is a problem for the force, but more of a problem for the population. If the force is thought to be weak, fragmented and under-trained, it will not be able to deter potential civil uprisings, and it will be poorly equipped to cope. Again, whatever reassurance the Minister can offer on the scale of Britain's contribution to the force would be of interest.

The Minister will be aware that as many as 66,000 Liberian refugees remain in Sierra Leone, predominantly in eight camps in the south-east of the country. Returning those refugees safely to Liberia is crucial to the internal politics of the country and to the regional picture. What can the Minister tell us on that front?

I endorse what a number of hon. Members said about the importance of eventually extraditing and indicting Charles Taylor, but I cannot improve on what has already been said. However, I flag up a couple of further points.

The Minister will know of the recommendations of the International Crisis Group, which is the beneficiary of direct financial support from his Department. He will know that the recommendations to the British Government and the Commonwealth include a reference to the importance of continuing

"to support the international Military Advisory and Training Team…by focusing attention on training to handle border areas and threats of incursion, champion high standards to keep unqualified 'political' candidates out of the armed forces, and help the armed forces reduce size and weed out unqualified soldiers and officers as well as remaining troublemakers."

That is of the essence to the integrity of the reform process. What progress is being made on keeping unqualified "political" candidates out of the armed forces?

The Minister will know that the recommendations to donors urge the use of

"explicit benchmarks as the criteria for distributing…aid"

and, where necessary, for its periodic suspension. They also refer to the importance of securing

"demonstrations by officials that they are increasing their capacity to function independently…that accountability and transparency measures are in place"

and that officials will

"stop funding projects until benchmarks are met."

The recommendations go on to talk about the importance of assisting

"the government to create and implement new investment",

advance "land ownership" and develop

"corporate laws to encourage international investors to return."

Of all the practical steps that are important to sustaining and bolstering the country's movement towards democracy, prosperity and self-sufficiency, those must rank pretty high.

Solemn commitments have been entered into, and I am sure that work is being done to translate those important words into practice. However, the Minister will not be surprised to know that I would like a progress report and I would like it now.

I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on securing the debate and on the assiduous way in which he continues to keep the issues facing the people of Sierra Leone on the agenda of the House. I also pay tribute to the contributions by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett). We have had an interesting and useful debate, which has covered the panoply of issues facing the people of Sierra Leone.

I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend that Sierra Leone has successfully emerged from conflict, although as the debate has clearly demonstrated, it has a long way to go down the development road. The two elections that have taken place since peace was successfully concluded and the end of the war was officially announced highlight that progress. In one case, the country held its first local elections since 1972—it had spent 30 years without democratically elected local government. That is an indication of the progress that has been made.

All parts of the country are now accessible, and, as we heard, the press and media are thriving. Furthermore, the international financial institutions are pleased with the economic management of the country.

The removal of Charles Taylor and the putting in place of a national transitional Government in Liberia have removed the main external threat to the security of Sierra Leone. Several hon. Members asked about Charles Taylor's trial before the special court in Freetown, and we continue to put pressure on the Government of Nigeria to return him to the court. As hon. Members have said, it would be a powerful demonstration of the process of reconciliation to bring to justice the people who were responsible for the atrocities that marked the 10 years of conflict. We continue to exert pressure to encourage the Nigerians to bring Charles Taylor to justice.

Britain is committed to Sierra Leone's long-term progress. There has been positive and successful cooperation between the British military and diplomats and those working in development. The 10-year memorandum of understanding signed at the end of 2002 demonstrates the UK's commitment to the longterm development of Sierra Leone. 'We have committed 120 million over the first three years of that memorandum of understanding. That does not include the considerable cost of the international military advisory and training team, nor our share of the costs to the UN mission in Sierra Leone. We remain committed to Sierra Leone because the success that has been achieved so far is fragile, as hon. Members have pointed out.

The key to building on the progress that has been made, as some hon Members have suggested, will be the development of an effective security sector that will be able to take over responsibility from the UN mission and British troops in the long term. The international military advisory and training team is working hard training the armed forces of Sierra Leone so that they can take over responsibility for the security of their country.

We have put substantial investment of £26 million into the Sierra Leonean police and are also working hard to support the development of a politically impartial intelligence system—again to support Sierra Leonean security needs. We also want to build capacity with respect to the Ministries responsible for security sector reform.

Hon. Members raised issues about the special court, which is also an essential part of the security process. The UK's strong support for the special court was demonstrated by the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State Mended its opening in March. We remain one of the main funders of the court, having put in a total of £6.6 million. There is funding for the court until the end of 2004. We shall keep the court's funding needs in view, given its importance to the process of reconciliation in Sierra Leone.

Several hon. Members were concerned about the capacity of government in its wider sense—the Parliament, the civil service, or local government. The remarks of the hon. Member for Banbury gave rise to an interesting suggestion, which may perhaps be attractive to members of my private office. More seriously, a series of measures is under way to try to deal with the capacity issues that the hon. Gentleman in particular alluded to. They are not unique to Sierra Leone. They are, unfortunately, a feature of countries emerging from conflict. Afghanistan comes to mind as experiencing something similar.

We are supporting a programme of civil service reform and training. Similar efforts are being led by the World Bank, with our support, to develop the capacity of local government. The local elections were the first part of the process of decentralising responsibility for government and helping with the provision of services such as education and health in rural communities and urban communities outside Freetown. However, we must clearly continue with the development of capacity.

The hon. Member for Banbury also alluded to the considerable difficulties facing the President and Vice-President. We have offered to support a programme of reorganisation and strengthening within several ministries, including the presidency and the vice-presidency. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough also referred to the capacity issues facing the Parliament. We are about to give support to a 30-month programme to support parliamentary committees so that they can hold the Sierra Leone Executive to account more effectively.

A number of hon. Members also referred to the considerable importance of minerals in Sierra Leone: one thinks not only of diamonds, which get all the headlines, but rutile, which is a key mineral. In that context, the re-establishment of Sierra Rutile is a welcome, albeit slow, sign of the country's increasingly encouraging economic development, and it will potentially offer scope for new jobs, which is also welcome.

The economic development of Sierra Leone is beginning to take off. The hon. Member for Bridgend alluded to the steady economic growth in the past two years. The Bumbuna project, which is now fully funded, will provide access to cheap electricity, which is a key precursor for the development of business. We are funding a consultant to consider the liberalisation of many state-owned enterprises to try to get them re-established and up and running. That will send positive signals about Sierra Leone's economic prospects.

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way at this crucial point. He may come to this issue, but given the sterling work that has been done by the high commissioner in London to develop the Sierra Leone-UK business forum, has he anything to say about issues relating to the specific focus on Africa in the DTI and in UK trade?

I was just about to welcome the fact that a Sierra Leone-UK business link has been established. The Birmingham chamber of commerce has already visited Sierra Leone to look at opportunities. The hon. Gentleman made a specific point about concerns identified by the one business with which he has had links. I will write to him about that.

The hon. Member for Banbury mentioned minerals, and specifically diamonds. A consultant is helping the Sierra Leone Government to develop a comprehensive strategy for diamonds. We are working on revising the legislation governing the diamond industry. Progress is being made. The revenue coming into Government funds from diamonds is steadily increasing. The sanctions on Sierra Leone diamonds have been lifted, because the export certification systems have been revised, are in place and are delivering more effective, transparent regimes. However, the Government must continue to speed up these improvements, and we are committed to supporting them in that process.

A number of hon. Members referred to corruption. It is interesting to note that a series of national surveys carried out in Sierra Leone have identified that the people view corruption as the single most important issue for the security of their country. The UK has been the leading donor supporting the fight against corruption through the Anti-Corruption Commission. We are working with the Commonwealth secretariat to try to establish a number of expatriate judges to deal with the backlog of corruption cases and put in place a prosecutor who can deal with corruption and specialise in it in the long term.

Crucially, later this year we expect to see the publication of a poverty reduction strategy, which has taken a bit longer to surface into the light of day than we wanted. That strategy offers the Government of Sierra Leone an opportunity to set out for its people how they will deal with the education and health needs referred to by the hon. Member for Banbury and other hon. Members. We do not work specifically on education and health, but other donors do. We will review what we are doing in the light of the poverty reduction strategy. We will work to encourage all donors to align themselves with it, so that we can make sure that all the issues identified in the strategy are properly addressed.

I welcome the opportunity to introduce this debate. Three major interests have led me to request it. First, I have a long-term interest in North sea oil and gas production, particularly due to past constituency interests relating to oil fabrication; however, sadly, there is no longer such production in my constituency. Secondly, I have a long-term interest in the pump price of oil and its effects on motorists and hauliers, particularly in the highlands and islands. A few days ago I looked back at my maiden speech, which I made three weeks after the 1997 election, and I found that I had mentioned the subject then. Thirdly, I have a wider interest in the economy as a whole.

I do not want to start by painting a picture of doom and gloom. The offshore oil and gas industry in the UK supports 260,000 jobs, a third of which are in Scotland. We all know that the UK is the fourth largest producer of gas; crucially, we are still a net exporter. Also, the UK is still the 10th largest producer of oil.

I shall consider three factors that have a bearing on the world price of oil and its effect on our economy. I will first discuss supply issues—basically, that has to do with the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries—and then the demand issues that have caused the spot price of oil to shoot up. Then, I will mention the speculation that has contributed to the trend of increasing world oil prices. I will also touch on some of the worrying issues for not just our economy but industrial western economies in general.

First, what are the supply issues? As we all know, the biggest player is OPEC. It accounts for 40 per cent. of world oil production and two thirds of oil reserves. Perhaps crucially, it contributes nearly all of the world's excess oil production. There are 11 members of OPEC. Hon. Members will be familiar with them; they include Algeria, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela. Saudi Arabia is clearly the most important card in the pack. It is the only member with substantial extra oil capacity. We know from last week's OPEC summit that OPEC has agreed to increase output to between 2 million and 2.5 million barrels a day. Most of that will come from Saudi Arabia.

I will touch on terrorism later, but targeted terrorist attacks, especially against Saudi refineries, clearly have worrying implications for the west, specifically in terms of oil supply, loss of life, damage to infrastructure, and the haemorrhaging of trained western staff essential for the operation of Saudi refineries.

Indonesia currently holds the presidency of OPEC, but ironically it is now, for the first time, a net importer of crude oil. On 20 May, theFinancial Times questioned Indonesia's status as a member of the oil cartel. It has had great difficulties, caused by its inability to attract sufficient investment. It has fields that are in decline, and there has been an increase in domestic gas consumption.

Iraq is another very important country in OPEC. It has the world's second largest oil reserves. I tabled parliamentary questions, which were answered by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 27 May in column 1814W ofHansard. According to those answers, oil exports from Iraq increased between June 2003 and April 2004 to 1.8 million barrels a day. That is important. Some experts have estimated that, at peak flow, we could expect about 3.5 million barrels a day from Iraq. The US has estimated that, on a good day—and with much investment in infrastructure, trained staff and so on—we could probably expect about 6 million barrels of oil a day. There is tremendous potential for export from Iraq. Since the fall of Saddam, it has been worth €40 billion to the Iraqi economy.

As hon. Members know, United Nations and other arrangements dictate that 95 per cent. of that income must be spent in Iraq, on food production, and electricity and oil infrastructure, for example. However, following the bombing of a southern Iraq pipeline, exports fell by 1 million barrels a day, which is very worrying in terms of oil supply. That has been one factor in the increase in world oil prices. Apparently, that is just a supply issue, but there are also issues of nervousness and psychology, which I will touch on later.

Neil McMahon is an analyst at Sanford Bernstein. He said:

"The reduction of 1 million barrels a day in Iraq exports effectively nearly wipes out any OPEC increase we could get."

For completeness, I should add that although Iraq is a member of OPEC, since 1998 its exports have not counted towards the OPEC quota system.

There are also some technical issues to do with a time lag. It tends to take three or four weeks before changes in production hit the American and UK markets. That is partly to do with practical issues about the length of time that the effects take to reach the US, but there are also technical issue. Some of the oil that we have lost because of the bombing is called Basra Light. That is not something that might be found in the Strangers Bar but light crude, which is very important for American consumers. Some of the extra OPEC production from Saudi Arabia is a much heavier crude that is not as useful to western economies.

What about non-OPEC issues? Barclays Capital recently reported that it does not expect there to be any net growth from non-OPEC countries, except Russia. It is the second year in a row that it has made that prediction.

What about supply issues for the UK, which interests all Members present? It is perhaps now a cliché to say this, but oil and, in particular, gas production are at a mature stage of devlopment. Output for oil and gas fell by 10 per cent. for March this year compared with the previous year. Worryingly, it is the 16th consecutive month that it has fallen.

However, it is not all doom and gloom. Paul Blakely, the vice-president of the Canadian company Talisman Energy, estimated that 10 billion barrels of North sea oil is untapped. In 2003, the industry produced 1.3 billion barrels from the UK continental shelf.

