Westminster Hall Sitting of 2 May 2000

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Cyprus
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
10 am
Mr. Tom Cox: I declare an interest. I chair the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Cyprus group. The group has existed for many years, and its members come from both Houses and all political parties.
Three things need to be said. First, the Republic of Cyprus is a member of the Commonwealth. Secondly, the United Kingdom is one of the guarantor powers for Cyprus. Thirdly, it is nearly 26 years since the Republic of Cyprus was brutally invaded by the Turkish army and about a third of that Commonwealth country is still occupied by a foreign power.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be fully aware of all that has taken place during those 26 years—the United Nations debates, and the statements made by the Secretaries-General of the UN; the actions of Commonwealth countries; the debates in the European Union; the role of the Council of Europe, the only European parliamentary assembly of which the four countries directly involved—Cyprus, the United Kingdom, Greece and Turkey—are members; and the role played by Parliament.
Other than the House of Representatives in Cyprus, few parliaments have been more involved in Cyprus than that of the United Kingdom. During those 26 years, both Houses of Parliament have acted to keep the issue of Cyprus alive. Sadly, although we have kept in the forefront the injustice that Cyprus has suffered and still suffers, we have not made much progress towards a settlement.
The reason for that lack of progress—it has been said repeatedly by the Secretaries-General of the United Nations—is the attitude of Mr. Denktash, the leader of the Turkish Cypriots, and of his friends among the Turkish military, Turkish politicians and the Turkish Government. Mr. Denktash and his friends have never wanted a settlement other than on their terms.
I do not believe that the Governments of the United Kingdom and of the United States of America have really pressed Mr. Denktash or Turkey into meaningful discussions such as could have led to a settlement. One cannot say that, over the years, there have not been many attempts to achieve such a settlement. Hon. Members involved in the matter, of whatever party, have always stated clearly that we are as concerned for the rights and security of Turkish Cypriots as we are for those of Greek Cypriots. We are equally concerned about both communities because their home is in Cyprus. Sadly, what has happened over the years shows that we have not made much progress.
We all wish the current talks well. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that after Helsinki we were clearly told that the current talks would be the breakthrough. I will
2WH
make further points about the Helsinki discussions, which we genuinely believed would make a breakthrough. One hopes that one will be made now. As those of us who have followed the Cyprus issue over the years know only too well, our hopes have many times been built up and then caused to collapse by the attitude of Mr. Denktash.
Famagusta is a case in point. It was, and still is, one of the most beautiful towns in Cyprus. Before the invasion, it was occupied by both Greek and Turkish Cypriots. After the invasion, Mr. Denktash promised that the town would be returned to the Republic of Cyprus. Some years ago, I initiated a debate on the town in the House. Mr. Denktash clearly promised that the town would be returned and that Greek and Turkish Cypriots could once again start to live together there, as they had before the invasion. What happened then? Mr. Denktash decided that he was not prepared to allow the return of Famagusta, which is still a deserted ghost town some 26 years after the invasion. It is an utter disgrace that these circumstances have been allowed to continue. Neither the British nor the Americans did anything to pressurise Turkey or Mr. Denktash to honour the clear commitment that was given.
We know that the Republic of Cyprus is keen to become a member of the European Union. I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister that the credentials of the Republic of Cyprus are as good as those of many of the existing members and certainly as good as those of any of the applicants currently under consideration for membership. Not once, not twice, but repeatedly, President Clerides has invited Mr. Denktash to join him in the negotiations for membership of the Republic of Cyprus in the European Union. What does Mr. Denktash repeatedly reply? He says "No, no, no." Instead of participating, he makes demands and says that they must be fulfilled before he would even consider taking up the generous offer to be part of the Cyprus team and to take part in discussions for membership of the European Union. Mr. Denktash makes demands such as "Recognise my state"—a state that he created some years ago. After all those years, only Turkey recognises it. He also says that Turkey must be allowed into the European Union before Cyprus if he is to go along with President Clerides. Sadly, that demand is yet another example of what those of us who have long been involved in the Cyprus issue have seen over the years.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of the Loizidou case. Mrs. Loizidou lived in Kyrenia, which is now in the occupied area of northern Cyprus. She took action in the European Court of Human Rights regarding the denial of the use of her property. The judges heard the case in Strasbourg as long ago as July 1998. They found by 15 votes to two in favour of Mrs. Loizidou. Repeated attempts have been made by the Council of Europe and by the chairman in office of the Committee of Ministers to persuade Turkey to honour that judgment.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that, recently, in Strasbourg, the Irish Foreign Minister, Mr. Brian Cowen, was asked for the view of the Committee of Ministers of Turkey's continuing refusal to honour the Court's judgment. He left the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in no doubt when he said that that refusal could not be allowed to continue indefinitely.

3WH
What are the Government doing to impress on Turkey that, if it wants to be considered as a candidate for membership of the European Union, it must start to honour and follow certain actions, none more so than the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, made by 15 votes to two?
All of us who have been involved with Cyprus, whatever party we belong to, have worked genuinely for a settlement in which the rights of both communities are considered and safeguarded. However, we have seen our hopes destroyed year by year because of Mr. Denktash's lack of will. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will offer us an example of an action by either Mr. Denktash or Turkey since the invasion nearly 26 years ago that would say yes, they have had concerns but, to their credit, they are making moves that suggest that they want a settlement. I hope that he will do that, because many of us have struggled in vain to find such an example in the actions of Mr. Denktash, the Turkish military or Turkish politicians.
No one can dispute that Turkey has great influence over Mr. Denktash—there is clear evidence of that. By using that influence to persuade him to take part in meaningful discussions, Turkey would help itself greatly in its aspirations for membership of the European Union.
Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Ecevit, has gone on record as saying that there is no Cyprus problem because it was solved by the invasion 26 years ago? I want a reply on that specific point. Do the Government support that view? If they do not, I hope that we will be told so clearly this morning.
All of us who have been involved with Cyprus have always been concerned about the rights of both Greek and Turkish Cypriots. What has concerned us enormously over the years—and many Members have genuinely tried to overcome this problem—is how difficult it is for Turkish and Greek Cypriots to meet to discuss the issues that concern them and their country. We are concerned at the lack of opportunity for people such as business people, trade unionists, farmers, teachers, doctors, ordinary men and women to meet in Cyprus and say that one day there must be a settlement to this issue. There must be such discussions in the buildup to what we hope will be an honourable settlement to this long-running tragedy. Why do these people never have the opportunity to meet in Cyprus? I have to say that Mr. Denktash is the cause of the non-meeting of the communities.
It would be interesting to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister what role he feels his Department can play in getting both Turkish and Greek Cypriots to meet and discuss their concerns. I would suggest that the best place to meet is Cyprus, but if that is not possible, London or some other venue could be an option. Is this something in which he believes that his Department can play a role?
As I have already said, the British Government and the United States Government have a major role to play in seeking a settlement. However, over the years, neither of the two Governments have ever done anything that has in any way concerned or worried either
4WH
Mr. Denktash or his friends in Ankara. We can see that in the on-going criticisms of the Secretaries-General of the United Nations—which I am sure that my hon. Friend has read—about the lack of progress despite repeated attempts to find a settlement.
I refuse to believe those who say that Turkish and Greek Cypriots cannot live together. There are hon. Members here today who come from areas of London and other parts of the country where both Turkish and Greek Cypriots live, work and have businesses that flourish together. The communities can live together if they are given the opportunity to do so with the proper safeguards and securities that both have the right to expect. I hope that there will be meaningful discussion at last in the talks that are about to resume following the Helsinki negotiations. Experience has shown that if those talks are to be constructive and successful the responsibility will rest not with the president of the Republic of Cyprus, but with Mr. Denktash and his supporters in Turkey, and especially the Turkish military.
After 26 years, I believe that too much time has passed and too many opportunities have been missed. This is the opportunity to restore a united Cyprus where people can live together. I hope that the British Government will be at the forefront in trying to ensure that the talks are meaningful and constructive. We hope that the talks will be the beginning of the end of this long-running, 26-year tragedy of a Commonwealth country for which the United Kingdom is one of the guarantor powers.
10.19 am
Sir Sydney Chapman: Next month, the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) will have represented his constituents for 30 years, and during that time he has taken an intense interest in the island of Cyprus. I pay tribute to him for that, as well as for initiating, once again, a debate on a very important issue. I remember the 30th anniversary because we both entered the House on the same day. Unfortunately, my political career has been a little less certain. After my first Parliament, I remember using the actor's phrase of being temporarily rested for five years.
The majority of Cypriots have been hopeful and patient for far too long. They are entitled to feel angry and frustrated because the panoply of diplomacy that has been trying to find a solution to the problem of the separation of that beautiful island has so far been unsuccessful. The United Kingdom has a special role to play as co-guarantor. The Commonwealth also has its responsibilities because Cyprus is an important member of the Commonwealth. The European Union, too, has responsibilities towards Cyprus, which is an applicant for membership. More certainly, we know that the United Nations has a responsibility to encourage peaceful settlements throughout the world, and it has committed troops to the island to defend the green line.
I can be brief because the hon. Member for Tooting touched on most of the issues that I wanted to mention. However, I emphasise the fact that successive Governments have tried and toiled to find a solution for Cyprus, so far without success. In another debate on Cyprus 18 months ago, I observed that, at that time, we were investing high hopes in three people: Sir David Hannay, a most distinguished permanent representative

5WH
of the United Kingdom at the United Nations from 1990 to 1995, who had been appointed as a special representative; Mr. Richard Holbrooke, President Clinton's special adviser; and Ann Hercus, the special representative to the Secretary-General at the United Nations. I would appreciate the Minister's observations on what part he feels that those three special representatives have played and on what prospects he believes there are for that work to be continued to successful fruition. I have consistently held the view that the best prospect for the reunification of Cyprus will be as part of a wider political settlement in the region, and I believe that the United States Government have a critical part to play in that.
As has already been mentioned, Cyprus has applied to join the European Union. I can think of no country outside the European Union better qualified to become a member. Indeed, should Cyprus also want to join the single currency, I believe that its credentials are probably stronger than those of some other countries that have already joined.
Mr. Andrew Love: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the European Community should not allow any outside country to have a veto over the decision whether Cyprus should be allowed to join?
Sir Sydney Chapman: It would perhaps be better for the Minister to answer that question—my understanding is that no country outside the European Union could veto the decision to allow any applicant country to join and it is entirely a matter for existing members—but the hon. Gentleman makes a good point.
Cyprus is well qualified; it could join tomorrow. I suppose that it will wait patiently until at least the end of 2002, but if ever there was a case for using the fast track, Cyprus is it. I pay tribute to the Cypriot high commissioner in London, Mr. Michael Attalides, the embodiment of patience and courtliness, who will soon leave his office to return to Cyprus. I pay tribute to him for listening to us and keeping us informed about the latest situation in his country.
I note that yet another intergovernmental conference of the European Union will take place in December in Nice. Whatever is discussed and decided at that conference, I very much hope that Cyprus's membership of the European Union will not be prejudiced or delayed. I leave the Chamber with the following thought: in the proposals to the preparatory group on institutional and other issues, the Cyprus Government expressed the belief that—I hope that, in quoting indirectly, I shall not affect the thrust of what was said—levels of decision making, at European Union and at national level, need to be clarified in accordance with subsidiarity. I do not claim to have put the Syd into subsidiarity, but on that issue at least, my views are entirely at one with those of the Cypriot Government.
10.26 am
Ms Linda Perham: Like the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), I pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), chair of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Cyprus group, for his tireless championing of a peaceful settlement in Cyprus. Only a
6WH
short while ago, he introduced an Adjournment debate on the case of Mrs. Loizidou. whom he mentioned in his speech, the property owner in Kyrenia who, nearly two years ago, won her case against the Turkish Government at the European Court of Human Rights.
Before I was elected to the House of Commons, I confess that I was more interested in Cyprus's past than its future. Having studied for a degree in classics and having steeped myself in the glories of Greece, to me, Cyprus was the birthplace of Aphrodite, the goddess of love, and the repository of thousands of years of history—ancient places and buildings, some of which it was my great pleasure to visit during two family holidays, in 1991 and 1993. On that second holiday, the reality of the present situation in Cyprus was brought home to me on a visit to Nicosia, the last divided capital in the world. For me and my family, the pain of being faced with barriers of barbed wire, soldiers and guns, forcing apart the people of that beautiful city, the capital for 1,000 years, was palpable. We later journeyed to Famagusta, which my hon. Friend mentioned with great passion and anger, to look out on the ghost town of the once idyllic resort of Varosha, with its now abandoned towering hotels.
During my election campaign in Ilford, North, I received help from several Greek Cypriots. There are also several Turkish Cypriot families resident in the area. On my election to Parliament, the friends of Cyprus was one of the first all-party groups that I joined. I attended almost all its meetings and listened to a wide range of people who are working for peace on the island, including Mr. Attalides, who was mentioned by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. I, too, regret the fact that he is leaving his post. There is no substitute for witnessing the situation at first hand, so I was privileged to join the visit of the friends of Cyprus from 11 to 15 October 1998, which I have declared in the Register of Members' Interests.
We engaged in a hectic round of talks to discuss the future of Cyprus with the then special representative, Ann Hercus, the British high commissioner, the European Union ambassador to Cyprus, President Clerides, Foreign Minister Kassoulides, the EU negotiator, former President Vassiliou—who recently addressed a meeting of the friends of Cyprus—the mayor of Nicosia, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the director of the Cyprus question division at the Foreign Office and several Opposition leaders. The prevailing Greek Cypriot view was and is in favour of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation on track to become part of the European Union in the next phase. That is also the UN Security Council's view: paragraph 11 of resolution 1251 of 29 June 1999 reaffirms its position that
a Cyprus settlement must be based on a State of Cyprus with a single sovereignty and international personality and a single citizenship, with its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded, and comprising two politically equal communities as described in the relevant Security Council resolutions, in a bi-communal and bi-zonal federation, and that such a settlement must exclude union in whole or in part with any other country or any form of partition or secession.
Greek Cypriots are also concerned about the presence in the north of the island of settlers from Turkey—who number about half the population—and about the 30,000 Turkish troops on the island. They are