The good news, and the crucial strategic news for us, is that in overall terms the UK is still a net exporter of oil. We expect that to last until about 2010, but that is difficult to predict. The UK continental shelf produces a light crude, the bulk of which is exported and, because we need a mixture of grades, we import OPEC crude,

which is a bit heavier. That is good news; there is a balance of payments surplus for the oil and gas production industry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an irony in this? Large rural constituencies such as his depend a lot on the price of petrol; therefore, the economy is negatively affected when oil prices go up. However, the economy of the north-east of Scotland is made much more buoyant if world oil prices are high. That gives us some hope for the future, provided that we get the balance right between the cost of the oil and the prod action, which will continue if oil prices are high, and ensuring that the knock-on effects of higher petrel prices do not undermine the economy.

I thank my hon. Friend for that. I know that she has a great interest in oil and gas production. She was right to put her finger on that dilemma. North sea oil and gas are extremely good for the north-east—and, indeed, for the highlands. The other side of the coin is that we must ensure that we get the balance right because high petrol prices at the filling stations are bad news for motorists and cause difficulties for hauliers. I will touch on that later.

I want to turn briefly to the United States. Petrol production there reached an all-time high in April of this year. The American Petroleum Institute said that the refineries were operating at 92 per cent. of capacity; that almost full capacity has resulted in 9 million barrels a day of production. I must say that there are some conflicts between the Republicans and the Democrats on the issue. One may say that that is no surprise. For example, the Republicans are pushing for oil production in the Arctic national wildlife reserve in Alaska, which has been defended by many Democrats and environmentalists. The Democrats have argued strongly that the strategic petroleum reserve should be released to try to lower price, as President Clinton did during his Administration.

What demand factors influence price? The US is the world's largest importer of fuel and believes that cheap subsidised oil is a "constitutional right". A bit like the original frontier men and women, it believes that driving and roaming cheaply is important for its economy. China is another major player in the demand issue. It has 1 billion consumers, a massive increase in car ownership and insufficient reserves of both oil and gas. That has caused it to import substantial quantities of fuel. China is becoming even more significant in the world market and is responsible for 40 per cent. of the increase in demand. It buys 7 per cent. of the world's oil supply. I will give hon. Members one comparison. China currently imports 5.5 million barrels of oil a day, which compares with 2 million Just 15 years ago. Therefore, China is clearly an important player. In India there are similar statistical trends. Perhaps the difference is that India has added substantially to its strategic petroleum reserve. Again, that has put a big strain on the world market.

What then is the big picture? Historically, over the past 30 years, there have arguable been three global recessions, which were all pre-dated by an increase in oil prices. The UK, through the good stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has a strong economy. As we all know, there is low unemployment, low inflation, low interest rates and high employment. That is combined with a flexible labour market and strong social justice policies, such as nursery education. Obviously, there are worries about the continued effect of rising oil prices for consumers, particularly in rural areas such as the highlands and islands. There are also worries about margin squeeze—in other words, that higher oil prices will fuel higher raw material costs—and about higher inflation. I note that the Bank of England, when it explained its higher interest rate charge, cited higher oil price pressures as one of the factors. That is something that we must be careful about.

Speculation is another concern, particularly in relation to global hedge funds. Findlay MacDonald of Britannic Asset Management was quoted inThe Herald on 3 June. He said:

"This is not a supply issue, but mainly trader speculation that's driving the prices up. What OPEC is trying to do is prick the speculative bubble, but there are limits—many speculators are gambling that prices will continue to grow, because they reckon demand will remain strong, even if OPEC opens up its taps to full capacity."

On that factor, there are clearly worries about the future stability of Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

In conclusion, a stable and relatively cheap and available supply of oil are key foundations to the success of industrialised economies. However, in recent months there have been gathering storm clouds and a triple whammy has led to oil price crunch. There has been a surge in global demand, low inventories of oil and terrorist attacks in both Saudi Arabia and Iraq, which have vast oil production capacity. That combination of events has unnerved traders and that in turn has fuelled speculation. That has not helped the spot price of oil, which is hovering at about $40. None of that will be any comfort to the hard-pressed motorists and hauliers in high petrol price hot spots—black spots—particularly those in the highlands and islands and elsewhere in the UK. However, the situation is not all doom and gloom.

The remoter parts of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, no doubt, share a problem with mine: whatever the price of oil in the world or the domestic markets, we routinely pay something in the region of lop a litre extra for fuel at the petrol pump. Does he agree that it is time that the Government did something to tackle that problem within the highlands and islands?

As the hon. Gentleman said, our constituencies share many common denominators. However, his is much more remote, with island issues. It is important that the Scottish Executive should consider this matter; that is why I supported the rural transport fund, which helps support rural petrol stations to set up transport companies that could do something about this issue.

There is widespread concern about the effects of high oil prices. Today, I am trying—hopefully this is coming over to the hon. Gentleman—to put forward some of the macro issues that are affecting the spot price of oil, and the suggestions that I shall make in my conclusion may be of some help and comfort to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael).

It is not all doom and gloom; an extra 2.5 million barrels have been released by OPEC through the recent summit. However, there is a larger, philosophical point. It is not in OPEC's long-term interest, in my view, for the oil price to go above $50 a barrel because of the economic dislocation that that would cause its customers, who are basically the western countries—America and Europe.

There is another positive aspect. New and undeveloped North sea oilfields can and should be developed by smaller oil companies; they would be viable at the current price range of oil. However, I accept that the large players make longer-term decisions on oil not just in a few months but over a longer period. Iraqi oil production has increased month by month since June and the fall of Saddam. That could be tripled from available reserves once investment, capital equipment, staff and security issues have been resolved. That will be one of the major objectives of the new Iraqi Administration, who take office at the end of the month.

I welcome the opportunity to have this debate. This subject will have resonance for motorists, hauliers and all of us who seek, as consumers, a stable, well managed economy. There are wider arguments, which I will touch on but which I have no time to develop today.

In the longer term, we have to consider alternatives to oil. We must reduce our heavy dependency on OPEC, and that would be consistent with our commitments to reduce global warming. For example, we should develop the use of hydrogen, biocells, hybrid vehicles and fuel cells for buses. In my view, the Government should review their policies for strategic gas and oil reserves. We do not have sufficient storage capability for gas. We currently have 12 days' capacity, compared with 55 days' capacity in Germany and France.

On oil, perhaps the Minister could comment on the policy for reviewing the strategic petroleum reserve, apart from the particular arrangements for the Ministry of Defence, which I suspect are beyond the Minister's remit.

I understand that there is an EU proposal to increase our reserves from 90 days to 120 days, but they would be specifically held by oil companies. My own view is that there should be a Government strategic petroleum reserve held by Government alone and not by oil companies. Strategically, for defence against terrorist attacks, that will be very important for the future.

These important issues will impact greatly on the future performance of the economy. As a Government we cannot control external pressures on our economy, but we can develop internal strategies to react to those pressures. Perhaps the key debate should be about how to use less oil in future, not more.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) on securing the debate and on the way in which he made his points. This is a short debate, but he dealt with the issues at stake in a long and wide way and, as he said at the start, he has a long-term interest in the offshore oil and gas industries. He also has a long track record of championing the interests of rural areas.

I am also glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael); they, too, have a strong interest in such matters and a good track record.

I start where my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber ended: his principal concluding points, his suggestions for the future. He is right in saying that we need to exploit fully the oil and gas reserves within the UK. Many of the changes to the fiscal regime that we have developed in consultation with the industry have been designed to do just that. The challenges are particularly great given that our reserves are in a mature field on the UK continental shelf.

Secondly, he mentioned the prospect of increases in Iraqi production. I know that he speaks from experience, having visited Iraq as part of the parliamentary armed forces scheme. He is right that we hope that increases in oil production, and more secure production, will came with the greater stability that should result from the handing of control to an Iraqi-led regime this summer. On the question of strategic reserves, he will know that the International Energy Agency, of which the UK is a member, has principal responsibility for holding national emergency oil reserves. Those reserves constitute a supply of 112 days of net imports. He will also be aware that under the obligations of the IEA, net importing countries have a legal obligation to hold oil reserves equivalent to at least 90 days of their oil imports. However, exporting countries, of which the UK is one, have no such legal obligation under EU consumption-based regulations.

I turn to the concerns that have given rise to the debate—the current high oil prices and the nature of the political debate that has been conducted over recent weeks as a result. My right honourable Friend the Chancellor made it clear last week that the Government welcome the OPEC decision to raise production targets in July and August, and the Saudi and United Arab Emirates announcements that they will bring forward increases in production. As my hon. Friend said, Saudi Arabia is the most Important card in the OPEC pack. He mentioned the scale of the Saudi plans to increase oil production, but oil stocks are already building at current levels.

Those announcements are both welcome and essential for the much-needed stability in the oil market that we have sought. So far, their impact on oil prices has been positive, taking prices down to about their lowest for a month Last night, the spot price in New York was $38.43 a barrel, and this morning at 10 am the price of Brent crude was $35.67 a barrel. In recent weeks, the Chancellor has been at the forefront of discussions with OPEC. He and other international Finance Ministers will continue to press OPEC both on meeting the increased production targets and on the case for raising the levels further. Because the world oil price has been rising, it is in the British national interest that the focus should he on oil supplies, OPEC and its responsibilities.

As my hon. Friend indicated, high demand on the Asian and US markets, plus short-term instability in the middle east and the accompanying speculation that that has triggered, have meant that no country can buck the global price. For Britain, it is in nobody's interests to have higher than expected petrol prices. I understand the concern of motorists, hauliers and business. I regularly meet the haulage associations and representatives of business and, like many others, I drive a car.

However, this is a problem of world fuel prices, not UK fuel duty. It is worth remembering that over half the oil that we use in the UK bears little or no fuel duty—that used for industrial production and home heating and by airlines and trains, and the fuel used off-road for farming and construction.

I fear that little, that the Minister is saying will give any comfort to motorists in my constituency or in that of the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart). The Minister told me recently that the Treasury was not capable of implementing a variable rate of duty such as that given to peripheral communities in Greece and Portugal. If that is the case, does he have any alternatives or does he expect us simply to live with a continuing premium on the cost of fuel in the highlands and islands?

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the full picture, he will see that we support rural areas—for example, the maintenance costs on rural roads are higher than elsewhere, given the relatively low usage—and that we support farming and other rural communities. The problems with differential road duties make them an inappropriate and impractical solution to the problem that the hon. Gentleman describes.

A large number of people and businesses in the UK pay little or no fuel duty on the oil that they use, but they are still affected when oil prices are high. That is why it will continue to be important, in the run-up to the next OPEC meeting on 21 July, to concentrate on the source of the rise in world oil prices, and in particular on world production targets.

We have already postponed the inflation-only increase in domestic UK fuel duties until 1 September, at a cost to the Exchequer and a saving to the motorist and haulier of £300 million. We have also confirmed our plan to give a special incentive for the introduction and use of sulphur-free fuel, to reduce the environmental damage and local air pollution caused even by current ultra low-sulphur fuel. We have been working closely with the oil industry, which has made significant investments in advance of September. We therefore expect a universal switch to sulphur-free diesel within days and to sulphur-free petrol within months.

All the Chancellor's tax decisions take into account a balance of economic, social and environmental factors. We propose the usual annual inflation rise in order to maintain the resources available for investment in schools, hospitals and public transport and to meet our commitments to the environment, while taking into account the impact of the world price of oil on economic stability and the impact of fuel prices on different sectors of society and the economy in Britain. It is important for the British economy that we have the strength to get the balance right between a fair deal for the motorist and the haulier, the needs of the public services, the stability of public finances, and our environmental responsibilities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber drew comparisons with the past and he was right. In contrast with previous periods of high world oil prices under the last Government, the UK economy now has a foundation of stability and strength. In late 1980, when oil prices also reached $40 a barrel, inflation was more than 15 per cent., interest rates were 14 per cent. and GDP had contracted by 4 per cent. over the year. In 1990, when oil prices also reached $40 a barrel, UK inflation was almost 11 per cent., interest rates stood at 14 per cent. and the economy had again entered recession.

Today, of course, as a result of Labour's macroeconomic management, the UK economy now enjoys the longest continuous expansion on record, the lowest sustained inflation for 40 years and the lowest levels of unemployment in a generation. Today, the UK is therefore better placed to deal with the challenges of the global economy, including those posed by higher oil prices. Having fought so hard over the past seven years to achieve the stability of the economy and of the public finances, the Chancellor has vowed not to do anything that will put that at risk. Some may make and change their policy positions on the basis of day-to-day events and opportunism, but we will not take short-term decisions. That is why both the Chancellor and Prime Minister have said that in August we will look at what progress has been made in dealing with this period of high and unsustainable oil prices. We will then be able to reach a judgment on our own fuel duty change, based on an assessment of all the factors, including the level and trend of oil prices at that point. Until that time, the focus of all responsible Governments should be on OPEC and other oil producers, and on their responsibilities to meet their own targets for sustainable oil prices.

It is fair to say that crime affects everyone. Last year, there were more than 1 million cases of reported crime in the Metropolitan area; a staggering amount. That figure has to be put in the context of bringing criminals to justice.

The last year for which I can obtain relevant data is 2002. In the financial year 2002–03, the number of crimes reported in the Metropolitan area was 1,080,000, and in the calendar year 2002 there were 54,249 convictions. That is not a direct comparison, but it indicates the scale of things: less than 6 per cent. of the crimes committed led to convictions. I do not suggest for a second that that weak figure can be laid at the door of the Crown Prosecution Service. However, with that in mind, the debate is set against the background of two CPS inspectorate reports on the London CPS in 2001 and 2003.

I am sure that the Solicitor-General will be the first to acknowledge that the situation in 2001 was dire; the system was closer to collapse than many may have imagined. There were serious failures in the fundamentals of bringing criminals to justice. The police were bringing in the suspects, but the courts were not trying them. Cases were frequently not ready for trial and a high number of cases was discharged because the CPS was not ready to proceed. About 46 per cent. of briefs were not delivered to counsel on time. In 38 per cent. of cases, the CPS was in breach of its statutory duties on disclosure.

Having read my critical remarks, the Director of Public Prosecutions wrote to me, saying that the situation was regularly the fault of witnesses, the police or the courts and not of the Crown Prosecution Service. I was even more surprised when the Solicitor-General wrote to me in similar vein. That prompts the central question: who has overall responsibility for case management? Which Minister accepts responsibility? Does any single Minister accept responsibility? The Solicitor-General's letter, which implies that the worst is behind us, prompted me to secure this debate. I suspect from the tone of the letter that she believes that things are better than they appear on the ground.

Mercifully, the 2003 report paints a more optimistic picture than its 2001 predecessor. However, in the executive summary, there are phrases such as

"there is further work to do…there is still work to be done …there is still some way to go…has not yet fully implemented the national guidance…Issues relating to timeliness of primary disclosure, and the effectiveness of secondary disclosure, still need to be addressed…remains at an unacceptable level".

Those phrases are littered throughout the report and suggest that despite the improvement—and improvements have been made—there is a long way to go. There is more money, and more staff; 100 new lawyers have been recruited. There have been structural changes that should result in more decisions being made at operational levels for the delivery of effective prosecutions. There is a reported improvement in morale.

However, I continue to have grave concerns about the efficiency of the Crown Prosecution Service in London. The re-inspection in October 2003 showed that many of the recommendations in the original report were only partially implemented. Considering that we were starting, and I quote from the report,

"in many cases, at a very low level",

that is doubly alarming. The underachievement seems to stem from problems with case ownership and management, staff quality, and effective and timely intervention by managers to identify and remedy inadequate case preparation. In short, there may have been improvements, but the benefits have yet to be seen in court. The Solicitor-General is responsible for all those issues.

Bringing prosecutions to court remains inefficient and costly. Offenders are not brought to justice, witnesses are demotivated and victims lose confidence in the criminal justice system. The reforms in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which unifies the administration of the courts, will do little to solve such practical problems.

I welcome the modest increase in staff recruitment and the reduction in the number of casual staff in the administrative grades Those steps, and the provision of better training and career paths, should help to improve the professionalism of the service. However, they are only small steps, and the report states that the high number of casual staff in administrative grades continues to cause operational difficulties.

In a letter to me on 5 March, the Solicitor-General acknowledges that a collaborative approach to "joining up justice" through multi-agency communication is critical, and I agree. She says that things are getting better as a result, bat I regularly hear reports that files are still not being updated on a timely basis. That results in ineffective days it court because, too often, witnesses are not told the date, so they do not turn up. The CPS does not provide advance information and primary disclosure. It falls to the court to decide whether the interests of justice are served by proceeding in such circumstances. Has it occurred to the Solicitor-General how the victims feel when an adjournment is not granted and the case collapses because the CPS offers no evidence? The public's impression of the judicial system suffers, and justice is not seen to be done.

The report finds that between October 2002 and March 2003, 69.5 per cent.—more than two thirds—of trials in magistrates courts were listed as ineffective. Clearly, collaboration between the police, the criminal justice units, the CPS and the courts is not yet working as well as it should. Yet again, that raises the question not so much of who is responsible but of where overall responsibility for the management of a case lies.

The consequences of inadequate preparation cut both ways. Defendants obviously have the right to a fair trial. If, as the report finds, there are failures in primary and secondary disclosure, it is difficult for a court to refuse to grant an adjournment. That means more cost, more delay and a risk that witnesses will not return to court on a later date. The result is often that there is no prosecution, and police and court time is wasted.

Article 6 of the European convention on human rights deals with the right to a fair trial. Quite properly, it is considered to be against the interests of justice to hear a case when the defence has not been served with the information on which the prosecution has relied or has not used because it might under mine its case. That is included in primary disclosure. If that single aspect of case management were improved, a considerable number of case adjournments could be avoided.

The inspectorate's update reported:

"Handling of secondary disclosure generally, and timeliness of primary disclosure in the magistrates' courts, are priorities",

and I am sure that the Solicitor-General will agree. Those words are, however, code for the fact that these remain problem areas, and I would be interested to hear what developments there have been since the report was published.

Defendants seem to have spotted that these problems create a potential loophole. The original report concluded that a higher than average number of defendants in London elected to be tried in the Crown court in either-way cases or to plead not guilty. They do so in anticipation that the CPS will not be ready to proceed at the next hearing. In short, if they spin it out, the case will never come to anything. That is a massive indictment of the system. The 2003 report does not review whether things have changed in that respect, so could the Solicitor-General report on the problem?

In raising concerns about the standard of CPS work, I acknowledge that some of the delays arise as a result of the defence not being ready for court. But the courts have a remedy if a defendant or defence witness declines to come to court when the case is ready to be heard: they can hear the case in the absence of the defendants or defence witnesses, provided that they are satisfied that the defendants or defence witnesses have been given every opportunity to attend. The defence is far less likely to cause a delay than the prosecution.

I am told that COMPASS—the case management IT system—is operational throughout London. In theory, that means that Crown prosecutors and caseworkers can track the progress of cases on screen and take timely action to ensure that the file is ready for court. That is great in theory, but does it actually happen? The Solicitor-General told me that the system is having a significant impact on case ownership and management. It may have been installed on time and on budget—a remarkable feat by this Government's standards—but is it making a difference? By all reports, that difference is not evident on the ground.

Technology is not solving the use of agents, whose deployment in 50 per cent. of cases continues to create its own problems. The report concludes that there is still widespread concern about the quality or preparedness of some agents. Agents do not receive files early enough to prepare for court and, all too of ten, files are missing entirely. Agents claim to be unable to make decisions in court on the ground that they are "just agents". That is a basic problem, and must be addressed.

Regrettably, the advocacy skills of the CPS and its agents are largely unsung by magistrates and Crown court judges whose evaluation is completely swamped by their concerns about the inefficiency and lack of preparedness that result in too many cases being adjourned. The inspectorate's report notes that

"there remain concerns about the quality of some counsel in serious cases and the caseworker cover provided".

Why? What is going wrong? The Solicitor-General brought to my notice the report's favourable comments on the training given by CPS London to prosecution agents, yet the report also states that

"trial advocacy training has not been provided for CPS prosecutors, a need identified during the course of the last inspection".

Why not? Again, that is basic.

I do not need to tell the Solicitor-General, a fellow London Member of Parliament, that many Londoners are the victims of crime. My constituents in Croydon are no exception. There has been a welcome shift in the criminal justice process to consider the impact of crime on victims, who now have the right to be informed of progress on the prosecution and to make a statement, which can be read out in court, on the impact that the crime has had on them.

The police have received their fair share of brickbats in debates on narrowing the justice gap. However, I commend the Met's introduction of victim and witness focus desks to provide a single point of contact to deal with the needs of victims and witnesses. The work of the court-based witness service to help them to understand how court proceedings work and to encourage them to have the confidence to give evidence is to be applauded, especially as the service is manned by volunteers.

Improvements have been made recently, and I recognise the huge effort that individuals and organisations have made to narrow the justice gap. None the less, crime and the fear of crime are still high on the agenda of London residents. I hope that the CPS in London can build on the progress made to date. The least that we should expect is that prosecutions that are brought to court are heard without delay, and that justice is done and seen to be done.

I did not secure the debate for political advantage. The Solicitor-General knows that I have corresponded with her for several years, and I hoped that there would be a substantial improvement in the period between the two reports. In an area where justice and the application of justice are highly relevant, it is critical that justice is applied as effectively and efficiently as possible. Those of us who have close contacts with magistrates and with people who work in the courts realise how effective they can be. I give the Solicitor-General every support in achieving the objectives, as, I am sure, will my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), but the sad fact is that an awful lot remains to be done.

I begin my short contribution by raising a case that is currently being heard. Referring to its merits would be sub judice, so I shall refer only to its existence and the fact that it is taking an inordinate amount of time. As a result of the incompetence of the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office, the defence, the prosecutors and perhaps even the judge herself, the fraud case involving the Jubilee line extension is taking an inordinate amount of time and vast sums of money are being disbursed in its prosecution. I ask the Solicitor-General to look into the matter urgently.

The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) rightly talked about Her Majesty's inspectorate of the Crown Prosecution Service, which is an important body of individuals on whose work we must rely. The inspectorate has expressed views about the CPS and its difficulties. I am not sure whether the inspectorate has been able to make a formal inspection and report in relation to Customs and Excise prosecutors. Not too long ago, owing not least to the unhappy events well documented by Mr. Justice Butterfield in his "Review of Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions Conducted by HM Customs and Excise", those prosecutors were brought under the aegis of the Law Officers' Department. I welcome that, but wonder whether there has been an opportunity for the inspectorate to look into that prosecuting service, which is housed in London. If so, has the inspectorate reported and what was the thrust of the report? Perhaps I have missed it. If so, I apologise, although I should like the Solicitor-General to let me have a copy of it.

Before I leave the subject of the inspectorate, I am anxious for the Solicitor-General to say who inspects the small prosecution departments that do not come under her aegis. I believe there is a light-touch relationship between the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General, and the prosecutors for the Health and Safety Executive, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Inland Revenue and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. I am anxious to know who monitors and inspects those bodies to ensure that they do not go on a frolic of their own and that high standards are maintained. There was something seriously wrong with the CPS. I regret to say that things do not seem to have improved substantially, although in fairness there have been some improvements. Attention has been drawn to Lord Justice Glidewell's important report on the CPS, published in 1998. It went to the core of the problems that then afflicted the CPS, both nationally and in London.

In a critical article inThe Times on 11 June 2002—I accept that that was two years ago—Mr. Robert McFarland made some compelling points: had there been a fundamental change; were the reforms properly acted on, and had recommendations been properly and completely implemented; and had there been a fundamental shift of emphasis towards the efficiency and standards that we expect from our national prosecution service? As the hon. Member for Croydon, South said, many stories, both in London and nationally, still emanate from the CPS about its inadequacy and lack of proper case preparation, about files being moved from one individual or department to another, and about prosecution failures. Cases such as that of Damilola Taylor, which hon. Members will recall, highlight the relevance of a succession of damning external reports.

Sylvia Denman's report of July 2001 is also relevant. Ironically, it arose as a result of events that took place at the Croydon branch of the CPS, and it is the hon. Member for Croydon, South whom I should congratulate on securing this debate. Sylvia Denman made a number of recommendations on race discrimination in the CPS. I would welcome the Solicitor-General telling us whether those recommendations have been listened to and properly acted on, and that the dreadful events described in Sylvia Denman's report will not occur again. There should be a proper ethos in the CPS when it comes to dealing with ethnic minorities.

In December 2001, the inspectorate's report on the CPS in London concluded:

"many of the serious weaknesses we identify can only be addressed through a substantial development and strengthening of both senior and middle management".

In April 2002, a report produced by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary on the handling of cases involving allegations of rape concluded that there was a

"need for a more professional approach at the outset if the criminal justice system is to secure more convictions and greater support for current and future victims."

On the CPS's role, the inspectorate said that the

"approach too often tended to be one of only considering any weaknesses, rather than also playing a more proactive role in seeking more information and trying to build or develop the case."

The common themes have been inadequacy and failure. There are too many lawyers who are either overstretched, incompetent, or both. There has been poor management, inadequate IT systems and an inability for the three pillars of the criminal justice process—the police. the CPS and the courts—to work together effectively.

There has been much criticism, but I want to end on a more positive note, because it is essential to realise, as the hon. Member for Croydon, South said, that the CPS is not a party political football that we are kicking about. It is important that the public have every confidence in the justice system, every confidence that prosecutions are being brought competently and conscientiously, and every confidence that a system is in place to secure the conviction of the guilty and ensure the acquittal of the innocent. I am anxious to hear the Solicitor-General say that the thrust of Lord Justice Glidewell's three main recommendations will be met and for her to tell us when that will happen so that greater priority is given to more serious cases, so that we have a new organisation, structure and style of management, and so that we establish firmly the proper role of the CPS in the criminal justice process.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) on securing the debate. He spoke about the thorough nature of the review and has followed the performance of the CPS in London over a significant period by asking questions and corresponding with Ministers and others.

Serious matters have been raised and both policy and operational issues have been mentioned. Although we are debating the CPS in London, the question arises as to what extent its problems are reflected around the country. For instance, the London inspectorate report of October 2003 refers to high proportions of casual staff, even though London CPS staff are paid more than non-London staff. Is the high cost of living in the capital having a detrimental effect on recruitment, or is London CPS losing trained and senior staff to other public bodies like the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Serous Fraud Office?