7WH
particularly worried about the cessation of bi-communal on-island contacts, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting mentioned.
During our visit, we met Turkish Cypriots across the green line and had talks with leaders of Opposition parties. In addition, we met two members of Mr. Denktash's ruling party, Mr. Olgun and Mr. Atun—the Speaker of the Turkish Cypriot Assembly—who strongly supported Mr. Denktash's proposal of 31 August 1998 to establish a confederation of two sovereign states on the island, with a special relationship between the Republic of Cyprus and Greece, and between the northern state and Turkey. According to the February 2000 edition of Kibris—the northern Cyprus monthly—that remains Mr. Denktash's position. We have no doubt about that.
We also met Turkish Cypriot leaders and representatives—business people, academics. lawyers and other professionals—and were left in no doubt about the fact that they saw themselves as living in a de facto separate state, saved by the Turkish army of occupation of July 1974 from annihilation as a community following 11 years of Greek persecution that started in December 1963. They saw any moves to reunite the island as a threat to their security and felt that they were being forced by lack of world recognition to rely increasingly on Turkey for support for their survival, economically and politically.
Despite my instinctive academic and cultural sympathies with Greeks and Greek Cypriots, I found it immensely valuable and informative to speak to Turkish Cypriots on the island, including women—particularly as I was the only woman Member of Parliament in the delegation—about their ideas, hopes and fears for the country's future, and to listen to their views about how they and the inhabitants of Muslim Turkey are treated by Christian-dominated, hellenophilic western Europeans, who are always conscious of their ancient debt to Greece for the roots of their civilisation and heritage.
At the end of our long day of talks in northern Nicosia, some of us were taken to meet a Turkish Cypriot Member of Parliament in the Famagusta area, and I was able to look—from the other direction from when I was on holiday five years previously—towards the forlorn facades, empty hulks of hotels and deserted sands that once swarmed with happy holidaymakers. Apart from the green line area, there is no more poignant reminder of the waste and misery of the divided communities.
It is all too easy to be pessimistic about prospects for peace in Cyprus. I think that the speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting and the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet showed that they are fairly pessimistic after such a long time, and I do not blame them. Although the tragic situation in Cyprus is unique, the seeds of conflict have religious and political parallels, ancient and modern. Some people say that we will never reconcile Catholic and Protestant, Christian and Jew, Muslim and Christian, Pole and Russian, Arab and Israeli, or Greek and Turk—the differences and divisions stretch back over centuries. Just two years ago, I, like many hon. Members and others, held a gloomy view of the prospects for peace settlements in Ireland
8WH
and the middle east, but some of the players in those conflicts, in the countries concerned and internationally, have made determined and sustained efforts to find ways in which to forge forward. I hope that the same will be achieved in Cyprus.
Greek-Turkish relations have improved following the mutual assistance given after the earthquake of 17 August 1999 in north-west Turkey between Izmit and Bursa, and that in Athens in September 1999. At the Helsinki summit in December 1999, Turkey was accepted as a candidate for European Union membership, which was a significant step forward from the setback two years ago in Luxembourg, when Turkey's application was refused. That led to a worsening of relations between the two communities on Cyprus, and the ending of bi-communal on-island contacts.
At the beginning of December 1999, the proximity talks started at the United Nations in New York, and a second round was held from late January to early February in Geneva, aimed at preparing the ground for comprehensive negotiations on a settlement involving the leaders of both communities, Glafcos Clerides and Rauf Denktash, although they have not met face to face. The third round is expected to start on 23 May, three weeks today.
The Greek Minister George Papandreou and the Turkish Minister Ismail Cem met at the beginning of this year to sign agreements on environmental protection, tourism, crime and terrorism, and investment. They even discussed a proposal for a joint bid for the European football championships in 2008. As the late Bill Shankly said that football was more important than matters of life and death, that must give us serious hope of a lasting rapprochement between Greece and Turkey.
I look forward to returning with my family to the ancient and beautiful land of Cyprus when it is a prosperous, peaceful, united island where all Cypriots enjoy success and happiness.
10.36 am
Dr. Rudi Vis: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), I declare an interest, because I belong to various groups associated with Cyprus. It is always a bit of a shock to follow him in a debate, because he leaves little for others to say. He was followed by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), who is equally well informed, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham).
It could be argued that one becomes associated with an issue only when one becomes a Member of Parliament, but in the road in which I have lived for more than 20 years, there are about 80 properties, of which people from Cyprus occupy 25 per cent. Of those people, 23 per cent. are from the Greek Cypriot part, and only one family is from the other part of the island, but they get along fine. In north London, I see Greek and Turkish Cypriots at many meetings, and they get on fine. Their problem is not with one another but with Turkey—Anatolians, not Cypriots.
Turkey invaded in 1974. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting mentioned the occupied part, which constitutes 37 per cent. of the island. In 1974, far

9WH
less of the population—18 per cent.—was Turkish Cypriot. It would appear that somebody just drew the green line on a map and stopped there. I believe that my hon. Friend got one thing wrong: Turkey is not alone in recognising the occupied territory as an independent republic, as it is in the fine company of North Korea, which I believe has also recognised the country.
However, the occupied land is not a generally recognised republic. I do not want to oppose the United Kingdom's freedom of expression, which is absolutely wonderful, but I become a little upset when I see several tents flying flags of the occupied part as I drive past No. 10 Downing street every day. We ought to do something about that, although that may be the wrong thing to say from the point of view of freedom of expression.
I am an optimist, but I can understand the people of Cyprus becoming pessimistic. There are several underlying causes of that pessimism. The Loizidou case in the European Court of Human Rights has already been referred to. It transpired about 20 months ago. Member states of the Council of Europe should listen to the court, but it appears that they have not done so and do not intend to. There are two interesting elements about the Loizidou case. First, the European Court of Human Rights pronounced not against Mr. Denktash or the occupied territory but against Turkey. Secondly, £340,000 was awarded not because that was the value of the woman's house, but because she did not have the benefit or the pleasure of being able to use her home. Even if it is settled, it still remains her property. I can understand people from Cyprus thinking that the Council of Europe, the United States and the United Kingdom do not listen, because Turkey has not been taken to task over the case. They must wonder what we are up to.
Another important issue is the Ilisu dam. As a country, we are to invest up to £200 million of taxpayers' money in a dam project in Turkey that will flood hundreds of Kurdish villages. Once again, we allow Turkey to get away with it. The wider Kurdish issue is another cause of pessimism. There have been many instances of human rights abuses, yet again we allow Turkey to get away with it. This country, in common with other western European countries, has to take hundreds if not thousands of asylum seekers from Turkey because Turkey, a member of the Council of Europe, treats people so badly.
Turkey is now an aspirant member of the European Union, following negotiations in Helsinki in November 1999. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting suggested that those negotiations should not have started and that we should not have given the green light once again to the Republic of Turkey—a republic that follows none of the rules that should be followed in international quarters. I understand that we have not yet started negotiations or opened a chapter on EU membership. No chapter should be opened until the serious issues that have been discussed this morning have been resolved.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Before I call the next speaker, I note that three hon. Members have caught my eye and wish to speak before I call the Front-Bench winding-up speeches. If we are all responsible and succinct, I am sure that all those who wish to speak can do so.
10.43 am
Mr. Andrew Love: I will indeed try to be responsible this morning, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on securing today's debate. Congratulations are also due to the high commissioner, who is going on to higher things. We shall doubtless meet him regularly in future. I declare an interest as someone who makes regular visits to Cyprus, all of which are declared in the Register.
Comparisons are often made between Cyprus and Northern Ireland. Although it would be invidious to take those comparisons too far, I will illustrate two aspects of the Cyprus situation. The achievement of the Good Friday agreement needed the undivided support of what I would call the guarantor powers—the Governments of Britain and the Republic of Ireland. Perhaps even more important to its success was the undivided support of the United States Government. There is no doubt that America's support would help in achieving agreement between the two sides in Cyprus.
However, there are many differences between Northern Ireland and Cyprus. Many people thought that it would be almost impossible to bridge the wide gap between the Unionist and nationalist positions in Northern Ireland. At the outset, no one knew how agreement would come about, but it happened through negotiation. Cyprus has been involved in negotiations for many years and the outlines of an agreement that could help to achieve a lasting settlement of the island's dispute are already there.
We spoke earlier about the United Nations' involvement in Cyprus going back to 1963. The UN became involved in negotiations following the invasion of Cyprus in 1974. The organisation played a role in the high-level agreements of 1977 and 1979, which were signed by Mr. Denktash on behalf of the Turkish Cypriot community, and the Presidents of the Republic of Cyprus at those times. We have spoken of the unity, independence and sovereignty of Cyprus and of its having a single personality. That is critical to any agreement, but we all realise that security for everyone is another critical issue. There is a role for the former guarantor powers and the European Community, and perhaps for the United States. Security is critical for not only Cyprus but the whole region. Therefore, the people must have confidence that security guarantees will hold if an agreement is reached.
Political equality was the second issue raised in subsequent negotiations, which were held mainly in the 1980s. Political equality is a concept rather than something that can be put together arithmetically, but it is an important concept in terms of giving both communities on the island confidence that an agreement can be reached. We all wish the UN well in the negotiations that will begin later this month in New York state. The organisation has been involved in negotiations over Cyprus for a long time. Often, when we thought that the negotiations were about to succeed, we were left disappointed. However, the outlines of an agreement, which could come about with the support of all the parties, are there.
We have spoken this morning about Cyprus's application for membership of the EC. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting said that its credentials were

11WH
good. They are indeed good. I understand that its negotiations on the acquis communautaire are almost complete. I have just returned from a visit to Poland, which has problems with the acquis communautaire. Such problems do not exist in Cyprus. We are often told that Cyprus already complies with the Maastricht conditions in terms of the development of its economy. Although we talk about the difficulties that an appreciating pound causes in Britain, in terms of parity with the Cyprus pound, our pound is depreciating.
The case for membership is strong and, in addition, some of us believe that the application for membership would act as a catalyst in the attempt to achieve an agreement on the reunification of the island. That can happen. The President of Cyprus has invited the Turkish Cypriot community to join in negotiations. It will be the major beneficiary of accession to the European Community. We hope that it will grasp with both hands that opportunity and the longer-term opportunity for Turkey to accede to membership of the Community. That offer, which we discussed during the President's recent visit, remains open. The Government should do what they can to persuade Mr. Denktash and the Turkish Cypriot community to become more involved in the European Union negotiations.
Two issues are critical to reaching an agreement on the reunification of the island. First, confidence-building measures, such as returning Varosha, a suburb of Famagusta, to the Greek Cypriot community and reopening Nicosia airport, have been suggested during the negotiating process. Perhaps those are too ambitious, but it is not too much to expect the United Nations and the British Government to sponsor contact between the two communities and achieve a dialogue. The lack of adequate contact and dialogue have stopped negotiations getting under way. Those factors might be critical in creating the right climate for successful negotiations.
The second critical issue is Britain's role. It is a guarantor power, which has been involved in Cyprus since 1878. It has exceptionally good relations with both communities and the many Cypriots who live in this country. Britain has a unique role because it is a member of the European Community, the Security Council and NATO—all the bodies that are crucial to finding a solution. The present situation cannot continue. The British Government need to play that critical role because of instability in the eastern Mediterranean. This is about, not just Cyprus but relations between the two states, Greece and Turkey. There needs to be a rapprochement between them to find a solution in Cyprus, but we cannot achieve that rapprochement without solving the Cyprus problem. Britain has a great role to play and the Americans also have a critical interest. If we work with the United States, in tandem with Greece and Turkey, that solution—although not possible in the next round of talks—will be open to us in future negotiations.
10.53 am
Mr. Roger Gale: I apologise to hon. Members for my late arrival—there were transport problems in Kent. I also have a registered interest to
12WH
declare. I have travelled to Cyprus under the auspices of the municipality of Morphou and the Cypriot Brotherhood.
In my most recent visit to the Morphou rally last autumn, I was moved, on behalf of my many Greek Cypriot constituents, to meet a man whose home is just over the green line in the village of Morphou. He goes up every year before the rally to the Troodos mountains to look down on his home. He can see it but he cannot reach it because it is illegally occupied. After 26 years, that must be unacceptable internationally. There are people on both sides of that divide who cannot go home lawfully, and they ought to be able to do so.
I am the Conservative vice-chairman of the parliamentary friends of Cyprus; the Labour vice-chairman would agree that we consider ourselves to be friends of all Cypriots. We are regarded by some as spokespeople for the south, the legal regime and Greek Cypriots only, but that is quite untrue. We want Cyprus to be freely and fairly united, based on the three freedoms. We want people to be able to go home and to move freely about their homeland. We want them to seek and gain employment wherever in that homeland they choose to live or work.
An enormous amount of work has been put into seeking to achieve that settlement on just and fair terms, most significantly by President Clerides. Tribute has already been paid this morning to his excellency the high commissioner, Michael Attalides, who has done tremendous work both in Brussels and, most recently, in London. As has been said, he is going on, indubitably, to greater things. These people have a right to our support. They have a right to be backed by the guarantor powers in their endeavours to achieve a lasting and legal solution to the current hopelessly illegal situation.
The Loizidou case has been mentioned. Turkey is clearly in breach of the rulings of the European Court, which is unacceptable for a member of the Council of Europe and should be rectified. Confidence-building measures have been mentioned and some of us have been round that circuit in the past—I was going to say circus, and perhaps that is more appropriate. There is a grave danger that Varosha and Nicosia airport can be used to delay the solution, not to achieve it.
The time has come when we all, including the Government, must recognise that the situation that has prevailed in Cyprus for 26 years is not acceptable. We must stress that point as forcefully as we can in the international arena. The European Union must do that. I also believe that the Americans, who have given considerable support to Turkey, have a duty, in their own strategic interests, to recognise the wider international obligations, which, to be brutally frank, they have so far failed to do.
There are signs of hope, however. The frail and fragile rapprochement between Greece and Turkey that sprang from the earthquake has led to signs of positive movement between those two countries. The most recent medical emergency on Cyprus itself, when people were able to cross the green line to offer assistance, has helped. There is good will. President Clerides has stretched out his hand to say to the Turkish Cypriots, "We are negotiating. You will not stop us. We intend to join the European Union, but come and participate in

13WH
those negotiations." The time has come for ordinary Turkish Cypriots to seize that hand of friendship—that is what it is—and to join the negotiations and become part of a process that must inevitably happen. Successive Foreign Office Ministers have made it clear that there is no right of veto. This situation has gone on too long: a world that respects legal government cannot allow it to go on any longer.
10.59 am
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I will obey your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and be brief, accurate and helpful. I apologise for missing the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). Like many people, I am constantly surprised at the advent of teachers' training days after every holiday, but the lack of child care facilities in this building is no surprise to anyone.
I have been a Member of the House of Commons since 1983 and prior to that was a member of the council in the London borough of Haringey from 1974, representing Harringay ward, which includes Green lanes, which has the highest Greek and Turkish Cypriot population in the country. I represented the ward during the period of the invasion in 1974. The solidarity in the community was remarkable; people helped refugees from both sides to be rehoused and integrated into the community. There are good community relations throughout the borough and in north London generally.
It is sad that in the past there were three borders in Europe: the iron curtain, the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and the green line in Cyprus. The first has gone, the second has been reduced, and the third, unfortunately, is very much still there. Parliament must recognise that and try to understand that although the invasion was a long time ago, in 1974, the sense of anger, anguish and betrayal in the Cypriot community in this country is very strong and does not diminish with the passage of years. It will not disappear; it will haunt every British Government until there is a solution to the problem, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) and others pointed out, as a formal colonial power, we are one of the guarantors.
The Cypriot community in Britain is much more politically involved, politically astute and politically aware now than it has been at any time in the past. This country has a political imperative to ensure that a solution is found. I do not pretend that that will be simple, but the stark reality is that Cyprus was a united island and we are one of the guarantor powers. The Turkish troops invaded and established what they would claim to be a state of their own, which no country in the world recognises, although a few might wish to recognise it. The issue is what pressure is being put on Turkish Governments. Turkey went through a military period from 1980, and it still has a poor record on human rights, which are seriously abused, and a great many Kurdish people flee the country to seek asylum in Europe and Britain.
Why do Britain, the United States and other countries pursue supportive and friendly relations with Turkey? Why do we still sell large quantities of arms to Turkey which, I am convinced, support the military structure that represses the Kurdish people? Kurdish people in the
14WH
northern part of Cyprus are denied human rights. I have met, and represent, Kurdish families who escaped from Turkey to northern Cyprus believing that they would be safe and find sanctuary, but who had to flee Cyprus because of abuse by Turkish military forces, finally ending up in this country.
What is it about Turkey that is so special that it can apparently evade any international sanction despite its illegal occupation of northern Cyprus? That happens because of Turkish membership of NATO and because of lectures from Turkish leaders who say that nationalist fervour in Turkey is so great that it cannot withdraw from Cyprus without a serious loss of face; but neither of those reasons should prevent us from having a much more robust attitude towards Turkey.
I ask the Minister to tell us exactly why we continue to sell large quantities of arms to Turkey and why we are still prepared to consider underwriting a major project such as the Ilisu dam, which, if nothing else, gives a sense of approval to what the Turkish Government do, not to mention the fact that it will destroy the livelihoods of large numbers of Kurdish people in that region.
We must tell the Turkish Government that it will not be the end of everything for them if they are prepared to join in serious international negotiations to bring about an agreed and negotiated settlement in Cyprus that respects the human rights, identity and integrity of all people in Cyprus but allows people to return to their own homes. There can be nothing more humiliating for an individual than to look across the green line and see the farm or home that he or she once occupied. It is a very depressing experience for Cypriot people and I hope that this debate will serve to encourage the Government to be far more robust in their attitude to Turkey and more determined to ensure that the United Nations achieves something in Cyprus. The UN has held the line there—it has held the ceasefire, and its presence has undoubtedly saved many lives—but it is time to move on. We must ensure that the green line disappears, and that we once again see a united Cyprus and an end to misery and anguish.
I repeat that the sense of grievance, outrage and anger of the Cypriot community in the United Kingdom is not diminished by the passing of those 26 years; if anything, the bitterness and tension have increased. It is up to this Parliament and this Government to try to ensure a settlement in the foreseeable future. It is not an intractable problem, but it requires a determined effort to solve it once and for all.
11.6 am
Mr. Richard Spring: I congratulate the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on securing this debate, and all those hon. Members who have spoken. Many of us approach the question of Cyprus with some trepidation. It is one of those contentious international issues that provoke passionate debate born of deep-seated feelings.
Cyprus and the United Kingdom have long-standing and historic ties. We are fellow members of the Commonwealth family of nations, and have ties in commerce, defence and tourism. Many Cypriots have settled in the UK, and they have greatly enriched our national life. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) observed, we can be at least a little

15WH
optimistic about recent developments, despite the enduring impasse so correctly referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman).
Britain has long sought to do whatever it can to promote the interests of peace and stability on the island. A settlement would clearly be in the interests of the region. It would help Greece and Turkey to normalise their relationship. It would assist countries such as ours that have long-standing and well-established political and economic links with Cyprus. Such a settlement would clearly benefit all the communities on the island.
When Parliament has previously debated Cyprus, it has often been in the context of discouraging developments—for instance, the stand-off over the acquisition of missiles by the Government of Cyprus, and the Turkish Government's response, were disturbing. Fortunately, today's debate takes place in a somewhat warmer political climate. To some extent, that has been born out of tragedy. Last year's two devastating earthquakes helped to bring Turkey and Greece closer together, a development that had obvious repercussions for Cyprus. The genuine outpouring of concern and help among Greeks towards their Turkish neighbours was moving and praiseworthy.
The Chamber will welcome the UN initiative announced in September 1998, which was aimed at reducing tension and promoting progress towards a settlement, and resolution 1218, which endorsed the initiative. President Clerides's decision in December 1998 not to bring S300 missiles to Cyprus helped to reduce tension and to create the conditions for securing a just and lasting political settlement. The visit earlier this year of the Greek Foreign Minister to Ankara was the first such visit for 38 years. It culminated in the signing of a series of agreements on such matters as tourism, environmental protection, investment and the fight against crime and terrorism.
We are right to be cautious about expecting too much progress too soon. However, with the opening of the second round of UN-sponsored talks in January and further negotiations under UN auspices due to start in New York on 23 May, events are now moving in the right direction. Will the Minister update us on recent developments, bearing in the mind the discussions on Cyprus that took place between Kofi Annan and the Foreign Secretary during the former's visit to London in March?
The European Union has an increasingly important role to play. The Conservative party has long supported Cyprus's membership of the EU, as our European election manifesto last year made clear. Everyone wants a resolution to the division of the island, but that is not and should not be a precondition for EU membership. We also welcome the decision at Helsinki in December to grant Turkey candidate status for the first time, although also to delay formal negotiations until Turkey meets the political criteria for membership. Turkey's aspiration to join the EU is perfectly legitimate and must be judged by the same objective standards that we apply to any other candidate for membership. We are pleased that sufficient progress has been made for Turkey to be
16WH
considered a candidate country and that recently Turkey was able to hold its first formal meeting with the EU in three years.
In many respects, the European Commission's latest accession report on Cyprus, published in October, is encouraging. The report showed that there had been good progress. It noted that Cyprus as a functioning market economy should be in a position to cope with the competitive pressures and market forces within the EU. It welcomed the reduction in tension in the region. It remarked on the rapid rate of economic growth combined with the containment of inflation. In the competition field, it commented on progress made on anti-trust legislation. The report also contained recommendations for improvement in areas such as structural reform and privatisation and alignment with aspects of the acquis communautaire and called for an intensive legislative programme, which has taken place in recent months.
Britain should continue to do all that it can to ease Cyprus's path into the European Union. The Conservative party welcomes the work of President Clerides in this respect and not least his introduction of market reforms. We are less concerned about progress on reform in the applicant countries themselves, including Cyprus, which is generally proceeding well, than with the EU's progress in preparing itself for enlargement. There is an urgent need for budgetary reform and recognition of the need for greater flexibility in an enlarged and diverse European Union, if such a European Union is to survive and prosper in the years ahead.
The British position on Cyprus has been clear for many years. Today, the UN's "set of ideas" for a bi-zonal, bi-communal federal government submitted in 1992 remains central to the discussion of the island's future. Only the two communities can ultimately decide what is acceptable and what is likely to last. Britain's role remains one of offering advice and providing support for the UN operations on the island and for the international attempts to mediate between the two sides. As one of the three guarantors of Cyprus, we have a special interest in the island's future. The Conservative party will continue to support the Government and the international community in attempts to bring about a lasting and peaceful settlement.
11.13 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on securing this debate and on his choice of subject. The contributions that have been made demonstrate that this is a subject of great importance and relevance. I know of my hon. Friend's long interest in these matters. He has told the House that he is the chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Cyprus group. He is also well known in the United Kingdom for his work on this issue within the Cypriot community. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) mentioned the fact that my hon. Friend has been in Parliament for 30 years. While he spoke, I counted up the years of parliamentary experience of hon. Members present. For the day after a recess, the turnout is impressive in terms of quality and