Historically, it was generally accepted that when the CPS was founded in 1986 the quality of its staff was lacking, not least because of the initial need to recruit a lot of people quickly. However, mangy now think that the quality of staff, particularly outside London, has been steadily improving. There is no shortage of quality recruits coming to the CPS in Cambridgeshire. Is there some particular problem in London to which the Solictor-General can point?

Another thing that has been nagging me is the extent to which the Government know what is happening on the ground. It is not just a case of whether they know what is going on, but which Department takes responsibility for the CPS on the ground. My hon. Friend reiterated the point made in the inspectorate's report of October 2003: London has an unacceptable problem with discharge committals and with cracked and ineffective trials in the Crown curt.

In a written answer on how many cases brought before the CPS had been dropped and for what reasons, the Solicitor-General admitted:

"The Crown Prosecution Service holds no historical records showing why cases did not proceed".—[Official Report, 15 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 7W.]

Will she confirm that that information could be provided for new cases? More specifically, is that situation related to the practicalities of only recently introducing computerised case-management systems? Does she have any information to share with us on how computerisation is likely to improve the quantity and quality of case management? To what extent is there still a problem with CPS staff not having the necessary computer skills to use the equipment? What is being done to remedy that? Why are the offices of our criminal prosecutors only now being computerised?

There is no doubt that London has specific problems. From March 2001 to March 2003, the annual cases handled per CPS lawyer fell from 674 to 458 and the number of committals for trial per CPS lawyer fell from 60 to 50. That was despite the number of lawyers rising from 240 to 350 and running costs increasing from £35 million to £47.5 million. Those statistics follow an emerging pattern for all public services over recent years. With more staff comes more expense but lower productivity.

How do the Government propose to reverse the state of affairs within the CPS? They have made some proposals. One of the more bizarre proposals is to change the name of the Crown Prosecution Service to the public prosecution service. Where do we stand on that name change? If it does go ahead, how much will the rebranding cost? Will the Crown remain as the prosecuting party, and if it does, what is the point of the name change? Another interesting proposal made by the Attorney-General recently is that the career paths of the CPS staff should be reviewed to encourage talented people to join up—for instance, by enabling CPS staff to become judges. Will the Solicitor-General elaborate on those proposals? Has she considered the human rights implications of CPS lawyers who are employed by the state acting as part-time judges?

Another problem is that in some types of crime, such as organised crime or animal rights terrorism, specialist teams of defence solicitors and counsel have been going around the country and outgunning local non- experienced CPS lawyers. Will the Solicitor-General elaborate on the proposed moves to set up specialist groups of prosecutors to take on specialist cases? Will those teams be based in London, and if they are, will they be a separate body or pulled from regional teams case by case? Does the Solicitor-General foresee that the future effectiveness and productivity of the CPS could be improved through specialisation?

One London CPS problem that comes through strongly in the October 2003 inspectorate report is that work remains to be done on leadership and governance. The inspectorate acknowledged that a new Government framework was being developed, with the intention of devolving accountability and responsibility to geographically based sectors. It would help if the Solicitor-General could provide an update on how that process is developing and if she would comment on the inspectorate's finding that there is still work to be done on people and performance management skills.

My understanding is that the CPS is to be permitted to take the decision to charge, rather than receive the papers only after the police have made such a decision. That seems eminently sensible, as it has the potential to reduce tension between the police and the CPS and reduce duplication of effort. However, the proposed roll-out of the plan seems to be somewhat haphazard, with only two London areas operating the new scheme. Can the Solicitor-General confirm whether the costing of the scheme in London, and around the country, has been properly worked out? For example, how many more CPS lawyers and CPS caseworkers will be required to be based in police stations?

We should deal with more than just operational and management issues. Above all, there are policy and confidence issues to consider. If members of the public do not think that the CPS is prosecuting fast enough or well enough, that creates a confidence problem in our criminal justice system. I recently received a letter from a lady who had been mugged in broad daylight as she left a shop. The woman stole her handbag, which contained her cheque book. By the time the police identified the assailant, which they did by tracking down the six stolen and forged cheques, the mugger was already in prison having had 120 other offences taken into consideration. The CPS, following national guidelines, refused to prosecute her for the six new offences, saying that it went against its overriding duty of fairness. If the offences that had been taken into consideration had been 126 rather than 120, would the sentence have been worse? The CPS said no. The victim, however, was staggered that the criminal could not be prosecuted for the crimes committed against her. After all the hassle and upset of helping the police in their investigation, she was left thinking, "Why did I bother telling the police? What good did it do me? I have come off worse."

The system seems to be wrong. Yet again, we see the law working in favour of the criminal rather than the victim, while the CPS takes the blame for a failure in national policy. I am interested to hear what plans, if any, the Solicitor-General has for strengthening the case in favour of victims and for the CPS to prosecute on that basis.

It seems that there are other proposals to improve contact between the CPS and witnesses—for instance, to inform them of the progress of a case. That is necessary not only for compassionate reasons but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South said, because it would help to ensure that people turn up and court time would not be wasted. It is a good idea, but no one seems to know what it would involve. We may be wiser were the Solicitor-General to elaborate on that. Has the she considered making a statement on the future of the CPS and the reorganisation proposals? A full debate on the subject would be worth while.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) on opening the debate, and on bringing the matter to our attention. He had some sharp things to say about the Crown Prosecution Service in London, but I welcome the opportunity to respond, because we all agree that these are important matters for Londoners. It is important that those who might be victims of crime should feel that justice will be done; and it is important that the public in London should have confidence that justice will be done. That is also a major deterrent; if people think that they are going to be caught and brought to justice, they are less likely to commit crime. I am sure that we all agree on the seriousness to Londoners of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman.

I am the Minister accountable for the CPS in London. Hon. Members will be aware that the CPS is independent. It bases its prosecution decisions on the evidence in each case, but it also takes account of whether a prosecution is in the public interest. However, although its decisions are made independently, the CPS is a public service and is accountable to the House through me. I exercise close and careful superintendence over the CPS in London. I have to remember at all times that although Members of Parliament and the public want the CPS in London to be accountable, they also want it to be independent. They do not want me or any other Minister taking such decisions. I walk a fine line of proactive supervision without trespassing on the prosecutor's independence.

The approach set out by the Solicitor-General is right, but it is not the answer to my question: who is the responsible Minister? I was looking at the wider issue, mainly framed around the letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. The letter said that the CPS is not responsible for the delays, but that they are caused by witnesses, the police and other factors beyond its control. My question was aimed at finding out which Minister is responsible for the overall picture.

I hope to answer as many of the hon. Gentleman's questions as possible, including the one of which he has just reminded me. I hope also to answer the questions put by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett); and I welcome to his position as shadow Solicitor-General the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly). If I have not answered all their questions by the end of the debate, I undertake to do so in writing. However, I listened carefully to the points raised, and 1 shall set about answering them.

Having described the overall framework, I should explain that in London the police are accountable to the House through Home Office Ministers and the Home Secretary. The courts in London are responsible through the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie). However, when all is said and done, nobody in London wants to hear it sail that something has not happened because "It is not our responsibility, it is somebody else's". Nobody will think that we have a fantastic police force if there is a problem with the CPS or the courts, as a result of which ofenders are not brought to justice. The point was strongly made in the Glidewell report that although the CPS and the courts need to maintain their independence, they have to work together in close partnership. Nobody wants to hear either organisation claim that it played its part and so if something has gone wrong it is the fault of somebody else. That is no good to anybody; it serves only to undermine public confidence.

I acknowledge that there have been problems. They were detailed in the December 2001 inspectorate report that the hon. Member for Croydon, South mentioned. I stand by what I have said to him in person and in letters: the situation is improving. Let me explain how and why. So that cases do no fall through the gaps between the police and the CPS or between the CPS and the courts, various parts of the criminal justice system in London are working together in much closer partnership. Each borough now has a criminal justice group, comprising the police, the CPS and the courts. They are working together at borough level to ensure that more offenders are brought to justice, that there is a better deal for victims and that there is greater public confidence.

That is not an airy theoretical position. The agencies are working together in every borough. That is replicated London-wide: the chief Crown prosecutor, Dru Sharpling, the Metropolitan police, the courts and the probation service work together across London's criminal justice system. Inter-agency co-operation and partnership is cemented at borough and national level. That is new; it used not to happen. I remember that, when I first became Solicitor-General, a complaint about a case would go to the police in the first instance. The police would claim that it was the responsibility of the CPS, which had messed it up, and the complaint would be passed along the line. The focus is now much more on working together to get things right, rather than working separately to apportion responsibility.

Such co-operation occurs not only at borough level and London-wide but also among Ministers. Baroness Scotland at the Home Office, the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, and I meet monthly, as do the heads of the agencies, to monitor the progress of the criminal justice system in London. That, too, is new; individual Ministers used not to keep such a close watch on individual London agencies. Now we not only do that, but we work toy ether to try to ensure that progress can be made. I thank all who work at borough and at London level, in particular the chair of the London criminal justice board, Dru Sharpling, for the new work that has been done to develop that partnership. It is producing results and will continue to do so.

In response to the proposals in the Glidewell report, there are now trial units for separate, specific consideration of more serious cases, backed up London- wide by a casework directorate in London dealing with the most specialist and serious cases. There has been a big change in management in the London CPS. The Attorney-General and I have full confidence in those who are leading the CPS in London. I hope that the results that are coming through will inspire more confidence than has been shown by hon. Members.

I thank the Solicitor General for giving way. With your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to welcome the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) to his new role and congratulate him on his appointment.

Obviously, it is important to have strong leadership and example. It is also vital to have continuity. If staff are coming and going, that is disastrous. If files are partly prepared by one person and then handed on to another, it is difficult to mount a successful case. What is important is good leadership, quality of staff and continuity, and a real endeavour at work. I hope that that is what is going on.

I agree with all the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Further to the previous intervention, the Solicitor-General said that she holds meetings on a monthly basis to discuss the CPS in London. The management issues that the inspectorate said were a problem were occurring until October 2003, so will she explain how they have improved sir ce the full report?

I will.

I agree with the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon that what is needed is strong leadership, a confident team of lawyers who are ably supported, and continuity on cases. I will address all those points in due course.

One of the problems in the CPS in London was simply that there were not enough lawyers. With the best will in the world, if there are too many cases per lawyer, there will not be a good quality of case preparation, so if there are more lawyers, that leads not to lower productivity but to better case preparation. The Government are committed to have more lawyers in the CPS, and we have made progress on that nationally, and particularly in London. Since 2001, when I became Solicitor-General, there has been a 49 per cent. increase in the number of lawyers in London. Lawyers should have time to prepare their cases properly.

When new people arrive it takes them time to bed in; obviously, they are not as experienced as those who have been around for 20 years. However, there has been a big increase in lawyers, and, interestingly, there has also been such a close correlation between that increase and an increase in guilty pleas that one would think that the lines that mark those rises were the same. The hon. Member for Huntingdon made a fair point when he said that some people may plead not guilty hoping that their case will fall by the wayside. When there were more lawyers in the CPS in London there were more guilty pleas because solicitors were clearly advising their clients to enter a guilty plea early it order to get the full discount for that, because the case might not fall apart and that would result in them being convicted.

I am sure that there being more lawyers has led to higher quality case preparation, to the ability to focus more on the interests and concerns of victims and witnesses, and to a greater likelihood of solicitors advising their clients that they will probably face justice if they are guilty, so if they are guilty the best thing to do is to plead guilty.

The hon. Member for Croydon, South said that CPS advocacy is unsung by magistrates and Crown court judges. We need to unpick that a bit. In my view, and in the view of CPS London, the DPP and the Attorney-General, it is not a good idea to have a high number of solicitor agents in the magistrates court. It is much better if our own prosecutors can be in court, prosecuting their own cases, which they know and understand, and on which they can make a decision. Magistrates say that they like the person who appears before them to be someone who knows what is going on in a case, rather than someone who tells them they must pop out and make a phone call, and then returns with the news that the prosecutor is not there, so they cannot get a decision.

Because we have more lawyers, we have needed to use fewer independent solicitor agents. The number of designated caseworkers has also increased. Those are people who are not qualified solicitors but who can be in court, representing cases at certain stages of the process. As well as more CPS advocacy, which is welcomed, and more designated caseworkers, there are more higher court advocates. Those are prosecutors in the Crown Prosecution Service, rather than the independent Bar, who can take a case through various stages, including, sometimes, up to trial in the Crown court. Instead of the Crown Prosecution Service instructing independent counsel, the prosecutor, properly trained as a higher court advocate, will conduct the case.

I am encouraged by what the Solicitor-General says. I believe that it is wrong to take a merely accounting view of such matters. Nevertheless, we are here to ensure that there is value for money. One pointer to that will be the savings gained by using the Crown Prosecution Service to carry out its own advocacy, instead of hiving the work out to independent counsel. It would be interesting if the Solicitor-General could, in a few months' time, produce some statistics to show the savings made.

In addition, the Solicitor-General mentioned a 49 per cent. increase in the number of lawyers. I should like to know the figures for cases handled per lawyer, immediately before she was appointed and now. I should also like to know the number of successful prosecutions per lawyer, then and now.