17WH
years of service. I calculate more than 100 years of parliamentary service in Westminster Hall today, and we feel all the better for it.
I want to thank the hon. Members for Chipping Barnet and for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford, North (Ms Perham), for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis), for Edmonton (Mr. Love) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for their highly relevant contributions. I cannot deal with every one of their points but I promise that if I do not cover them in my speech I will do so in writing.
Several hon. Members asked about the Government's position regarding Famagusta. As they will know, resolution 414 of the Security Council of the United Nations of 15 September 1977 made clear the concern that moves by Turkish Cypriots to settle Famagusta would harm the prospects for a lasting solution. That remains the position. We strongly endorse the resolution and call on those concerned to act responsibly.
The Loizidou case was raised by several hon. Members. With our partners in the Council of Europe, we continue to make clear to Turkey the need to implement the court's judgment. The chairman of the Council's Committee of Ministers' Deputies wrote at the end of March 2000 to follow up the Council's earlier interim resolution calling on Turkey to implement the judgment. We supported that action and look forward to an early response from Turkey.
The outgoing high commissioner for Cyprus is in Westminster Hall watching the proceedings. I echo the glowing tributes that he has received from hon. Members.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not address remarks to anyone in the Strangers Gallery. They are technically not present for the purposes of the debate.
Mr. Vaz: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I take your point completely. Had the high commissioner been here, I am sure that he would have heard what we have said. When he reads Hansard, he will be aware of what we have said today. I look forward to seeing him later in the week.
I am glad to say that the outlook for Cyprus at the start of the new millennium is brighter than it has been for many years. As hon. Members have said, Cyprus is engaged in two extremely important processes—the United Nations talks on a political settlement and the European Union accession negotiations. Together, the processes offer Cyprus and the international community an important chance and a challenge. The Government's hope is that we will collectively have the courage to grasp the historic opportunity now open to us. Britain remains committed to doing all that it can to assist the bringing about of a just and durable resolution of the Cyprus problem. We want the tragedy of the division of Cyprus to be overcome and we want to secure a future in which all Cypriots can enjoy peace, security and prosperity.
We are involved in a major sustained effort towards securing a comprehensive settlement in Cyprus. Important progress has been made in the past
18WH
15 months. In June 1999, the members of the G8 and the Security Council of the United Nations called for negotiations for a comprehensive settlement under the UN's auspices. That was a clear signal of the international community's desire to proceed. As hon. Members have mentioned, that led to the launch by the Secretary-General of the United Nations of UN proximity talks in December last year. The talks were aimed at preparing the ground for meaningful negotiations on a comprehensive settlement. The parties concluded a further round of talks in Geneva in February. We will be resuming discussions in New York on 23 May.
What goes on during those talks remains quite properly a matter for the United Nations and the parties involved. However, it is encouraging to have the United Nations Secretary-General's confirmation that the talks have addressed the substantive issues at the core of the Cyprus problem. We want to see a change of gear when the talks resume in May, moving towards continuous and sustained negotiations on the issues with both parties prepared to negotiate in a spirit of give and take. We have made it clear to Kofi Annan that the UK will continue to give him every support in the talks. We want decisive progress to be made in the months ahead.
I should also draw attention to the improvement of other relationships in the region, which have greatly changed from the position even a year ago. The improvements mean that discussions on Cyprus are occurring in a positive and forward-looking climate.
Hon. Members have rightly raised issues concerning Turkey. Those who read tomorrow's Hansard record of our proceedings may think that the debate has to some extent become a discussion of Turkey. There has been a clear rapprochement between Greece and Turkey. It has been reflected in ministerial contacts and visits and in the signature of a number of agreements on aspects of bilateral co-operation. On the very day on which I was in Athens, George Papandreou, the Greek Foreign Minister, set off after my meeting with him to go to Istanbul and Ankara to meet his opposite number, who then made the journey from Istanbul and Ankara to Athens. We in the UK and all the allies and friends of Greece and Turkey warmly welcome and support that development and we hope that it will be built on.
The decision made at the Helsinki European Council meeting by European Union partners to treat Turkey as a candidate for EU membership and to begin preparations for membership is already transforming the relationship between Turkey and the European Union. It means that all in the region are now working towards the common goal of EU membership. At the same time, Cyprus is continuing to make excellent progress in its EU accession negotiations. As we have heard today, that process is going well.
I noted the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton on Poland. I do not want to widen the debate to take in other countries that are applying to join the EU, but I should point out that of the 31 chapters of EU legislation in practice—the acquis communautaire—Cyprus has provisionally completed negotiations on 15. That is the greatest number of completions achieved by any candidate country. We expect negotiations on all the remaining chapters to have started by the end of the year. The Commissioner for Enlargement, G¨nter Verheugen, visited Cyprus in

19WH
March. The visit enabled him to underline on behalf of all our European Union partners our desire for Turkish Cypriots to become a part of the process. I look forward to visiting Cyprus later this year to assess the state of the negotiations and to pay my first official visit there.
A number of hon. Members have focused on the question whether the continuing division of the island will be a bar to the EU accession of Cyprus. The British Government's position has always been clear. Like our EU partners, we have no doubts that the ideal outcome for Cyprus and for Europe would be for Cyprus to join the EU following a settlement. The European Union has always made it clear that accession should benefit Greek and Turkish Cypriots alike—that is why we strongly support the United Nations process to try to resolve the division of the island—but we do not accept that Cyprus's application should be held hostage to such a settlement.
No one would accept that a third country should have a veto over the accession of another. At the Helsinki European Council in December, Britain was successful in getting other EU member states to agree to a clear statement that a political settlement is not a precondition for Cyprus's membership of the EU. I can also confirm that Cyprus's EU accession is not linked to that of Turkey. I am happy to reaffirm that that is, and always has been, our position.
There is an enormous amount of work to do. Judging by the eloquent speeches, there is a great deal of concern among Members of Parliament and members of the community. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North mentioned Aphrodite. We do not need to go that far back to know that the problem is one of the most difficult in the world. We all recognise the huge amount of preparation and careful negotiation that has to be done. The British Government are focused on supporting those who want to find a solution. As the Prime Minister, Tony Blair—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister cannot refer to a Member of Parliament by name; he must use a constituency title. The Prime Minister is the right hon. Member for Sedgefield.
Mr. Vaz: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is delighted to know that he still has that title.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told President Clerides that the UK will continue to support, with determination and energy, Kofi Annan and his special adviser, Alvaro de Soto, in their efforts towards achieving a settlement on the island. We will continue to work closely with Greece and Turkey and will provide our Cypriot friends with maximum encouragement and support. The Government look forward to welcoming Cyprus warmly into the EU. We hope that we will be welcoming a reunited island that ensures the future security and prosperity of all Cypriots. All hon. Members who care deeply about Cyprus will support that aim.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to the next debate. As the hon. Member for Totnes and the Minister are in their places, we can begin.

Social Services (Devon)
11.28 am
Mr. Anthony Steen: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are right—I am in my place. In fact, I am always in my place; the question is whether the Speaker identifies me as being there.
I am glad that I am here today and that we have managed to start a little early. I thank the Minister for being here to respond. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) for attending the debate. As so often happens, his train, the Great Western—the gateway to the south-west—was 40 or 45 minutes late. The main line to Devon and Cornwall is often severely disrupted and delayed. If the Minister wants members of the public no longer to travel by car but to use the train, he must ensure that the service is reliable. The Great Western train service has a bad record. It has improved of late, and I am sorry to learn that my hon. Friend was, like so many of my constituents, inconvenienced by a poor rail service.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. The debate is not about the lateness of a rail service, but about the withdrawal of social services provision in Devon. Bearing in mind that at least one other hon. Member—it may be two—wishes to speak, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will return to the subject of the debate.
Mr. Steen: Mr. Deputy Speaker, as it is not yet 11.30 I thought that you might allow me a couple of minutes to talk about the appalling train service to the west country. Now that we are approaching 11.30, I will, of course—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair sticks to the subject under debate, regardless of the time. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will come to the subject of the debate, to which the Minister will, in due course, reply.
Mr. Steen: You may have no doubt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that as it is now 11.30, I will speak on the subject that is tabled in my name. I am delighted to see not only my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge but my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). It is a delight to have such tremendous support from the Devon team on a subject of great importance to us.
The test of a civilised society is the way in which it treats the elderly, handicapped, sick and infirm. Devon county council is spending £108 million on social services this year. That is an increase of £5.5 million over the £102.5 million spend last year for social services, and it is good news. However, the council has cut its hot meals on wheels services for not only the old but the handicapped. It argues that frozen meals are more economical than hot meals. Perhaps they are, but they are unpleasant. As a result, there is less contact for those people. Keeping old people alive may meet statutory responsibilities but it takes no account of the fact that the old and infirm like to talk to the hot meals deliverers—a point which seems to have completely escaped Devon county council. The person who delivers the hot meal is as important as the meal itself.

21WH
Devon county council has cut hot meals for 94-year-old Evelyn Bricknell of Staverton and 92-year-old Mr. John Merton of Kingsbridge. Effectively, they have been told that if they want a hot meal, they had better cook it themselves. Both Mrs. Bricknell and Mr. Merton were telephoned by a social services official and told that their hot meals entitlement would be withdrawn. Social services were to wash its hands of these frail elderly people. It cancelled Mrs. Bricknell's cleaners and her shopping help. The social services department argued that if she could manage for three days each week when hot meals were not delivered, she could jolly well cope for seven days. That was the department's logic.
Mr. Merton was told that he could have frozen meals to heat in the microwave. The snag is that he does not have a microwave. Other octogenarians have told me that they are so unsteady on their feet and, sadly, have hands that shake badly because of various illnesses, that they would not be comfortable doing what the social services department demands of them—using a microwave and cooking their own meals. If I ever make 90—which, after almost 25 years in this place, is highly unlikely—I should like to think that the least I could expect from social services would be a hot meal each day. People who have reached the age of 90 should be able to expect a little help, courtesy and support from their social services departments.
The disabled are also being targeted. Mr. Taylor of Totnes suffers from multiple sclerosis. His hot meals entitlement has been halved. Again, a Devon county council official told him, "Don't ring us, we'll ring you." They did just that, and told him that he was to join the frozen food gravy train. All that is from a county council that has an overall budget of some £500 million. We are talking not about peanuts—in fact we are talking about hot food—but about £500 million of public money, but Devon county council cannot look after its elderly. The elderly, the ill and the infirm are the victims of cuts, even though the county's social services budget has increased. I am told that the number of officials employed by Devon county council has not been cut, nor has the cost of running local authority nursing and residential homes. We do not need local authority nursing and residential homes. We need to fill private residential homes. The Liberal Democrats' priorities, however, are exactly as one would expect—like Humpty Dumpty, they are upside down and bottoms up.
The Liberal Democrats shout about increases in parking charges at railway stations, yet at the same time, they are removing cleaning and shopping help from those who have reached four score years and 10. Like the walrus and the carpenter, the Liberal Democrats shed tears profusely about the plight of the oysters and then tuck into them with relish. If the Liberal Democrats restructured services by better use of the private sector—particularly the residential and nursing homes—it could save tens of millions of pounds, but they continue to behave like old-style socialists, believing that everything run in the public sector is better, even if it costs twice as much.
The belief that the council knows best is also well illustrated by its reluctance to fund respite care. Some 250 parents in south Devon look after children with severe physical, mental and physiological difficulties. They are devoted and caring parents and, as full-time carers, they are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a
22WH
week. All they ask is to be given the opportunity to devote a little more time to their partners and other children, yet social services refuses to pay a few hundred pounds per family to give those hard-pressed parents any relief.
About £750,000 was raised in Dartington from private sources to build a magnificent private home, the Robins, to offer somewhere for these handicapped children to go at weekends—provided Devon county council paid for that provision. Sadly, Devon county council has allowed the Robins to be only 10 per cent. full because it will not provide the funds for those disadvantaged children to go there at weekends to be properly looked after, to enjoy the friendship of their peer group and to allow their parents some time off. Most parents ask for only two or three weekends off a year, yet they cannot even secure that. If the children were fostered, it would cost around £40,000 a year and there is a statutory responsibility for foster parents to be given time off. It is all part of the Humpty Dumpty culture of the Liberal Democrats that everything is topsy-turvy and bottoms up.
The county council's social services department has also hit people with learning difficulties. Some such people, who do a 35-hour week in Kingsbridge, working on projects ranging from recycling to making cards, have had their £3 a week pocket money taken away. A county council that is supposed to be committed to caring for the elderly, the handicapped and the ill and to funding respite care has now removed the pocket money from kids with learning difficulties. Yet not one official has been removed and not one residential or nursing home has been cut. It is always those who are less able to cope or to look after themselves—the most vulnerable, who will not make a noise—who suffer. That is why today's debate is so important and why we should make a loud noise.
The previous Conservative Government introduced community care, which was aimed at encouraging the elderly to stay in their own homes as long as possible and to provide whatever help was needed by the local authority. Devon county council has started to withdraw its central community support facilities, displaying an appalling and devastating disregard for human life. What is even more sinister is that the county council realises that the frail and the elderly cannot survive in their own homes with no support and little human contact. Such isolation may lead to admission to a long-stay bed in a local hospital, which is funded, of course, by the Government and the national health service, not by the county council. That brings corresponding savings to the county council budget.
What is needed now is for an individual or group committed to the welfare of the elderly to take Devon county council to the High Court and to request an order for mandamus demanding that the judge directs the county council to carry out its statutory duties to provide for the old, the infirm and the handicapped. I am appalled to be a Member of Parliament in an area whose county council is privy to such neglect and heartlessness.
11.39 am
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I have been involved in the politics of the county of Devon—as a Member of Parliament and, before that, as a local