I do not have those figures with me, but I undertake to give them to the hon. Gentleman. However, I said that the number of guilty pleas, which he may count as successful prosecutions, had increased, and I believe that there is a correlation between that result and the increase in the number of lawyers.

I said something about CPS lawyers routinely doing their own advocacy in the magistrates court and increasingly working in the Crown court, and I want to mention the quality of CPS lawyers. I want to put this as delicately as I can, but sometimes the legal profession outside the CPS has not been as fair as it should have been to lawyers within it. The law is a chronically hierarchical profession and those at the independent Bar sometimes feel that they are the crème de la crème and that anyone who is not at the independent Bar, and heading towards the judiciary, is second rate.

I challenge that view. Many people in the Crown Prosecution Service have chosen it, and do an excellent job. They are not people who could not make it at the independent Bar. They believe in what they are doing, which is very important, and they do it to an excellent standard. Many CPS lawyers are women who have chosen to work for the service rather than the independent Bar, not least because the latter requires people to go zooming around the country at the drop of a hat. People in the CPS believe in the work that they do, and some find that the lack of family friendliness, and various other aspects of the independent Bar, make working for the CPS much more desirable.

Sixty-five per cent. of lawyers in the Crown Prosecution Service are women. I am not prepared to hear that those lawyers are less good than lawyers outside the CPS. They might not look or sound like a High Court judge, but are their legal brains any less good? I would say not. We must recognise that there has been a lot of snobbery about the CPS in the legal profession.

The CPS should be held to account, and individual cases and statistics from across cases should be carefully considered. We should account to Parliament for what the CPS does, and it is right that Members such as the hon. Member for Croydon, South should not only take up individual cases but look across the piece. However, we must also guard against the sense that the CPS is the poor relation in the law. I have looked at CPS branches, trial units and prosecutors in court, and I have talked to people, and I would be very depressed if they were as they have been described. In reality, however, I am always struck by the contrast with how they are seen from outside.

rose

I am going to deal with the inspectorate's report. In fact, I feel that I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question before he even asks it.

I thank the Solicitor-General for giving way and for her mind-reading, but I wanted to ask about a different issue. She is not wrong about the way in which the legal profession views the CPS, and I agree with most of what she says, but I return to the issue of specialisation. In an age of specialisation, in which big money goes into defence teams, is there not a need for specialisation in what, generally speaking, is a proficient organisation?

I have made a note of the hon. Gentleman's point and I will deal with it.

We could build confidence in the criminal justice system if people thought that it understood them, and that judges and prosecuting counsels understood a great variety of different walks of life. Public confidence in the justice system has been held back because of the narrow cadre of people from which the judiciary is chosen. That is why I very much support the progress that the Attorney-General is making in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs in opening up to CPS lawyers the possibility of taking up judicial appointments. That will give us a much more diverse judiciary—more women, more people from ethnic minorities and, heaven forbid, more people who did not go to public school. Those involved in court cases will see that the people on the bench are more like themselves. They will see that the criminal justice system, and the justice system generally, is fair, rather than narrow and elitist. Such steps will also widen the pool of people who can be put into the judiciary.

Of course, the human rights issues have been considered. Prosecutors employed by the CPS will not judge in CPS cases, but there are many other tribunals—immigration tribunals, tribunals dealing with Customs cases and courts martial—in which a prosecutor can build up part-time judicial experience before taking a full-time appointment. We are making progress on the issue, and the result will be good. That will also tackle the problem of people thinking that they will have to leave the CPS and go to the independent Bar if they want to join the judiciary. We do not want to lose some of the most advanced advocates because they feel that they will not be able to go into the judiciary if they stay at the CPS.

The CPS is taking forward its law scholarship scheme, which enables people who may have no post-school qualifications to train as lawyers. Again, that is diversifying the legal profession, which, although it has been diversifying, still comprises a relatively narrow group of people. We want everybody with the necessary commitment and intellect to have the opportunity to become a lawyer.

All hon. Members who spoke mentioned victims and witnesses. There are two reasons why we should take special care with them. First, it is a matter of principle. It is horrible to be tho victim of a crime, and victims need proper support. They do not want to be in a system that makes them feel worse. Secondly, even witnessing a crime can be a horrible experience, and going to court can be daunting. We need to be supportive, nice, helpful and kind to victims and witnesses not only as a matter of principle but because trials will collapse if they do not give evidence. If we want to bring offenders to justice, it is practical to provide better support for victims and witnesses.

The police and the CPS are working in partnership to staff focus desks that keep victims and witnesses in touch with the progress of their cases. We do not want to return to the situation in which people read the results of their cases in newspapers because no one had told them what had happened.

The hon. Member for Croydon, South asked whether it had occurred to me how victims feel when they go to court and their cases collapse. I agree that that is a problem. The Government are strongly focused on it and are giving greater attention and support to victims and witnesses. A great many things are being done to ensure that witnesses are warned in advance, kept in touch with developments in their cases and given better support. I pay tribute to the witness service, which is improving what it can offer in terms of pre-trial visits to the court, so that witnesses and victims see courtrooms and have everything explained in advance. That is particularly important in Crown court cases.

On dealing with victims and witnesses more humanely and efficiently, the problem is that when they are not dealt with in a way that they feel is appropriate, they have a sense of helplessness and do not know to whom they should speak. That has come through to me in correspondence from constituents. The lines of communication between MPs and the local CPS can be a tenuous way of getting answers. Has the Solicitor-General set her mind to that issue, whose importance is widely reflected across the country?

Yes, I have. The joint work between the police and the CPS on additional victim support provides victims with a single point of contact and regularly updates them on case progress. That is important not only so that people clan be kept informed as a matter of courtesy, but so that my difficulties with transport or any other problems hat might prevent them from getting to court are dealt with in advance, which avoids unnecessary adjournments. Those issues are being carefully considered and progress is being made.

COMPASS and the computer system were mentioned, and I was asked whether I know what is going on in CPS London. As a result of the introduction of COMPASS, there is a much greater ability to manage cases effectively and with greater accountability. When we first came into government, there was no computerisation at all: no one had a screen on their desk. That was six years ago, and we have made progress since then. Now that COMPASS has been rolled out and everyone has been trained to use it, there is less paperwork and it is easier to track trials. We are also better able to look at the figures and discuss the rate of discharge committals, discontinuances, ineffective trials and witnesses not turning up. We could not have had that discussion before because everybody would be speaking on the basis of anecdote. Now we have much greater accountability and the police, the courts and the CPS are all working from the same figures. Therefore, we can work out what the problems are and see whether or not the situation is improving Discontinuance is when the CPS discontinues a case. The discontinuance rate in London is down. Discharge committals are also down and conviction rates are up. That is the direction of travel. We can monitor those rates and will continue to do so.

The hon. Member for Croydon, South asked about hearing trials in absence. The most important thing is to make it clear to defendants that they must turn up because if they do not they might be penalised for an offence under the Bail Act 1976 or have their trial heard in their absence. The Attorney-General has been liaising with the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs on that and the London Criminal Justice Board has considered how widespread the warnings are to defendants that if they do not turn up, they can be tried in their absence.

Hon. Members talked about the inspectorate reports—the original one in December 2001 and the reinspection in 2003. Of course, there is more progress to be made, but it is clear from examining those reports that huge progress has been made. We can have confidence that progress will continue to be made because we have strong leadership in CPS London. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Croydon, South shakes his head, but if he examines the direction of travel, and compares the 2001 report with the November 2003 report, he will see the improvement, and things have continued to improve since then.

The hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned about discontinuances, but, as I said, they are down, and he should acknowledge that that is good. If he is concerned about discharge committals being down, I can say that that situation is improving, which is good. If he wants the conviction rate to increase and the numbers of offenders who are brought to justice to increase, I can say that that is happening. The direction of travel should be looked at and we should ask ourselves whether things are improving and there is a sustained improvement. All of us would always like things to go faster, but the building blocks are in place and things are undoubtedly improving steadily.

I acknowledge that the direction in which things are going is the right one. However, there is a grave danger that the Solicitor-General is going to believe her own rhetoric, which is not satisfactory. If she has time, perhaps in her car on the way back to her Ministry, she should read the overview to the 2003 report. It is only four pages long and will take her five minutes to read. Every paragraph, summarising every aspect, criticises, in a most serious and emphatic way, what is going on.

Of course I have read the overview. I talked to the inspectors and know exactly what is going on. I did not say that everything is perfect, but that the building blocks are in place. There are more lawyers, computerisation, better partnership, and more focus on victims and witnesses. The hon. Gentleman must agree that those are building blocks, and they are in place and showing results. The further proposals in the reinspection report produced by the London inspectorate are being acted on. Nobody is resting on their laurels. People are working their socks off to create the improvements to which the public are entitled and which we all want to see.

Although I do not deny that people are working their socks off, it might aid my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South if the Solicitor-General could examine the four pages of the conclusion to the report and write to us. I do not think that there is enough time now to run through the conclusions and address the issues that they raise, to see how we have moved on from October last year.

I shall certainly send anybody any letters that they might like to receive. However, I hope that I can do better than that. Since the inspection on which the report was based, lawyers have been introduced into police stations and have been advising them on charges so that the case can be got right from the outset. As a result, the discontinuance rate has fallen by 16 per cent.

The Solicitor-General will be aware that I have studiously avoided going to the press and have kept our correspondence private during the past three years. Will she deal with the specific problem of primary and secondary disclosure? That is the real weak spot and she has not yet addressed it.

I was not taking a sideswipe at the hon. Gentleman; I was merely saying that people need to get to know each other. Just as the police and the prosecutors need to get to know each other to work in partnership, we, as accountable Members of Parliament, need to get to know the prosecutors to understand the work that they are doing. I was not in any way, shape or form criticising him.

There is a new protocol on disclosure. Hardly a day goes by without the Attorney-General thinking about disclosure, and I have plenty of notes on the subject. It is an issue. We need to be sure that disclosure is properly dealt with before a case comes to trial in a magistrates court or the Crow n court. That is why the case preparation project, which involves certifying a case as ready for trial, is so important. It ensures that a person does not get to court and find that the case has to be adjourned because certain issues are raised. Disclosure is very important. It is not an easy issue; it is very difficult. However, the police and prosecutors are working closer on it and trip wires are in place to ensure that disclosure takes place before a case is certified as ready for trial.

The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon asked about other prosecuting departments. He is right that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is subject to the Law Officers, although it belongs to the Department for Transport. Similarly, the Health and Safety Executive looks to the Law Officers, as do the Environment Agency and courts martial. That is different from the CPS.

I know under whose aegis which prosecutor lies. The CPS is inspected by Her Majesty's inspectorate of the Crown Prosecution Service. I am anxious to know who monitors and inspects the small prosecution departments.

I know that the hon. Gentleman is asking about inspections, but before I deal with that, I want to add the Serious Fraud Office to my list of agencies that report to the Law Officers.

The cases of the smaller prosecution departments are subject to audit; they do not have an inspectorate in the way in which the Crown Prosecution Service does. Reviews of individual cases or systems will be conducted from time to time, but there is no separate inspectorate to consider prosecutions by either the Maritime and Coastguard Agency or the Health and Safety Executive, because the number of cases is small. However, the Attorney-General and I superintend such agencies and meet routinely to consider all the issues arising. Indeed, I have a meeting with Environment Agency prosecutors this afternoon after the debate.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon asked whether there should be a prosecution when a victim has suffered a crime, but the defendant has in the meantime been imprisoned for something else. Such cases will have fallen foul not of the evidential test, but of the public interest test. We must consider whether prosecuting such cases would he in the public interest. I agree that it is unsatisfactory to tell victims that bringing to justice someone who is already in prison will not make any difference, but there is a record of the offence even if they are not prosecuted for committing it.

The National Criminal Justice Board has discussed the issue. The manner in which the public interest aspect of the code for Crown prosecutors is put into effect is being reconsidered. We cannot say that we should focus on victims, but still be able to tell them, "Well, you might have suffered that crime, but we're not going to prosecute because he's already guilty of so many other offences". That is a justified grievance, but it is at least on the way to being dealt with.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon asked about the name change, which is being discussed. The Crown Prosecution Service has been transformed. It is making moves earlier in the process by giving advice on the charge and then deciding on it. The service is broadening its role in the middle of the process, with extra support and involvement of victims and witnesses, and with CPS advocates going into court. The CPS is involved further on in the process, advising the judge or magistrate about the appropriate sentence and challenging factually erroneous mitigation. All that, in addition to computerisation, more lawyers, designated case workers and the judicial appointment commission, has involved enormous changes in the service in the past few years.

Such change can be encapsulated by redescribing the Crown Prosecution Service, which, as I have said, is a bit of a mystery for most people. We can explain the system by saying, "This is the public prosecution service". That would also help people to understand what the service does. The fact that I, for instance, appear on behalf of the Crown is well known to hon. Members, but it is baffling to people outside the House. People should understand that the CPS prosecutes in the public interest and has gone through many changes, and a future change might involve the name change.

I am confident that there is sustained progress. Is there more work to be done? Of course there is. However, I conclude by thanking those dedicated, hard-working lawyers in the Crown Prosecution Service in London, many of whom do successful and important work, but who are rarely thanked and almost never in public. I want them to go from strength to strength.