23WH
councillor—for more than a quarter of a century. However, I have never before come across such a situation. We are talking about a council that is incapable of balancing its budget, but which attempts to do so by cutting back support services and, in some cases, removing them from some of the most frail and vulnerable people in our society.
If time allowed, I could give a string of examples of where that had happened. I could talk about parents who have been told that they must give up their respite care. I could talk about centres that provide human contact for people with severe learning disabilities, but which find that their funding is being cut. Those cuts are made not for professional social work reasons, but because that is how the budget is to be balanced. It is thought that people will be in no position to complain if it is done that way.
I cannot go through all the cases because time is short, but I shall mention the case of Simeon Hayes, which can stand as an example for them all. Simeon is a young man who has been in the Larkby psychiatric unit since August 1999. He was diagnosed early on as suffering from Asperger's syndrome, which means that that psychiatric unit is not an appropriate place for him—that is no reflection on the unit. Simeon's father then tried to take up the issue of an appropriate care package for his child with Devon county council.
The correspondence in this case has been extraordinary. A letter to me stated that Simeon Hayes's father was using his connections to raise matters with me—he is a journalist. He also happens to be a constituent of mine, and I know of no rule that says that constituents cannot contact their Members of Parliament simply because they are journalists. In a letter to the Minister for School Standards, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), the county council said that Mr. Hayes was "regularly threatening judicial review". However, he mentioned it only once. Given his lack of success in bringing about action otherwise, he might well have mentioned it.
Mr. Hayes became so concerned and frustrated that he instructed a firm of solicitors who specialised in taking recalcitrant county councils to court. The firm had already successfully sued Devon county council once, and apparently believes that the council is the worst authority of its type in the country when it comes to the behaviour that we are discussing. Only when Mr. Hayes provided the county with a copy of the statement of claim and the writ drafted by counsel did it look as if there would be action.
Finally, after all that pressure, several Members of Parliament—including the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) and myself—received a letter from Devon county council on 11 April. First, it denied that the care package that Mr. Hayes had identified as being right for his son was appropriate, but it finally conceded that the package was appropriate. Mr. Hayes was informed that, on 12 April, he would be told the date on which his son could move to the Devon and Cornwall Autistic Community Trust. That is where he should have been throughout, because that was the correctly identified care package. I telephoned Simeon Hayes's father this morning to find that, even today, the right thing has not been done for Simeon Hayes. He has no
24WH
date for when he will go to the appropriate placement and remains in a psychiatric unit. His father tells me that he fears the long-term effects on his son of being deprived of the correct medication and of having to take other drugs in the meantime. My hon. Friends and I have taken up individual cases and have achieved results, but that is not good enough. It should not be necessary to take up individual cases to make the county council fulfil its responsibilities. For every case that I take up, there will be 10, 100 or 1,000 more. I should like to think that one thing will become clear as a result of today's debate. The Minister is entitled to say that the issue is primarily the responsibility of Devon county council, but Ministers know that they are ultimately responsible for everything. When it takes a journalist with the style and determination to threaten to take a county council to court to protect the life of his son, something must be done—and only Her Majesty's Government can do it.
11.44 am
Mrs. Angela Browning: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on raising this important matter. As Devon Members of Parliament, we are concerned about what is going on with the social services in our county.
I begin by pointing out that, although there has been an increase in the social services budget this year, under Liberal Democrat control, council tax payers in Devon have faced an increase in the county rate of 34 per cent. in three years. The council's constant bleating that it has not got enough money does not hold water.
My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has given me permission to mention his constituent Simeon Hayes, whose parents also sought my advice. I, too, have a son with Asperger's syndrome, a condition on the autistic spectrum, and I am a member of the national council of the National Autistic Society. Mr. Winterton—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should know that occupiers of the Chair in Westminster Hall are addressed as Mr. Deputy Speaker or Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mrs. Browning: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
For a 14-year-old boy with Asperger's syndrome to be admitted to a psychiatric unit is an indication of his overlying mental health problems; it is outrageous that his 15th birthday was while he was in the unit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge said, there are alternative services that can deal with that type of specialised condition in the west country; the Devon and Cornwall Autistic Community Trust in Truro, with whose services I am extremely familiar, provides exactly that sort of specialist support, yet, time and again, Devon county council social services kicked the case into the long grass, seeking another report here and another there, just to waste time. My hon. Friend said that the parents had to go to court; I recommend that they take the monstrous county council to court for the way that it has treated a 14-year-old boy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes raised the matter of the elderly. It is interesting that this year, as it is pleading poverty and not being able to provide

25WH
services, Devon county council increased the fees in its residential nursing homes while at the same time expecting the private sector nursing and residential homes in Devon to survive on a 2 per cent. increase in their fees. It is all right for Devon social services to uplift its fees by some £29 a week, but not the private sector.
The whole of the Liberal Democrat-controlled council in Devon, not just the social services department, spends valuable resources on every pilot scheme, every partnership scheme, every make-work type of project that comes on to its desks, rather than focusing on delivering sharp-end services to our constituents. It is outrageous that the council produces glossy brochures to tell us about this partnership scheme or that pilot scheme when elderly people are being asked to take delivery of a month's supply of frozen meals, and to pay for them in advance, rather than on a weekly basis.
In Silverton, a rural village in my constituency in mid-Devon, one elderly gentleman took his meal at the pub every day, because the social contact was deemed to be good for him. That has now been stopped. Instead of having the support of personal contact and the appropriate package of provisions, elderly people will now have a month's supply of frozen food, and a freezer and microwave if they want it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes said, the human contact provided by someone popping in in the middle of the day with a few friendly words makes all the difference to elderly people, enabling them to stay in their own homes. Loneliness and isolation are two of the main reasons why many elderly people, as they become more frail, have to move out of their own homes and into care. Yet Devon county council is replacing that small amount of human contact in the middle of the day with a package of frozen food once a month. It is outrageous.
11.49 am
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): Like other hon. Members, I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing the debate. Later, I shall address specific issues relating to the financial situation in Devon and the provision of social services in the county raised by hon. Members. First, however, I shall put in context social services funding generally and Government funding for modernising social services.
As the hon. Member for Totnes rightly said, social services provide crucial support for vulnerable people, whether they be children, disabled people, the very old or the very ill. They provide a range of services to protect them, to prevent problems and to enable people to have the best possible quality of life. Nationally, some £10 billion of public money is spent on social services every year and we want to ensure that it is spent effectively. The Government's best-value policy will ensure that that happens.
The Government made the funding of social services a priority in the comprehensive spending review two years ago, the settlement for which was announced in July 1998. For the first time, we guaranteed that the funds available nationally would increase in real terms over the following three years so that local councils could plan ahead, knowing what resources would be
26WH
available. Every hon. Member who spoke in the debate said that spending on social services in Devon was increasing and I shall say something about that in a moment.
In November 1998, our White Paper "Modernising Social Services" clearly set out how we expected fair, consistent and fast services to be delivered with those additional resources in partnership with local government. Both Government and councils want extra funds to have demonstrable benefits for the most vulnerable and to help people to stay in their own communities and homes for as long as possible. To achieve that objective we have introduced four new, specific grants and increased the mental health grant substantially to ensure proper support for those whose mental health problems pose the most risk to themselves and to society. We have also introduced the quality protects grant, designed to improve children's social services. We have increased the training grant for staff to carry out those essential modernising tasks in social services.
Mr. Steen: In spite of that wonderful statement, it has not worked in the Devon county council area.
Mr. Hutton: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall address the constituency issues that he raised in a moment.
The extra grants that we introduced mean that this year Devon received more than £6 million in addition to its standard spending assessment for social services. We are closely monitoring how the resources are being used in Devon and elsewhere to improve social services.
This is the second year covered by the comprehensive spending review settlement; local councils will receive an additional £492 million for social services which represents an increase of 5.6 per cent. in cash terms and more than 3 per cent. in real terms. Those substantial additional resources enabled us to increase the personal social services standard spending assessment by £425 million or 5.1 per cent. this year. The quality protects grant for children's services increased by 60 per cent., the mental health grant by £13 million and the training grant by more than £3 million. All local councils with social services responsibilities, including Devon, have benefited from those significant increases in funds.
In the time available to me, I shall address hon. Members' specific concerns. Many hon. Members raised constituency cases and if hon. Members want to raise those cases with me, I shall be more than happy, at any time, to consider them in detail. I am aware of the case of Simeon Hayes and anxious about what hon. Members said about him. I shall take a personal interest in the case and see it through.
Devon is a large council which provides social services in a large geographical area. I know that at first hand because I recently visited the county and saw the excellent work being done at the Exbank Reablement Centre, which may be in the constituency of the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls)—if it is not, I apologise to him. It is a good example of interagency working and of the type of service that should be more widely available throughout the country.
Nearly three-quarters of a million people live in Devon, mainly in a rural environment in small, diverse communities. There are eight very different district