Usually, in debates about funding, hon. Members present the Minister with a long shopping list of items that require additional funding. I have a shopping list, but there are only two things on it. The first is that the forthcoming comprehensive spending review should close what Ministers themselves acknowledge to be an unfair funding gap between schools and colleges. The second could well save Ministers money in the long term, if a unique bid for a college in Banbury is accepted.

To ensure clarity about what I am asking for, for north Oxfordshire, I have let the Minister have an advance copy of my comments. I know from previous experience that the Minister is courteous and conscientious, and I hope that that has given him and his officials an opportunity to look into the matters that I want to raise.

Colleges are imperative to improving the education and skills of young people and adults alike. There are only two ways of teaching vocational and educational skills—either through 14 to 16-year-old schools or at colleges. For 14 to 16-year olds, schools remain the institution most likely to give such opportunities. However, for 16 to 19-year-olds, colleges are vital. More than a third of 16 to 18-year-olds explicitly chose to study at a local college rather than a local school last year.

Colleges are also crucial to the training of adults. The Government have made a lot of noise about improving adult learning and skills, which I very much welcome. In some areas of my constituency, such as Grimsbury and Neithrop, more than half of adults have not always had the opportunity to acquire qualifications and skills. That skills shortage problem is the reason why a new further education college to be based in Banbury is so important. Given that, last year, colleges helped nearly 400,000 adults improve their basic numeracy and literacy skills, it is really only a college that can help adults in north Oxfordshire, in the fullest possible sense.

None of what I am asking for can happen without basic Government funding. Colleges are clearly achieving much, but those achievements are gained in the face of comparatively little support from Government budgets. It is confusing that colleges such as Oxford and Cherwell college, which covers north Oxfordshire, derive a third of their funding from sources other than the Learning and Skills Council, the Government's chosen mechanism for distributing moneys for further education. I might quote some figures on this, to the effect that

"if we compare like with like—if we compare the funding rate for an A-level in a school with that in an FE or sixth form college—we see that for 2002–03, there was about a 10 per cent. gap—£734 for schools, and £663 for FE colleges."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 18 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 223WH.]

Those are not my words but those of the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills. It is astonishing that the Minister can tell us that the Banbury campus and the Oxford and Cherwell college in my constituency receive almost £100 less to teach the same A-level course to similar students, simply on account of being a college, not a school. That means that one third of colleges, including Oxford and Cherwell college, are running with a continuing and growing deficit. It means, further, that even if Oxford and Cherwell was able to raise its share of the money to build a new and improved college at Banbury, getting funding from the Government would become doubly difficult.

Doubtless, when the Minister responds, he will allude to the increases in funding that colleges have received in the past year. Of course, I welcome such increases, as does the chief executive of the Oxford and Cherwell college. However, as she explained to me when we recently met, colleges continue to be relatively underfunded. Any I funding increases are lower than the increases that are being given to schools. She relied on figures that are supported by the Association of Colleges, showing that whereas colleges in Oxfordshire are expected to receive a 19 per cent. increase in funding, schools in Oxfordshire have benefited from a 60 per cent. rise in funding. That is more than double. Yet colleges have to meet many of the same Government targets as schools and the disadvantages run far deeper for colleges than that evident funding gap.

Let us consider the cash flow at Oxford and Cherwell college. I apologise to the House for listing it in detail, as it is not particularly gripping stuff; however, it illustrates clearly how even a relatively low increase in funding to colleges, compared to schools, is soon eaten up by additional costs that schools do not face.

Last year, Oxfordshire FE colleges paid more than £1 million in VAT. Schools are not even charged VAT. Given that they are often offering the same A-levels, it is monstrously unfair that colleges should be subject to VAT. Oxford and Cherwell also had to pay more than £250,000 in consultancy fees, covering costs such as accountancy and IT equipment. Yet colleges are unfairly excluded on any major Government procurement programmes for things like IT equipment. Instead, colleges have to go it alone at extra cost.

The Association of Colleges estimates that going it alone will create another deficit of £40 million between the funding that colleges receive from the Government, and the costs that they actually incur. Consultancy is also costly for colleges because of the increasing amount of regulation and auditing to which they are exposed. Much of that auditing is also astonishingly unfair, not least in relation to the registration of students.

The bureaucracy of just registering a student is mind blowing: Oxford and Cherwell college has fallen foul of the registering scheme, which meant that, last year, it taught up to 100 students without being able to prove that it had done so under the new registering system that has only recently been introduced. It therefore lost more than £250,000 in funding for those students. It can ill afford to lose £250.000 simply because of an almost annual change in the way in which colleges have been regulated. It also pat s, as part of its cash flow, £500,000 on building maintenance. That is not to improve the buildings, but to ensure that they do not fall down.

Schools will receive more than £5 billion to help to improve their buildings in the next year, but colleges throughout England will, incomprehensibly, receive less than £400 million. Oxford and Cherwell college has also had to face a I per cent. rise in national insurance costs. Unlike schools, however, it has not had the necessary funding to fill that gap. Colleges have also faced a 5.5 per cent. increase in pensions contributions. Again, the Government have not helped them to cover those new costs in the same way in which they have helped schools.

It is crystal clear that there is a far from level playing field between schools and colleges. Evidently, there is very little of anything left in the pot for colleges after their basic costs and new burdens of bureaucracy have been deducted. As a result, there is considerable uncertainty for colleges. Uncertainly means instability, which leads to an inability to plan for the future. Not being able to plan for the future leaves colleges behind, while schools can continue to expand. This is starkly illustrated in north Oxfordshire.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), and I recently attended the opening of a new technology centre at the excellent Warriner school in Bloxham. That is great news. Likewise, one of the best performing schools in my patch, Blessed George Napier school, unveiled plans this year for an impressive new sports centre. That is brilliant news for the school and the community alike. However, it could not contrast more starkly with the future of FE facilities in Banbury. Half the adult population in some areas of my constituency clearly need the opportunity to develop their education and skills at colleges, so we need further commitment to this important area of education. What makes matters worse still for colleges in Oxfordshire is that whenever they have provided the detailed plans that the Government have requested, those plans have been abandoned by the LSC.

One of the welcome reforms that were introduced as part of Government's "Success fog All" White Paper was the introduction of three-year planning and budgeting, which promised some stability in the system. However, the imposition of cuts to the provisional allocations, even where colleges have delivered successfully against targets, will create considerable instability and call into question the viability of the new system. Moreover, several colleges have told me that they will have to reconsider their ability to make pay rises in 2004–05 if they have to face budget cuts introduced by the LSC.

Colleges that are planning or executing capital programmes to modernise their facilities will now have to deal with a new area of uncertainty, which could create a problem in securing or retaining borrowing. Oxfordshire colleges drew up their three-year plan with the help of the LSC, and agreed with the LSC that their budgets would grow by 6 per cent. They agreed specifically that the number of adults in FE in north Oxfordshire would increase by almost 2,000 to 11,500 by 2007, and submitted that plan to the LSC.

What happened next? The LSC told them that it had not received the necessary funding from the Government, and the three-year plan was abandoned after less than a year. Teachers at Oxfordshire colleges now face the prospect of redundancy unless the necessary funding comes through after the comprehensive spending review. It is now vital that that funding is delivered. Without it, and with redundancies, colleges in Oxfordshire will simply be unable to meet the Government's targets, and will only fall further behind.

There are further disparities between counties in the funding that colleges receive from the LSC, even when they do meet the Government's targets. I understand from the chief executive of Oxford and Cherwell college that the LSC told Oxfordshire colleges that they had successfully met the community's needs and should receive £15 million for adult learning. However, when Milton Keynes colleges, which are exactly the same size and cover a similar sort of area, were also told that they met the same targets, they received £22 million for doing exactly the same thing.

The disparities in funding simply keep adding up. Not only is there a funding gap of 10 per cent., which Ministers acknowledge, but an inexplicable disparity between the funding that colleges in one county receive from the LSC compared with colleges in another. This needs to be sorted out during the comprehensive spending review.

In recent years, I have had numerous meetings with staff and teachers' unions, and, like other hon. Members, have made numerous representations to Ministers. I suspect that part of the problem is that we have all been led in recent years to believe that matters were always about to improve. In 2001, the Prime Minister said:

"What we need to do … is to lift up the funding that is given specifically to sixth-form and further education colleges."— [Official Report, 28 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 966.]

In June 2002, the Minister for Children said:

"The Government are committed to raising the level of funding for colleges towards that of school sixth forms. By 2003—04 funding for further education will have risen by 26 per cent. in real terms since 1997. Further progress can only be made as resources allow and we cannot commit ourselves beyond the resources we secure. We are looking to the current Spending Review to provide the resources needed to deliver the Government's ambitious agenda for further education."—[Official Report, 13 June 2002; Vol. 386, c. 1409W.]

In November 2002, at the Association of Colleges' annual conference, the Secretary of State for Education announced a new funding package for further education that indicated that there would be three-year funding plans for colleges and that for 2005—06 spending on FE would rise by 26 per cent. in cash terms and 19 per cent. in real terms. When hon. Members, like myself, were writing to Ministers or raising the issue in the House, we were being given answers that indicated those proposed new funding arrangements.

It took some time to realise that in reality the increase for most colleges was going to be nowhere near 26 per cent. or 19 per cent. For most colleges this year, the increase is only in line with inflation. Over the whole period, the increase in real resources per student is no more than 5 per cent. When that discrepancy became apparent, Ministers said that it would get sorted out in the comprehensive spending review. As recently as May this year, a junior Minister in the Department for Education and Skills said that hon. Members

"will be disappointed but not surprised that I cannot say…what the overall settlement will be for FE. The Department is still working through the detail but we hope to be able to make further announcements before the summer recess in July".

It was also observed that

"the overall financial position is much tighter in this spending review than it was in the previous one".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 18 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 222WH.]

As an hon. Member who has listened to ministerial language for more than 20 years, such statements do not give me much cause for optimism. It is absurd that the average college gets its funding from more than 30 different sources. It is also deeply unfair that under the Government system the LSC will pay 100 per cent. of school sixth form costs, but only 35 per cent. of college building costs. College borrowing must cover the rest. I see no sense in using that discriminating funding formula for capital build programmes. Such a funding system hits the prospects of a modernised FE college in Banbury especially hard.

At present, Banbury is an area of low unemployment, but it has a serious skills shortage. The central requirement of colleges is to provide additional skills and training for adults. Level 2 is a basic qualification, and most employers look for far more than just level 2, but in some areas of Banbury that is all that many adults have been able to acquire. The LSC for Milton Keynes and Buckinghamshire, which also covers Oxfordshire, makes regular representations to Members of Parliament for Oxfordshire to outline the skills gap in the county. The LSC's latest strategy paper clearly states the need to:

"develop an entitlement for all 14–19 year olds in the area"

and that

"high employment means that the majority of our potential learners are to be found in the workplace. Our focus here will be on the achievement of Level 2, Level 3 in our key skills priority areas, management and Basic Skills."

Colleges are clearly one of the best ways to enhance the education of adults. Not only have more than 300,000 adults improved their basic numeracy and literacy at colleges during the past year, but between 1997 and 2001, more than 2 million vocational qualifications were gained, whereas only 233,000 were gained through employers during the same period.

FE colleges are clearly a must, and Banbury needs an enhanced FE facility now. Sadly, as we have seen, the Government's funding formula leaves Oxford and Cherwell with a mountain to climb. Huge discrepancies in funding have left the colleges with a massive deficit, so they are starting on the back foot. The uphill struggle becomes even harder because at best they will receive only 35 per cent. of the building costs under the capital build programme because they are colleges and not schools.

Somehow colleges are expected to conjure up the rest of the budget themselves. That is not an easy task, but Oxford and Cherwell college is trying to meet it. It has, for example, sold the Rycote college site for £9 million. However, the costs involved in the sale came to a staggering £3 million, leaving only £6 million for a new campus to be built at Bicester. That £6 million is being ring-fenced for investment in a much-needed new FE facility in Bicester, which is excellent news, but sadly means that there will be little money for a new Banbury campus. To put that £6 million into perspective, a new FE facility at Banbury would cost at least £27 million, which does not account for any land purchase. Improvements that are desperately needed for buildings at Bicester are estimated to total about £12 million. Improvements are also needed on the Oxford campus and could cost anything up to £25 million. Therefore, £6 million for a college that will cost at least £27 million offers little optimism for Oxford and Cherwell college to go it alone in Banbury.

Oxford and Cherwell college has come up with an alternative for a campus at Banbury, which I very much hope the Minister's Department will consider seriously. Drayton school in Banbury is also looking for new facilities. Drayton school and Oxford and Cherwell college have sensibly teamed up together to consider an alternative approach. They have put in a bid to the academies unit in the Minister's Department. The college for Banbury, which Drayton and the college are proposing, is unique in England and Wales. No other consortium has put together a bid of this sort before. The proposed college for Banbury would be for 14 to 19-year-olds and take up to 400 students. The college would offer courses for adults, which Banbury needs. The consortium is looking to build such a campus at Banbury relatively soon and, if its bid were successful, the college would be running by 2007. The bid for a college of that sort was submitted to the academies unit in April this year. I understand that for the bid to be successful and to go on to the next stage it will need to be supported by a sponsor, and that such a sponsor will be a private company. I am aware of which sponsor is being approached for the Banbury campus, and that company will need to provide £2 million for the Drayton school and Oxfordshire colleges' bid. It will then be left to the Government to decide whether to fund up to £20 million to build the college at Banbury.