27WH
councils; Exeter city is the main conurbation and areas such as Dartmoor and Exmoor are sparsely populated. In April 1998, local government organisation created two new, additional unitary authorities, Torbay and Plymouth, which are separate from Devon county council. Devon county council fared slightly better than the national average this year in its standard spending assessment, receiving an increase of 5 per cent. compared with 4.4 per cent. nationally. Similarly, Devon's personal social services element of the standard spending assessment has increased by 5.2 per cent., slightly above the national average of 5.1 per cent.
As hon. Members have pointed out, Devon has had budgetary difficulties over a number of years. They did not all start this year or last year. The total social services budget for Devon for 1999–2000 was £111 million, not the £108 million to which the hon. Member for Totnes referred, which is its biggest social services budget ever. An overspend of between £4.5 million and £4.9 million was projected for 1998–99, but management action within the authority reduced it to £2.5 million. The reasons for the overspend were multiple. They included the complexity of the populations in Devon, excessive demand and the impact of local government reorganisation. The joint review undertaken in 1999 by social services and the Audit Commission described Devon county council as a traditional organisation with evidence of many high-quality innovative services that were not strategically joined up or consistently and equitably distributed. Those are substantial and important criticisms.
Devon has a new director of social services who arrived as the joint review findings were being reported. He reviewed Devon social services in the light of those findings. His report to the council in January identified the action that he proposed should be taken, which included a strategic financial plan to curb the projected escalating budget deficit of £9 million this financial year and to address the future budget over a three to four year period. His financial plan was agreed by all the political parties on Devon county council, including the Conservative party, which acknowledged that remedial action needed to be taken.
Mr. Nicholls: The Minister is correct that the action that had to be taken because of the maladministration of the budget received all-party support, but in no sense was all-party support given to the way that the available resources were distributed among our constituents. That is an entirely different point.
Mr. Hutton: No, I understand the difference. I said at the beginning of my remarks that I would be happy to look into individual cases that have been brought to our attention this morning. We must recognise that there were problems in the county council and all three political parties signed up to the action plan to try to address them. The plan also aimed to protect the most vulnerable people in the community. Field social work and direct service staff are not being reduced and the main cuts, as I understand it, are being directed at headquarters staff.
Mr. Steen: The Minister's speech is what one would expect. He says that the Government are giving more money to everybody, that the Liberal Democrats and Devon county council should be spending it more wisely and that all parties agreed that there would be an overspend if something drastic was not done. I pay tribute to the new director of social work who is trying to knock a few heads together, but I am concerned about the hot meals that are not being delivered to elderly people. I am concerned about the cleaning contracts that have been discontinued. I am concerned about elderly people who will be driven into the local hospital because the social services are not carrying out their duty. The Minister has not dealt with that point.
Mr. Hutton: Conservative Members took up the majority of the time in this debate and I am trying to respond to the points that were made. That is the second time that I have given way to the hon. Gentleman and I have also given way to the hon. Member for Teignbridge. I have tried to be generous, but it will almost certainly mean that I cannot deal with all the specific points that Conservative Members have made. I am more than happy to look into the hot meals service. My officials will find out exactly what the position is.
I cannot, in the remaining minutes, go into all the nooks and crannies of the arguments advanced by Conservative Members, but let me make it crystal clear that we take these criticisms seriously. We want to have high-quality services right across the country and Devon is no exception. Local people are entitled to expect that. I am concerned to hear about the low level of fee increases negotiated with the private residential care home sector. I should be very concerned if that resulted in any loss of provision or reduction in the quality of care services available to older and frail people in Devon and in the constituencies represented by the hon. Member for Totnes and his hon. Friends. We will have to see what happens there.
The introduction of the new best value arrangements will make a significant difference and will have a substantial impact on local authorities that wish to continue to preserve their role as a director. They will have to ensure that their services are directly comparable, in terms of cost and quality, to those being provided in the private sector. Unlike the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate and who want everything to be in the private sector, we take no ideological view: we believe that the quality of care, not who owns the institutions, is what matters. That is in line with people's local expectations.
I have heard the concerns expressed today about Devon's social services and I will examine them further. The hon. Member for Teignbridge is right that, at one level, these decisions are to be made by local social services managers. Councillors are accountable for those decisions. On the basis of this morning's comments, one certainly gains the impression that local elections may take place in Devon this week.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must pass on to the next debate.

Policing (West Norfolk)
12 noon
Dr. George Turner: I wish to bring to hon. Members' attention some of the lessons on police resourcing that should be learned, in a calmer debate, from the events surrounding the Tony Martin case and the public response to it. Tony Martin is one of my constituents, albeit living right on the border of my constituency. I am fully aware that the case is under appeal and therefore sub judice and I have had to revise my speech as a result. I shall make no comment now about the events at Bleak house or the legal case that followed. More importantly, I have censored the views of my constituents on those events and on what should happen next.
The Tony Martin case has done much to highlight police resourcing, the problems of crime in rural areas and, even more importantly, the fear of crime, which has become endemic. My personal concern about resourcing in Norfolk is, like the problem itself, of long standing. As a member of the county council for 20 years, including a period on the police authority, I witnessed first hand the way in which the previous Government consistently underfunded the police and presided over a doubling of crime. It has been particularly galling for me over recent weeks to hear those who had direct responsibility for so many years making cheap party political points, largely distorting the real issues and encouraging a disproportionate lack of confidence in the Norfolk police constabulary.
The Norfolk police force covers more than 2,000 sq m and a residential population of about 708,000 people. It is the fourth highest staffed police area in England, currently employing some 1,400 officers. However, that amounts to 1.97 police per 1,000 residents—the lowest ratio in England.
Taking shift patterns and officers on leave into account, about 107 uniformed patrol officers are on duty—one officer for every 19 sq m of the county—and officers tell me that they are unable to spend all their time outside the police station. Occasionally, they have to spend half their time in the police station. It is a thin blue line. I can confidently assert from my long experience and interaction with the police that they should be applauded and supported for their work on behalf of the people of Norfolk. They should not be lampooned as we have seen too often of late. The lampooning has not been confined to the tabloid press.
Crime statistics can be a minefield. Norfolk has had to accommodate changes in the national rules for reporting and changes in beat patterns as a result of recent reorganisation. In preparing for the debate, I took the opportunity to examine not just the crime figures for the whole of Norfolk, but those for my region of west Norfolk and the detailed DO6 beat figures, which included Bleak house within their ambit during most years. The statistics are not very revealing. There were 49 burglaries in dwellings in 1996–97. The number dropped to 37 but rose again to 56. In 1994–95, there were 95 burglaries in that beat patch.
Available figures do not justify anything like the atmosphere of crisis that has been created in recent weeks. In my division, crime is higher in density and, more importantly, higher still in relation to the number
30WH
of residents in rural communities. Norfolk is not at the top of the list for crimes per head of population. Claims of a recent dramatic rise in crime in rural areas are unjustified, although I can say with confidence that the figures remain a cause for considerable concern—which has escalated recently. As rural communities have become less close knit than when I went to Norfolk—the decline in agriculture ensured that that would happen—the fear of crime has risen steadily, outstripping the pace of crime itself. I know that this fear can be every bit as damaging as crime itself.
Before setting out my thoughts on what the Government ought to do, and in anticipation of the Minister's response, I want briefly to acknowledge the fact that in the past three years the Government have at least begun to listen to what is being said in rural Norfolk and to tackle the problems of constituencies such as mine. I arrived five or 10 minutes early for my first constituency meeting and could hardly get through the doors. I had known that crime was an issue immediately after being elected. Following that meeting, I invited the Home Secretary to my constituency. I was delighted that he came early in the life of this Parliament to address a meeting at which I had invited wide representation—including the 63 or 64 parishes in my constituency. Although parliamentary sketch writers found it a source of fun, the Home Secretary admitted that the fact that 600 people turned up on a wintry Friday night to listen to, and question, him, left him in no doubt that crime was an issue for the Labour party in its new heartlands as well as its old.
More recently, the Minister came to a crowded meeting in King's Lynn town hall, and heard for himself the strength of feeling. I acknowledge that, for the first time in many years, we have a Government who are in listening mode and who have made a start. I and other honourable Members from Norfolk constituencies welcomed especially the commissioning of a study on the impact of population sparsity on the cost of policing.
The study was completed in May 1999 and is the main issue that I press on the Government today. There is a genuine need, which I vocalise on behalf of every constituent in North-West Norfolk, for the speedy implementation of the clear recommendations that arose unambiguously from the study. The simulation model that was used demonstrated a significant sparsity effect and showed that it was caused not only by the most obvious feature—officers having to travel greater distances to crimes—but because greater availability was essential in rural areas for crews to meet reasonable expectations for response times.
For the benefit of hon. Members whose constituencies have no rural hinterland I should emphasise that people living in more isolated rural areas could not, and will not, expect the same response times as those that can be expected in built-up urban areas. The study assumed that a response of 10 minutes in urban wards for urgent cases should be matched by only a 20-minute response in rural areas. However, Norfolk police strove for a 15-minute response in rural areas, and it is not clear to me that we should abandon that higher objective. Even if we accept the lower standards that are most common nationally, the study revealed an underfunding of £2.4 million in the past financial year. There can be no doubt that additional funding on that scale would significantly improve the service to my constituents. In fairness, the

31WH
Government must ensure that that study is acted on, and that the long-standing underfunding of police forces, such as Norfolk police force, is addressed by no later than the spending review, which is expected to be announced later this summer.
In recent years, Norfolk police authority has been encouraged by the inspectorate
to remove its focus away from maintaining a minimum police establishment towards a business case approach of achieving agreed levels of performance.
In normal parlance, the authority is saying that too much attention has been paid to a simple head count of officers—I agree. The problem is that Norfolk police have suffered for far too long from inadequate support. Last week, I travelled with one police officer on the beat, who was driving a two-door Vauxhall Astra with 118,000 miles on the clock. I was assured that the car was due to be replaced, but what use is such a car for chasing one of the all too familiar car thieves on Norfolk roads? What use is a two-door vehicle in trying to apprehend criminals and escort them to the police station?
The beat base of the patrol in Terrington St. John was opened in 1998, one of the significant achievements of the past three years. However, on my visit, I discovered that the base did not even have a computer with a modern link to headquarters, so that transmitting information was unnecessarily outmoded and time consuming. Poor IT equipment has been a hallmark of the Norfolk police for too many years. The constables with whom I talked said that other issues of resourcing also need to be addressed. I was told that, following the arrest of a criminal, the police offers involved would need to spend a further five hours at the police station. We must deal with the issue of paperwork and provide IT systems to take the load from those who work at the sharp end of policing.
I was also asked why only the cars of the traffic police are properly equipped with stingers, which are thrown in front of cars that refuse to stop. Stingers are used in west Norfolk because of the relatively large numbers of car thefts, but the only police cars likely to be equipped with stingers are those in pursuit. Some officers asked why they, too, could not be trained to use stingers, which they could use to head off criminals and stop them from in front. Those resourcing issues in relation to cars and what is carried in them must be addressed, in addition to issues of IT equipment and back-up services for police on the beat.
In addition, I want to stress to the Minister that we must carefully consider the implications of the additional cost for rural areas of the new national communications radio system. In such a vast rural area, which covers many square miles, the cost of implementation will be substantially higher than in urban areas because of the need for extra relays. I want to know that Norfolk police will be able to afford not only the core of the new system—the minimum requirement—but the add-ons to make the system appropriate for the rural beats on which it will be used. I was disappointed recently to hear the new chairman of the police authority say that it is uncertain whether it will be able to afford those additional costs.
32WH
In dealing with the outcome of the Tony Martin case, particularly the response of the tabloid newspapers, we must give some thought to the resourcing necessary to allow us to achieve our objectives. I hope to hear my hon. Friend the Minister make a clear statement, which I can take back to my constituents, that the Government will address the police numbers game. I also press my hon. Friend to assure my constituents that that will not be done at the expense of the police being properly equipped with sensible cars, appropriate radio equipment, proper information technology and reduced paperwork. Will he assure me that, having listened and studied, the Government will now act? I want to assure my constituents that Norfolk constabulary will do an even better job for the citizens of Norfolk.
12.16 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) on securing this important debate. Hon. Members will know that the policing of rural areas was raised on 3 February in the police grant debate and in other debates on policing, including an Adjournment debate by the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), on 19 October 1999. I regret that the right hon. Lady cannot be here, although I am glad to see that that the hon. Members for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) and for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) are present.
I contrast the approach taken by my hon. Friend for North-West Norfolk with the appalling intervention made during the recess by the four Conservative Members who represent Norfolk. They issued a statement saying that, as a result of recent events, people had no confidence in Norfolk police. I take this opportunity to place on record my confidence and the confidence of the Government and of the people of Norfolk in Ken Williams, the chief constable of Norfolk and his officers. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend pay tribute to him. I believe that he speaks also for his constituents and the people of Norfolk.
Mr. Keith Simpson: Having welcomed my presence and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior), the Minister proceeded to attack us for our press statement. I wish to make it clear that we have no lack of confidence in the hard work that our police force is doing in Norfolk. We were reflecting on the fact that, during the past three years, the number of police has declined by 50 and, even with the promised additional manpower, we shall get only 16 back. That is what our constituents tell us. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that.
Mr. Clarke: I certainly acknowledge the problem of numbers, which has been discussed in the House at some length. I shall return to the matter later. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made it clear that he was not seeking to express a lack of confidence in Norfolk constabulary, although that is how that statement was reported. I am delighted that he has put the record straight.
I place on record my total confidence in Ken Williams, the chief constable of Norfolk, and his officers. I believe that the recent criticisms of the force, which included offensive telephone calls being made to

33WH
police officers, were uncalled for. The force is a professional body that undertakes a difficult job, and it does it well and in a just and fair way. Norfolk constabulary has proudly held the charter mark for the past six years, which is a sign of the high standard of policing that they provide. Hon. Members should bear in mind the chief constable's guidance; his remarks are well considered and welcome.
I am very much aware of the concerns of those who live in rural areas. The Government recognise that rural communities can feel overlooked when it comes to setting plans for tackling and reducing crime. There is a perception that there is little or no crime in rural areas and that police and other interested agencies do not need to respond to events in the manner they need to in urban or inner-city areas. That perception is wrong. It is true that there is not the same volume of crime as is found elsewhere, but rural communities have different needs that must be taken into account. In the Norfolk policing plan 2000–01, the chief constable stated:
National comparisons show that Norfolk enjoys lower crime rates and higher detection rates than two-thirds of the remaining 42 policing areas in England and Wales. It is pleasing to note that we have achieved this despite having lower levels of funding than any other force.
Nevertheless, we all—whether we live in an urban or rural area—expect to be able to live our lives free from the worry of having our person threatened, our property damaged, our freedom of movement restrained, our public spaces wrecked and our peace of mind destroyed by criminal or anti-social activity.
In order to provide some context, it might be helpful to refer to the comments of the Countryside Agency, which published a report on this recently. Mr. Ewen Cameron, the chairman of the Countryside Agency, said in an interview at the time of the report's release that he was
Playing down this whole business of crime as an issue. It doesn't seem to me to be a real issue for rural communities. There is fear of crime—
that is the point my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk referred to a second ago—
But there are many bigger issues.
When asked what those were, he named them as
Transport, housing and in some areas the rural economy.
He continued:
Rural crime is rising, but is small compared with urban crime, so one should not make too much of it despite the recent case in Norfolk.
The Countryside Agency's report quoted figures from the 1996 British crime survey for offences in 1995, when 3.9 per cent. of rural households were burgled compared with 6.3 per cent. in urban areas and 10.3 per cent. in inner-city areas. From those statistics, the report argued that people living in rural areas are less concerned about being the victims of crime than those living in other parts of the country and feel safer on their streets. Public confidence in the police is higher in rural areas than elsewhere, as is satisfaction for the service provided by the police to victims reporting crimes. The report also pointed to conflicting evidence for the belief that crime is rising in rural areas and for a sense of heightened vulnerability, especially to property crime committed by people from outside the immediate area. I mentioned
34WH
the report because it is important to set the current concerns—which are real and which the Government need to address—in a reasonable context.
I now turn to the point about funding, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk. The Government announced their overall spending plans for the three years from April 1999 following the comprehensive spending review in July 1998. Government-supported funding for Norfolk police for the year 2000–01—the current year—will be £86.5 million, an increase of 3.6 per cent. on the previous year. Under the budget set by Norfolk police, the increase in their estimates of net revenue spending is 5.3 per cent. The provisional increase in total police spending for England and Wales as a whole is 4 per cent.
Police numbers were raised by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk. We acknowledge that police numbers are an important part of a comprehensive package of measures to ensure a modern and efficient police service. The public rightly feel reassured by the visible presence of police officers on our streets, and this perception helps to reduce the fear of crime. As the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk said in his intervention, there has been a decline of 49 in police numbers in Norfolk since March 1997, to a total of 1,382 in September 1999, but it is important to set that against an increase of 57 in the number of civilian staff during the same period.
It is important to acknowledge—as I am sure all hon. Members will—the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who announced the Government's intention of allocating another 5,000 officers through the crime fighting fund. Those will be over and above the existing number of officers that would otherwise have been recruited over the next three years from April 2000. As a result of the extra £285 million provided by the Chancellor in this year's Budget, the recruitment programme will be accelerated with the aim of delivering 5,000 officers over two years rather than three. We are currently discussing with the police services and the police authorities precisely how we can best achieve that. Under that scheme, Norfolk is to receive 66 extra posts during the next two years, which is 73 per cent. of its bid. It is for the chief constable to decide how to use those extra officers. As the professional head of the police service in Norfolk, it is right that he should do so. He is extremely aware of the rural policing issues that are being raised.
My hon. Friend made a specific point about sparsity, about which there are genuine concerns. Chief constables and police authorities want the recommendations of the research report on the cost of policing rural areas to be implemented. Chief constables and police authorities have also expressed to the Home Secretary and me their desire to see the report's conclusions implemented.
Earlier this year, I met a delegation of representatives of the rural authorities that are concerned with sparsity, including my own in Norfolk. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk will have seen my letter to the editor of the Eastern Daily Press, in which I emphasised my belief that Norfolk police authority is right to make the case for the cost of policing sparse areas to be taken into account in the police funding formula. The Government arranged independent research when they came to power, and, as my hon.

35WH
Friend said, they published the results last year. As I have said in the House and elsewhere, the case has great force and is being fully considered. The findings of the research report were considered by a Home Office-led group, including representatives of the police in their various forms. There was no single view on its conclusions, but there was general agreement that a sparsity factor had been detected in respect of the resources and police time needed to respond to calls for service and that it had arisen for the sorts of reasons described by my hon. Friend. Perhaps unsurprisingly, as redistribution of the resources would be at the expense of metropolitan forces, there was less agreement about how to include it appropriately in the police funding formula.
I cannot give hon. Members a timetable today for changes to the funding formula to accommodate the recommendations of the research report. We are considering the report and we will consider carefully the best way of responding to the needs of rural areas as part of our wider review of local authority funding arrangements and in the context of the comprehensive spending review. We want to get the funding distribution mechanism right and we want it to be seen as a fair and equitable way of funding the police service in England and Wales. We are committed to doing what we can to achieve that.
In the short time that remains, I should like to comment on the importance of focusing on partnership in fighting crime. It has been suggested that the police should bear sole responsibility for all matters related to fighting crime, but the Government do not believe that that is right. We believe that local authorities and even individuals also have responsibilities to develop the right partnerships. We advise people in various ways to increase home security, which is aided by installation of alarms, provision of alarms to pensioners, locks, security systems and a variety of neighbourhood and community watch schemes. We encourage citizens to involve themselves in such initiatives, which will enhance their security and which are an important part of individuals' obligations to the society of which they are a part.
We also seek to encourage crime reduction partnerships more generally. I noticed that the west Norfolk community safety strategy, which covers the area represented by my hon. Friend, identified specific
36WH
aspects of that approach in the targets set in its document for the years 1999–2002. First, it referred to target hardening and property marking to deal with burglary in isolated areas and suggested a number of initiatives that could be undertaken to deal with such problems. Secondly, it suggested a series of specific initiatives to deal with rural isolation and the effect that crime and the fear of crime have on rural communities. Thirdly, it identified the need to deal with mobile criminals and suggested the target outcomes of controlled and structured information exchange about convicted and active criminals and seamless communications with neighbouring police forces, councils and other key agencies, which is an important consideration in my hon. Friend's constituency in respect of the relationship between Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire.
Mr. David Prior: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way as I have only a minute or two left. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not doing so.
The strategy also pointed to the need to publicise detection of crime and convictions in respect of such criminals. Fourthly, it referred to farm crime and the widespread use of overt property marking of farm equipment. Such initiatives are an important part of the crime reduction partnership, and I pledge the Government to doing whatever we can to support them. We must address the partnership between individuals responsible for their own security and the police and local authorities with their respective responsibilities. That aspect has not had sufficient attention in the debate that has taken place in recent days. I want to use the opportunity today to highlight those points.
I conclude by congratulating my hon. Friend on securing the debate and by assuring all hon. Members that the Government are determined to address the issues by the sharpest and most direct means so that we can ensure that the problems of rural crime and rural safety are solved in the most effective way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We now come to the last debate in Westminster Hall today. It concerns the Government's decision to approve the closure of Ashford hospital's accident and emergency and intensive therapy unit.

Ashford Hospital
12.30 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: As you rightly say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the debate concerns Ashford hospital. To get the record straight, I hasten to say that that is Ashford in Middlesex. The debate is part of a last attempt to prevent the closure of the hospital's accident and emergency department and the scrapping of its intensive care beds. It is a plea to the Minister to change her mind.
My case for asking the Minister to scrap the proposed cuts is this: the overwhelming majority of the people whom I represent oppose them. They would lead to poorer national health service provision for my constituents and would make the current intensive care bed shortage even worse. The case for the cuts and the assessments of the consequences are flawed. The financial cuts being insisted on are no longer necessary following the recent Budget.
The other part of my final attempt to halt the planned cuts at Ashford is the delivery to Downing street tomorrow of more than 6,000 letters addressed to the Prime Minister from my constituents urging him to change the Government's mind. In case the Minister or anyone else is tempted to try to dismiss that as a party political stunt, I should make it crystal clear before I proceed that I speak for all my 70,000 constituents, irrespective of for whom they voted. One of the letters that I will deliver to the Prime Minister tomorrow says it all far better than I can. It reads:
My husband and I…have voted Labour all our lives as did our parents before us. Never, never again will we be doing so, we feel so let down by Labour over our hospital in our town that we feel physically sick.
That is not a Conservative point of view; it is a Government supporter's point of view.
I have no doubt that, once I finish my speech and the Minister comes to reply, she will again churn out the same claptrap that West Surrey health authority has been churning out. She will try to pretend that the cuts are not cuts and that they are not about to happen. Let me spell out the truth so that there can be no doubt. After the cuts have been made, Ashford hospital will no longer have an accident and emergency department and all its intensive care beds will have been scrapped. Those are cuts pure and simple, whatever the Minister says and however she tries to disguise them.
Should the cuts happen, they would fly in the face of the propaganda recently pumped out by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, both of whom keep saying that every accident and emergency department in the country is being improved and that more intensive care beds are being provided. The Prime Minister's recent appearance on "Breakfast with Frost" was a classic example of the propaganda that we hear week after week. He promised us all more funds for hospitals, improved accident and emergency facilities and more intensive care beds. However, that is not what is happening in my constituency. There, the exact opposite is happening. This debate is a plea to the Minister to keep the Prime Minister's promises by reversing her decision.
If the Minister follows the line taken by my local health authority and by the hospital trust concerned, I suspect that we will hear the same absurd claims that the
38WH
cuts are actually service improvements. I heard that claim on the radio this morning from the chief executive of the hospital trust. Such claims are total nonsense. The truth in my constituency is that front-line services are being cut for a simple reason. The Government have ordered West Surrey health authority to make cuts worth £20 million over the next three years. The real purpose of the cuts at Ashford hospital is the saving of £3.6 million. There can be no nonsense about service improvements and no claptrap about what will happen. The truth is simple—the cuts are being made to save £3.6 million. It is madness to try to pretend that one can improve services while making cuts of that magnitude. It is nonsense.
If I read my crystal ball correctly, the Minister may again treat us to the spurious claim that the Royal College of Surgeons is refusing to recognise Ashford's accident and emergency department. That is not true. That is not what was said when it conducted an inspection recently. The story is pure speculation with no facts to back it up.
According to the claims made in this year's Budget speech, cuts in the NHS should no longer be necessary. I think that that is what we heard said in the House. I had a letter boasting that my local health authority was to receive an additional £7.5 million, but a string is attached to that: the Secretary of State insists that all the money goes to primary care groups for new services. My plea to the Minister today is for her to rescind that decision and to allow West Surrey health authority to use the additional money to stop the cuts at Ashford hospital.
Mention of the Budget leads me to consider the timing of the Minister's announcement that the cuts will go ahead. She made the announcement on Budget day, which was deeply cynical. It was a cynical attempt to try to hide the cuts behind the publicity bound to be given to the Budget. My reading of that cynical manoeuvre is that it confirms that the Minister knows perfectly well that what is really happening at Ashford is something to be ashamed of, something to be hidden behind other news. That is the politics of the gutter in my book.
Fortunately for us and for Spelthorne, I and my constituents cannot and will not be spin doctored into silent acquiescence. The 6,000-plus letters that have arrived in a matter of a few days are proof that we will fight on while there is hope. We will expose the truth as we fight. I have a plea to make to the Minister and to the Prime Minister tomorrow. If they are not prepared to listen to the pleas of a Conservative Member, I ask them please to listen to my constituents, 19,000 of whom voted for the Government.
Let us turn to what has happened since the Minister approved the cuts. Not only have the Government been trying to hide the truth behind the Budget but my local health authority and local hospital trust have been telling lies, pure and simple. Adverts were placed in a local newspaper that cost close to £6,000. That money could and should have been spent on providing services to my constituents, not on putting lying propaganda in newspapers.
In letters to me and others, the health authority and the trust have deliberately tried to mislead my constituents. I have therefore reported their advert to the Advertising Standards Authority, which has launched a formal investigation.