Until that sponsor is secured, the Government will not even consider a formal written proposal from Oxfordshire county council, which is co-ordinating the bid. That raises two concerns. First, most bids for any new college building tend to be successful only in inner-city areas. The Minister's Department has approved recent proposals in Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham, but very few bids have been approved anywhere other than in inner cities. It would be a huge mistake if Ministers were to overlook the Drayton school and Oxford and Cherwell college bid on the misunderstanding that north Oxfordshire and Banbury are all leafy lanes and comfortable middle England. The demographics that I have described in some parts of my constituency show that that is not the case. There is a real need for an enhanced FE college in Banbury.

My second concern is that because the type of college being proposed for Banbury by Drayton school together with Oxford and Cherwell college has never been suggested before, Ministers may need to consider any written proposal earlier than they might otherwise do. They would surely be better able to judge the bid if they were to consider a written proposal from Oxfordshire county council. It may be more difficult to secure the sponsorship of a private investor when the proposal is unfamiliar, and that problem can be avoided only if those involved are given the opportunity to provide a further explanation to the academies unit.

From even a cursory glance, the Banbury campus bid is worth taking forward. A college at Banbury operated by Drayton school and Oxford and Cherwell college would cut costs. When one considers the cash flow of Oxford and Cherwell college, which I outlined earlier, a joint venture would be an excellent opportunity for Ministers to help bridge the funding gap that it is experiencing.

Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider two points. First, funding for colleges across the UK, and particularly in Oxfordshire, will be enhanced by reforming the monstrously unfair funding system that disadvantages colleges. Secondly, I ask the Minister to consider seriously the Drayton school bid together with Oxford and Cherwell college for a new college campus at Banbury.

Oxford and Cherwell college has little chance of being able to build a college at Banbury on its own. Under the capital build programme, funding is granted only on the basis that the college is able to prove its ability to pay for the development and its ability tomorrow. Oxford and Cherwell college is unable to do either. Funding over recent years has put paid to that. Moreover, even if it were successful on the capital build programme, it would only receive 35 per cent. of the cost of building a college at Banbury.

With this continuing deficit, even with £6 million available from the sale of Rycote college—which, as I explained, is earmarked for a new campus at Bicester—the best opportunity for a new campus is the joint bid by Drayton school and Oxford and Cherwell college. A college run by both a school and a college would in essence halve the costs and double the resources. That must be good news. It would meet the particular needs of Banbury and the surrounding area by addressing adult learning needs. The college would meet many of the Government's own objectives.

These aims can be achieved only if Ministers seriously consider any written proposal from Oxfordshire county council. If they do so, Banbury may be able to have its much-needed college by 2007. I hope that the Minister and his officials will give some help to the county council in working its way through these regulations so that we can secure the necessary sponsorship from the private sector to move this project forward.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) on securing the debate. I am pleased to have this opportunity to recognise the achievements of the further education sector. It is difficult to overstate the importance of FE. It is a sector that provides a diverse range of opportunities to more than 6 million learners, 4 million of them in general FE colleges, and 2 million in the workplace. Thousands of businesses are involved, as is every community in the country.

I would like to take a few minutes to set out the important role of FE and of the Government's reform agenda for the sector before moving on to some of the specific points that the hon. Gentleman raised. I welcome this opportunity to listen to views on pressures and priorities but it is important to put such comments into context. He said that people always say that things are always about to improve. The 2002 spending review was unprecedented for FE, with increases of more than £1 billion for the sector in the three years up to 2005–06. I was bemused by the quotes in his speech. Last year, every college in the country received an increase in funding of at least 6 per cent. in real terms, and every spending request made of the Learning and Skills Council was met; it was an extraordinary year. The year that we are entering is the most generous of this most generous ever three-year spending review settlement.

I fully accept the points made about the past. I will make a few crude political points to the hon. Member for Banbury. I accept that he is the worst person to make them to, as he has always had an independence of mind that makes him invulnerable to suggestions that he should consider the proposals of his Front Bench colleagues. However, I need to make the comments anyway to put the issue into context. This is an extraordinarily generous spending review settlement for FE, and it opens up a host of opportunities. The investment was essential to help us build the capability and capacity necessary for a sector able to respond to the needs of the 21st century.

People in FE are continually telling me that the sector was the Cinderella of the educational world. That is true, but there is a limit to how many times they can simply repeat that. My response to the FE sector, in view of the spending review of 2002, is that Cinderella is now going to the ball. The sector is crucial; it is key to our inextricably linked twin aims of social inclusion and economic success, and it needed the amount of investment that it received. I am not suggesting for a moment that the investment closed the historical funding gap of the early 1990s—that was when a previous Government incorporated FE colleges and, to a certain extent, locked in the funding disparity. I am saying that the spending review gives us the opportunity to do more in FE than we have ever been able to do before.

We want everyone to be able to acquire the dignity of self-improvement. We want all employers to have access to skills that they need to compete globally. To do that, we must have a properly funded FE sector. The extra investment of the spending review of 2002 helped to launch our successful strategy 18 months ago. Part of that strategy was to direct additional resources into delivering learning. For the academic year 2003–04, core funding rates per qualification increased. Our expenditure plans for the period to 2005–06 should allow that trend to continue. We are pleased with the response of the sector to "Success for All"; it is a genuine commitment and a partnership between Government, the LSC and FE providers based on trust.

The skills agenda and the 14-to-19 strategy being worked out by the Tomlinson working group present real challenges for the sector to ensure choice and opportunity for all. The issue is not just money; we need to change ways of working and make the best use of existing resources.

Oxford and Cherwell college has already taken determined action to ensure that it can meet the needs of learners and employers in the local community. I am aware that the college is not in a strong financial position; that is hardly surprising, given that it is the result of a merger of three colleges that were all in poor financial health. However, the financial forecast—prepared as part of a reorganisation proposal submitted to the Department—demonstrates that the new college expects to fall into financial health category A, the strongest level of financial status, by the end of four academic years. In order to attain that, the new college needs to meet the key assumptions set out in its reorganisation proposal. Those include considerable economies of scale—for example, there will be one senior management team instead of three—and comprehensive reviews and rationalisation of the college's curriculum and its property portfolio.

The hon. Gentleman talked about capital funding. He said that the capital pot for schools was £5 billion, and that further education's was £400 million. Those figures are accurate, but I ask him to reflect on the fact that there are 21,000 schools and approximately 400 FE colleges. Furthermore, while we are talking about property portfolios, incorporation gave colleges independence, including control over their own assets, such as land and buildings and the ability to use those flexibly. That flexibility does not apply to local authorities to which schools are responsible. That must be borne in mind.

I am advised that the LSC has committed considerable financial resources up to £3 million to help the college meet the costs of the reorganisation. The college has a new, dynamic senior management team that is co-ordinating the reviews and developing a longer-term strategic plan that will deliver the financial improvements envisaged in the reorganisation proposal. The LSC has every confidence that the new management team is of a sufficient calibre to develop Oxford and Cherwell into a flourishing, flagship college for central and north Oxfordshire.

On funding for capital investment, the Government have set out plans for huge increases in the capital funding that is allocated to the Learning and Skills Council for investment in the post-16 learning and skills sector. Capital funds allocated to the LSC will increase to more than £400 million in 2005—06, which is an increase of more than 60 per cent. in real terms compared with 2002–03. The key priorities for that investment are updating and improving vocational training facilities, including centres of vocational excellence, supporting structural change arising from area reviews, examination of provision for 14 to 19-year-olds, meeting the requirement of the Disability and Discrimination Act 1995 and transforming facilities for information and communications technology-supported learning. That level of support means that for the first time there is a long-term approach to building and redeveloping the FE infrastructure.

I understand that the Oxford and Cherwell college Rycotewood site has recently been sold, as the hon. Gentleman said, and that the proceeds, which came to some £9.25 million, will be received when the college has vacated the premises at the end of the current academic year. That site has been expensive to maintain and it is clearly not in the college's financial interest to remain there. In response, the local LSC has been working closely with the college to develop a proposal, which is currently going through the LSC approval process, for relocating the Rycotewood provision to sites in Oxford and Bicester. If that were successful, it would be supported with LSC capital grant support. While I am dealing with that subject, the 25 per cent. cap has gone and the LSC now judges all capital expenditure requests on their merits.

It is difficult to comment on the college's 2004–05 allocations because those have yet to be agreed. I accept that there are some problems, but they are the problems of success, in the sense that previously the LSC always had some funds available because of underperforming colleges. "Success for All" has meant a huge improvement across the range, which has led to some problems. All colleges received an indicative settlement six months ago and now, because of their success, they are finding that there are problems. We are considering that closely. We recognise that there is a problem and we hope to find a solution in the near future.

I should also like to mention the Drayton school proposal, which was a major part of the hon. Gentleman's speech He should not be surprised that we are waiting until a sponsor is on board. The proposal was submitted to the academies unit, which considers proposals for academies, and academies carry the need for a private sector sponsor. We want sponsors to have ownership and the opportunity to input into an extremely exciting proposal.

We accept that we need to encourage and facilitate joint proposals between schools and colleges. That is eminently sensible where it is the best solution to meet local needs, but we need to consider ways in which systems operate to help that happen. I will take away some of the procedural points that the hon. Gentleman raised, but I hope that he accepts that a sponsor needs to have a say in hove the final proposals work out.

The aim of all our proposals is to achieve excellence in education standards and skills to give everyone the opportunity to develop and learn. We can only do that with a sector that is properly recognised for the excellent service that it has always provided, and if it is properly provided with the finance to do its job properly.

I am glad to have secured the debate. I wish that it were longer, because I am sure that hon. Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would have liked to join in. However, it is good to have recognition of the report and the opportunity to seek a response from Government. I am particularly pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe is responding. The significance of the debate lies in the fact that it is being dealt with by my hon. Friend on be half of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That is the proper context within which to discuss a report by the Council of Europe on how the United Kingdom is performing under the charter on minority and regional languages. This is not a devolved or territorial issue; the charter was signed by the Foreign Secretary of the day, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), on behalf of the UK Government, in full knowledge of the obligations that would have to be net, particularly in relation to Scottish Gaelic, Irish and Welsh. I know that that followed extensive discussions with relevant Whitehall Departments and with the devolved Administrations. A great deal of care was taken before the Government took on those commitments.

The report was prepared by a Committee of Experts, which visited the UK last autumn to assess our implementation of the charter, to which we became a signatory in 2000. It was subsequently adopted by the Council of Europe. The committee noted that the UK had, of its own volition, signed up for the most demanding levels of provision in respect of Welsh, Irish and Scottish Gaelic. It set out to examine "the real situation" and, where appropriate, encouraged the signatory gradually to reach a higher level of commitment. It is important to stress that Britain did not sign up lightly; it signed after due consideration and at the highest level of commitment.

On the whole, according to the experts' report, the UK is doing well, so this is not an unremitting tale of doom and gloom. It is unfortunate hat we do not have longer to discuss these matters because I am sure that others—I am pleased to see one Welsh representative present, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr.Thomas)—would like to comment. The Committee of Experts made significant criticisms in relation to Scottish Gaelic and advised on how we could do better. I want the House to recognise that we require a cross-Government mechanism for responding to such criticisms and, thereby, meeting now voluntary but now binding charter commitments.

The strength of the report is that it takes responsibility back to where it belongs, which is with the signatory Government. I hope that it will supersede interdepartmental and inter-Administration disputes about who has responsibility for what. As with any international obligation, the buck has to stop somewhere. In this case, it rests firmly with the UK Government, as the member state, and the Foreign Office as signatory on behalf of the Government. I do not necessarily expect my good friend the Minister for Europe to respond on all or any of the concerns in the report about failure to meet reason table expectations of progress. However, I do want him to acknowledge that the existence of those obligations under the charter, to which we are signatory, means that we cannot simply leave such matters to the internal wranglings of our domestic agencies of Government, whether in Whitehall, Edinburgh, Belfast or Cardiff.

The crucial point is that, whatever our domestic commitment to minority languages, we now have an international obligation to fulfil. That was the significance of signing the charter. It was well understood at the time, but our political predecessors declined to do it because of the responsibilities that it entailed. We signed, which was excellent; we now have to deliver.

The implication is that someone in Government will now have to monitor progress and ensure that the obligations are being fulfilled on all counts. The assurance that I seek is that some such mechanism will be created in response to the report. I know that my good and hon. Friend the Minister is sensitive and sympathetic to issues of language and identity. I could not have asked for a better Minister to respond to the debate—as a good European, so he should be. In the global village of the 21st century, no minority language in any part of our continent or the world could be expected to survive in the face of institutional hostility.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly thanked the Government for signing the charter, but he pointed out that some things need to be improved. Does he take heart from what is happening in Spain, where Catalonia and the Basque country have asked whether their minority languages can be acknowledged by the European Union? They do not want them to be treated as official languages; rather, they believe that when ordinary members of the public are dealing with the EU, they should receive replies in their own languages—in Basque, Catalonian, or even in Gaelic or Welsh. Surely that is another way of ensuring that the European institutions are not seen to be foreign, but are part of our future. I suggest that that would be a suitable way for the Government to take forward such ideas.