39WH
The advert says that
Ashford's A&E Will Not Close.
That is a lie. The Royal College of Surgeons and the Audit Commission confirm that a hospital cannot have an accident and emergency department without an on-site intensive care unit. All Ashford's intensive care beds are being scrapped. There will be no accident and emergency department and it is a lie to claim that there will be. Curiously, the entire full-page advert, through all its propaganda and lies, forgets to mention that all the intensive care beds are being closed. I can only speculate as to why that little oversight took place.
The advert tries to pass off the downgraded replacement facility as an A and E department in all but name. That is another lie. The facility cannot be that, for the reason that I gave, and it will not be. The Minister's decision letter to me, and the NHS executive's press release, both dated 21 March, make it crystal clear that Ashford's A and E department will be closed and replaced by an urgent treatment centre. That is the truth that the local health authority is not prepared to admit.
Another lie is doing the rounds. In an open letter to me, which found its way into the press, the health authority's chief executive said that the proposed replacement for Ashford's A and E department was "tried and tested". However, in a subsequent personal letter to me, she said that there was
nothing absolutely comparable with the planned Ashford model.
How can the service be tried and tested if there is nothing with which to compare it? That is another lie. My plea to the Minister is that she tell her officials and managers to cut out the lies and stick to the truth.
I met the Minister before she decided to approve the cuts and told her that the health authority had got it wrong and that its proposals were flawed. Clearly, she did not believe me, because she approved the proposals. I hope that she will change her mind after she hears what I have to say.
When we met, I told her that my constituency already had too few intensive care beds. Spelthorne has since endured a crisis caused by insufficient intensive care beds, as have many other constituencies. It would be churlish of me not to welcome the Minister's decision to provide two new intensive care beds at St. Peter's hospital, but one can do the simple arithmetic: four beds closed and two beds opened means fewer beds. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and I face a 25 per cent. cut in the number of intensive care beds available to our constituents.
I said to the Minister that the estimates of the number of people using the proposed urgent treatment centre were too high. I presume that she did not believe me. The London ambulance service has since confirmed that it will not take patients who might need surgery to Ashford. Therefore, the centre will not be used as much as is claimed. I also said that public transport provision from Spelthorne to St. Peter's hospital was poor and worsening. Since then, Arriva has notified the traffic commissioners that it proposes to pull out of the bus route from Staines, in my constituency, to St. Peter's. The situation was bad when we met, but it is worse now.
40WH
I do not take the expectation that a free bus service might be provided very seriously. It is only a hope; there is no proof that it will happen.
When the Minister and I met, I pointed out that the cuts would inevitably lead to more cuts, but I was pooh-poohed. I have since been given a letter, dated 27 March, addressed to a constituent of mine from the health authority's chairman, in which he confirms exactly what I predicted. My guess, for what it is worth, is that the next round of cuts at Ashford is not far away and that I shall be back ere long with an Adjournment debate about the withdrawal of all in-patient mental health facilities from the Ashford site. Yet again, my constituents will be forced to go elsewhere to receive much-needed treatment.
I have given a few examples of what has been going on since the Minister and I last met, but there are many more. If we had more time, I could continue and reinforce the facts that I explained to the Minister and that were clearly dismissed. However, even the events that have happened since we met add up to an enormously powerful case for the Minister changing her mind and scrapping the cuts, instead of services.
I will give the reasons why the Minister should take this 11th-hour chance to change her mind and stop the cuts. Despite all the attempts to mislead people, the truth is that the cuts will lead to poorer NHS services for my constituents. In spite of the extra two intensive care beds at St. Peter's, the cuts will result in fewer local IC beds, which will make the recent crisis even worse. Despite all the reassurances from the health authority, its case for the cuts and its assessment of the consequences are fatally flawed. The Government continue to demand that £20 million worth of cuts are made in west Surrey, but they are no longer necessary since the Budget.
If all that is not enough to persuade the Minister to change her mind, I suggest that she listens to the voice of the people. She claims to be part of a listening Government, but she has ignored our pleas. If she ignores them again, it will prove beyond doubt that the Government are all mouth and no action.
Before Christmas, I presented to the House a petition opposing the cuts, signed by more than 25,000 of my constituents. Since then, our local community health council has lodged a formal objection to the cuts. To date, none of that has made a blind bit of difference. Therefore, I will end with the description given by one of my local accident and emergency consultants—whom the Minister has met—of the consequences of the Minister's actions. Talking about the cuts, the consultant said:
People will suffer, and some will die.
That is a statement of fact; he did not use the word "might". If the Minister will not listen to my constituents or me, will she please listen to an expert, or is she happy to have the deaths of some of my constituents on her conscience?
12.49 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on securing this debate on what he chooses to call—I note this with some sadness—the Government's decision to approve the

41WH
closure of Ashford hospital's accident and emergency department and ITU. Of course, a Member of Parliament has a responsibility to represent his constituents' interests and concerns and respond actively to the proposed reorganisation of health services. I therefore congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his interest in a subject that touches the lives of so many people in all walks of life. I congratulate him also on his detailed submission on the proposed changes, and note his continued interest since the decision to modernise health services at Ashford and St. Peter's hospitals was approved.
However, having heard the hon. Gentleman today and after reading the local press account of what he said, I say only that he has simply been scaremongering. He is also in danger of doing great disservice to the NHS locally if he continues his present attack on the effect of the changes to acute services in Ashford and St. Peter's hospitals NHS trust.
This is not the first time that Opposition Members have damaged the NHS. I remind hon. Members of the position that we were in when we took office in May 1997. Record waiting lists were rising faster than ever. More importantly, and of particular relevance to the health economy in that area, the debts run up by the NHS in the year before we took over amounted to £450 million. The NHS in west Surrey alone overspent by some £18 million. The number of nurses in training had been cut and investment in buildings was at its lowest for 10 years. I will not go on.
The basis for the proposed changes to services in west Surrey—which I suspect the hon. Gentleman knows—was expert clinical advice and sound financial judgment that questioned the existing configuration.
I need to explain briefly the background to the acute services review because the hon. Gentleman seems to have conveniently forgotten to mention the main drivers of those changes—or, if he did mention them, he merely cast aspersions on the soundness of the judgments. Current and future medical developments require complex, modern and comprehensive models of health care. The modern health service is responding to demands from doctors and other health professions for skills requiring greater specialism. There is a need to deliver well-equipped hospitals with appropriate numbers of staff. Our aim is to provide the best clinical service for all the people, including the hon. Gentleman's constituents. The changes to services to Ashford and St. Peter's hospitals were therefore about the supply of doctors and their training needs and working practices. They are of the essence in the delivering of high-quality health care.
It has again been suggested that the main driver of the changes was the need for financial cuts. That was not so, although I understand the hon. Gentleman taking that line with his constituents, given the financial mess that we inherited in the NHS. The suggestion is without foundation. Money was one factor in the decision but it was not a driver. Even with the extra investment over and above that provided by the previous Government, with an allocation of more than £400 million—a cash
42WH
increase of £30.2 million or 8.3 per cent—changes would still have been necessary because there was a genuine threat to the accreditation of junior doctor training posts in Ashford hospital. It had already lost accreditation for the training of junior doctors in some specialties and there was a genuine risk to others. In addition, the trust was unable to meet the requirements of the new deal for junior doctors. Without proactive measures to ensure that services were reconfigured appropriately, the position could have been critical, with unplanned changes to services having to be made. We propose a proper, planned reconfiguration which continues to meet the needs of the local population.
Mr. Philip Hammond: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
Ms Stuart: I will not give way, for two reasons. First, time is limited and, secondly, it is important to put a number of issues on record. I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber. However, I understand that he did not respond formally to the consultation process. I will take this time to put a number of simple facts on record, for the simple reason that we have heard in this Chamber such terms as "nonsense", "claptrap", "propaganda" and "the politics of the gutter." I would like to put some facts on the record because such language does not help anyone.
The consultation process was set in place in 1998 with the public discussion document "Setting the Scene". Over three months we sought the views of the public, health professionals and others. The document set out clearly the reasons for change and the opportunities that it would provide for improving services locally. The health authority took account of the representations and commenced formal consultation with the launch of the document "Modernising Local Health Services" in June 1999. Consultation was undertaken at 47 public meetings and the health authority also worked closely with Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow health authority throughout the planning and consultation process. Some 70,000 leaflets were distributed and there were a number of briefings and meetings with borough councils, local MPs and other key stakeholders. That is consultation, not propaganda.
Mr. Hammond: The community health council objected to those proposals and many people are cynical about the attention the Government pay to them. How many times have the Government upheld CHC objections to reconfiguration plans instead of riding roughshod over them?
Ms Stuart: If the hon. Gentleman listens to the end of my speech, he will find that some changes were made as a result of that representation. The real issues here are not the assertions that have been made but how people will be affected by the changes at Ashford and St Peter's. The reasons for change were clear. At the end of the consultation, the community health council objected formally and that is why it came to Ministers. There was no doubt about the strength of local feeling. I met a large number of the stakeholders. We ended up with a configuration that we believe will serve the community well.

43WH
Let us examine what will happen to patients requiring urgent treatment for an emergency or an accident. Ashford will continue to have a consultant-led emergency service. Most medical emergencies will continue to be treated at Ashford hospital. The reference to the Advertising Standards Authority and the terminology was pure sophistry. It was asserted that the model has not been tested, but there is a similar model in Solihull at the Birmingham Heartlands hospital. I know that that works.
Ashford hospital will continue to deal with well over 80 per cent. of those patients who currently visit the A and E department. Those requiring admission will be admitted through the medical assessment and admissions unit on the Ashford site, which will be open 24 hours a day. Ambulances will also be able to get to the medical admissions unit and patients will be assessed and admitted promptly without going through A and E, which is an improvement. Ashford hospital will continue to receive non-trauma patients. That small number of patients who have suffered major trauma will be seen at St Peter's or other hospitals such as West Middlesex. In recognition of the extra travelling time involved, there will be additional investment in local ambulance services, with crews having additional training for pre-hospital trauma.
I turn now to the provision of intensive care. Six coronary care and high-dependency beds at Ashford hospital will provide critical care. There will also be the capability of ventilating patients on a life support machine for up to 36 hours. Patients would be stabilised if transfer were necessary. Arrangements are in place so that out-of-area transfers will no longer be needed. We listened to representations and agreed that there was insufficient critical care and that there should be two additional ITU beds at St Peter's hospital. Critical care facilities will be developed at Ashford as an integrated service. I refer the hon. Member for Spelthorne to the
44WH
Audit Commission report, which made important observations, not just about the number of critical care beds, but how they are used.
Mr. Wilshire: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Stuart: No, I will not.
The transfer of trauma and surgical emergencies to St Peter's or other hospitals will not only prevent the cancellation of operations but will allow far more planned services at both hospital sites. Furthermore, the improvements to the admission systems in both hospitals will mean that patients will receive a much more predictable and reliable service. It is about choice and greater certainty. We must also look at who is attending A and E departments. Some of the improvements in community services are to ensure that people do not have to go to A and E any more.
It is disingenuous to describe the changes as a loss of service. They take account of the appropriate response to emergencies. When I announced the decision I stated that transport services would be improved too. That will happen. The hon. Gentleman was wrong when he said that these changes are all about money. He was wrong when he said that Ashford hospital was under threat. He was wrong when he said that Ashford hospital would not be able to deal with emergency cases. He was wrong when he said that patients would have to wait longer for treatment and he was wrong when he said that local hospitals would not be able to cope in an emergency.
The changes are intended to ensure that patients are treated in modern, safe and appropriate surroundings. The hon. Gentleman should stop scaremongering. He is demoralising the staff and causing his constituents unnecessary anxiety. He should get behind the local NHS. He should support the reorganisation and be convinced that this will be a better and more responsive service that is more reliable and clinically effective.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at One o'clock