The more fragile the language, the more cautious we should be about saying that scarce resources should be spent on translating official documents that could otherwise be used on training teachers or expanding the speaker base. However, I do not essentially disagree. In fact, I strongly agree that the European Union and the Commission, as well as the Council of Europe, should take a stronger position on minority languages. Making additional funding available for minority languages in the EU would be a sensible step forward. Without disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman, I return to my theme.

No matter how resilient a minority language may be, it needs access to such essentials as the state education system and modern electronic media if it is to have a decent prospect of survival, especially in an era when the forces of mass media and culture are so overwhelming. I would be the first to recognise that institutional support delivered through those vehicles will not guarantee the healthy survival of a language. However, I am certain that exclusion from such support will condemn minority languages to decline. That is exactly the rationale for a charter on European regional and minority languages.

The responsibilities that flow from that understanding are implicit in the decision of states, including our own, to sign up to it.

I am realistic enough to know that it was almost certainly an Irish imperative rather than a Scottish or Welsh one that led the Government to sign the charter. That was where the pressure came from, but I gladly acknowledge that language and culture have a big part to play in the Irish peace process, and that recognition of linguistic rights is a small price to pay. I fully endorse that approach. Whatever the reasoning, however, the fact is that the same responsibilities exist in respect of all three languages—Irish, Welsh and Scottish Gaelic. It was the decision of our Government, and specifically of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to sign up for those three languages on the same terms.

I shall speak specifically about Gaelic broadcasting, about which the Council of Europe report is probably most critical. The report could not be more clear-cut in its view that in order to meet its responsibility under the charter the UK Government must

"facilitate the establishment of a television channel or an equivalent television service in Scottish Gaelic."

The report acknowledges that a Gaelic media service has been given a statutory existence under the recent Communications Act 2003. However, in relation to the undertaking in the charter, it then states:

"Compliance with the undertaking chosen by the UK requires more than simply creating a legal framework within which a channel can exist. It involves positive action, including, where necessary, funding."

Therefore, it is the clear-cut view of the Council of Europe and the Committee of Experts that by so far failing to deliver a Gaelic television channel for Scotland the UK is failing in its obligations under the charter to which it is a signatory. That is the nub of the issue. The Council of Europe places responsibility where it belongs, which is with the charter signatory—the UK Government.

I will not go into details about the long saga of the failure to deliver to date on the issue. It will suffice to say that there have been four wasted years of wrangling, and that is a long time in the life of a fragile minority language. During that time, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has refused to accept any funding responsibility for a channel. It says that it is a devolved responsibility.

Both the Scottish Executive and I believe that that is untrue. Indeed, I have a recent letter from Jack McConnell, the First Minister in Scotland, in which he states:

"I agree entirely with your contention that prime responsibility in the matter lies with the UK government."

He adds:

"The UK government has entered into a series of international obligations under the Council of Europe Charter for Regional and Minority Languages. Fulfilment of these obligations is also a matter for the UK government".

As I said, I do not expect the Minister to comment on the merits of that dispute. However, I expect his assistance in cutting through it, in order to ensure that the international obligations that we have freely entered into as a Government are met. There are other issues in the report to which the same principle applies: educational provision through Gaelic is patchy; and teacher supply requires urgent strengthening. That is identified as a common problem involving minority languages throughout Europe. There is no guidance to public bodies on the use of the language.

Again, it is self-evidently not the job of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to remedy those deficiencies by its own hand. I would argue that it is its responsibility to monitor and, if necessary, to prod those who are directly involved, whether they are in Whitehall or in Edinburgh. In other words, the commitments that were undertaken through becoming a signatory to the charter cannot simply be left to Departments or devolved Administrations in the hope that they might or might not do something about them. There is a cross-Government responsibility and I want to have a mechanism established to meet it.

On the issue of public usage of the language, in Scotland we are light years behind Wales and Ireland. Perhaps I can signal an issue that will soon arise: the Scottish Executive is about to legislate on the status of Gaelic, and that will place responsibilities on public bodies that are devolved. Clearly, the legislation cannot force public bodies and Departments that are reserved to do anything. However, I hope that the UK Government and all their agencies that are active in Scotland will act in the spirit of the legislation and give some recognition to the existence of Gaelic. Most of them currently do not do that and it is not much to ask.

Finally, I shall refer briefly to Ireland. It is very much in the spirit of the charter that language and culture should be used to build bridges rather than to create barriers. The Irish language, particularly in the north, was in danger of becoming over-identified with one political faction and with one side of the religious divide. Building stronger links with its close cousin, Scottish Gaelic, which is politically and religiously neutral, is one way of countering hat danger. That was part of the thinking behind Iomairt Cholm Cille, the Columba initiative, which has given terrific value for small amounts of money in creating links between the Gaelic-speaking communities and peoples of Scotland, and all parts of Ireland. I hope that as part of its general work of promoting minority languages and cultures, the Foreign Office and the British- Irish Council will use Iomairt Cholm Cille and thereby benefit both the languages and the people it brings together.

This is a fairly esoteric subject, but it is of deep importance to many people, as you are well qualified to appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are talking about people's language of daily usage and the cultural values and way of life that go with it. The Government's decision to sign the European charter was a terrific step forward and a recognition of the responsibilities that arise under it. All I, ask is that that decision should not be seen as a gesture or something that should not be followed through on. We need a mechanism to ensure that major deficiences are addressed—in Scotland, the glaring hole is the absence of a Gaelic television channel—and that our charter obligations are met. Delivering television channels is not the job of the Foreign Office, but delivering treaty and charter obligations is. In that spirit, I look forward to the Minister's reply.

It is a great pleasure to participate in this d abate with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as perhaps the House's most fluent speaker of Latin and Greek—ancient and some modern.

The issue is important in today's Europe. One of the most positive aspects of the European Union that we are shaping is precisely its diversity. When I attend Council of Ministers meetings for Foreign Ministers I hear Maltese, Slovakian and Slovenian spoken. Such languages, which, like the Baltic tongues, were to some extent lost under the dominance of one or two giant European languages, are now flourishing. Britain, which is perhaps the most cosmopolitan country and open to foreigners of all the European nation states, is where so many foreign languages jostle for attention.

Not for one second would I say that Gaelic in Scotland or Welsh were foreign languages. They belong to our country and deserve the support and respect that their speakers give them. The Foreign Office is involved in signing treaties, international conventions and international declarations, and it falls to the Department to ensure every aspect of their implementation. However, my colleagues in the Scottish Executive would take it amiss if I announced that the Foreign Office was determining how Scotland should spend its money. That is not the Government's doctrine, and the same is true for other Departments. Much of the argument is, alas, about getting and spending.

My right hon. Friend made a powerful case for the importance of language. For some years I lived in Switzerland, where every carton of milk had text in French, German and Italian on it. Romansch, which is a small minority language, was made Switzerland's fourth official language when I was there.

We have spoken about terrestrial broadcasting. The new technology allows much swifter communication in so many different languages, whether one is sending a text message or e-mail, or using computers or other direct video technology. Although my right hon. Friend did not refer to digital channels, they are just around the corner and will allow much more broadcasting. Frankly, I have never fully understood why Britain has to have so much broadcasting on the basis of Government funding. In many other countries, including Commonwealth countries, such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand, it is possible under law and federal or state regulation to set up community television and radio stations at town level.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I should clarify that the Gaelic television channel that I spoke of is a digital satellite channel, not a terrestrial one. We have no ambitions to match the £92 million currently paid by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to S4C to provide a terrestrial Welsh language service.

My right hon. Friend's important and useful contribution, which had a slight barb in its tail, came just as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) left the Chamber. No doubt he will read it inHansard and may have a conversation with my right hon. Friend about whether Welsh broadcasting gets more support than Gaelic broadcasting in Scotland.

My right hon. Friend is well known to the House, and to me, from his distinguished record as the founder and editor of the WestHighland Free Press, which brought journalism to that region and made Scottish journalism and reporting much more lively. I fully share his ambition to do as much as we can to support the Gaelic language. He is right to say that there is a problem between the different Departments that are responsible for this matter. I do not wish to pass the buck—on my desk I have a sign that says, "Many bucks stop here"—but I am not sure whether the buck for Gaelic broadcasting should stop on the Minister for Europe's desk.

We signed the Council of Europe's charter for regional or minority languages—I do not like the term "minority languages" as the charter concerns the languages of our common European home—and my right hon. Friend paid tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) for that, as he was the Foreign Secretary who signed it, but the Council of Europe is not the European Union. It does vital work, and I am a strong supporter of it, but it merely declares aspirations: it does not proclaim directives or laws that tell us what we must do.

Finding the correct funding is a problem. I wonder whether there are not some sources of funding in the diaspora of Scotland—I am thinking of the great Sean Connery, who pines regularly on Scottish issues—that might be used to return to Scotland some of the culture that has helped to spread Scottishness throughout the world.

Primary responsibility for broadcasting lies with the UK Government and is generally exercised through the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. That is clearly stated in schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. Scottish and relevant UK Ministers agree that responsibility for the funding of the Gaelic Media Service has been devolved to the Scottish Executive. There is no ambiguity in the 1999 statutory order that confirmed the transfer of Executive responsibility to Scottish Ministers, and the Communications Act 2003 does not affect the continuing responsibility of Scottish Ministers through the Gaelic Media Service.

The fact that broadcasting is a reserved matter means that there will be exchanges with DCMS at ministerial and official level on a range of issues. I am not sure what implementation mechanism could be set up that could involve the Foreign Office, because part of our responsibility has to stop at the water's edge, and it is not right to assume that we then become the oversight body for the transposition into UK law of aspirational charters or formal treaty obligations that we enter into.

I shall pass over the Minister's remark about Sean Connery and give thanks that the press Benches are empty, as I think that the idea that he should pay for a Gaelic television channel would be regarded as fairly bizarre.

All my hon. Friend is doing is demonstrating the problem, which is that he has just read out the brief from DCMS stating that the matter has nothing to do with that Department, and I have just read out a letter from Jack McConnell saying that the lead responsibility rests with the UK Government. That is the impasse. I can hardly believe that in any other context the Government's view would be that there should be no mechanism for resolving the impasse. Simply to say that it exists, and that nothing can be done to deliver treaty obligations, seems a deeply unsatisfactory position. I am sure that my hon. Friend has the intellectual calibre to recognise that.

My right hon. Friend may find that unsatisfactory, but I cannot give him the satisfaction that he genuinely and sincerely seeks. Forgive me if I have not mentioned any great Scottish name, but I would have thought that there would be funds to be found from great Scottish companies, or from great Scottish individuals or from among the Scottish diaspora; from those who believe in maintaining Gaelic as a vibrant language.

We will have to disagree; I will examine Mr. McConnell's letter, but I should say as a Foreign Office Minister—and my right hon. Friend has served in the Foreign Office—that it cannot be right that we should be responsible for the transposition into UK law and administration of whatever obligations are put on us.

Who is responsible?

My right hon. Friend asks who is responsible. The Department of Trade and Industry is generally responsible for World Trade Organisation obligations; the relevant Departments are responsible for other obligations under European constitutional treaties; and the Ministry of Defence is responsible for NATO and defence obligations.

In the short while remaining, I should say that the visit of the Committee of Experts of the Council of Europe to consider the Government's performance under the charter on Gaelic broadcasting took place in January 2003, before the operation of Bord na Gaidhlig. I have looked into some of the figures. Since 1999, the amount of Government spending on helping and promoting Gaelic has increased from £11.7 million to about £14.5 million. Some £8.5 million of that goes directly to Gaelic broadcasting. It is not for me to say how that £8.5 million should be carved up.

Going further back, one finds that during the first part of the Labour Administration there were even some cuts in support for Gaelic broadcasting. I cannot accept the view that we have In any way breached our obligation under the European charter. During the passage of the Communications Act 2003, we made it clear that powers invested in the Gaelic Media Service were not for immediate implementation.

Finding the money for any wish in the public sector is one of the most difficult challenges for any Government. I can only wish my right hon. Friend well. As the Minister for Europe, I am happy to make every possible statement about our need to bring to life all UK languages other thin English. I also believe that we should give much more support to the speaking of the languages of the different British ethnic communities.

Anybody who can speak more than one language has a window into different ways of thinking, different cultures and outlooks that deeply enriches our entire UK economy. I understand that Scottish Ministers have introduced a range of new policy measures that are designed to take for ward a strategy on Gaelic language and culture. I am informed that there will be a Gaelic language Bill before the Scottish Parliament designed to give the Gaelic language a place in the routine conduct of business where that seems appropriate.

Other European countries are moving in that direction, but the cost is not borne centrally by the European Union. I wish my right hon. Friend well in seeking from the Scottish Executive, other Government Departments and, ultimately, from the Treasury the financing that he wants for Gaelic broadcasting, which is dear to his heart. I hope to see the issue taken forward.