Westminster Hall Sitting of 14 November 2000

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Great Lakes
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
10 am
Mr. David Lammy.: It is an honour to introduce my first debate in Westminster Hall, which is on the prevention of genocide in the Great Lakes region. That issue is not only vital in the context of international development, but of great significance to my constituents, both black and white. The fact that between 800,000 and 1 million people were killed in 100 days purely because of their ethnicity should challenge anyone's conscience, but hon. Members will appreciate that I represent Britain's most multi-ethnic constituency, in which communities from all over the world live and work side by side. How could any Tottenham person remain unaffected by the genocide that took place in Africa in 1994 and the conflict before and since?
I recognise the great strength of diversity in our community, but I also know how fragile such diversity has made communities throughout the world. We must learn the lessons offered by the Great Lakes region. This Adjournment debate was requested as a result of a fact-finding visit to the region that I made with my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne). We made that journey under the auspices of the all-party parliamentary group on Rwanda—Prevention of Genocide. The visit was sponsored and facilitated by Christian Aid. I give particular thanks to Ben Crampton, the co-ordinator of the all-party group, and Richard Burge, the regional co-ordinator of Christian Aid. My hon. Friends and I saw many projects on which Christian Aid's dedicated staff were doing incredible work in difficult circumstances. The visit was a chance for us to gain an understanding of the concerns and aspirations of people living in the region. We returned with a report, published last Wednesday, that makes sensible suggestions for improving policies in the region.
The strong view among the people whom we met was that conflicts in the region—the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and the current civil wars in Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo—should not be viewed as separate; they are inextricably linked. The deaths of the presidents of Burundi and Rwanda were hugely destabilising for the region. They preceded genocide in Rwanda and increased violence in Burundi. The Rwandan genocide justified the tight rein on power held by the Tutsi ethnic group, which returned to power after a coup in 1996. The perpetrators of genocide in Rwanda crossed the border into the DRC from where they continue to mount attacks into Rwanda. They have become involved in fighting a civil war in the Congo. We cannot regard war in one of these countries as an internal matter. It is not possible to address conflicts in one country without looking at the causes and implications of conflict in neighbouring countries.
142WH
We should also apply a regional interpretation to our aid policies in the region. People living in Burundi find it hard to understand why the British Government are prepared to give so much aid to Rwanda compared with the resources that they have granted to Burundi and the DRC. In 1998–99, UK gross expenditure on aid in Rwanda was £13.7 million. The DRC received about £1.5 million and Burundi just over £300,000. During the visit I was proud of the British Government's role in rebuilding Rwanda post genocide. Of course one would not want to lend too much ear to squabbling over humanitarian assistance, but it was difficult to explain why our assistance should be so great in one country compared with the others. Clearly, we in Britain cannot do everything, but we must encourage our European partners to play a full role in the other countries in the region.
If we cannot achieve parity of aid and funding across the region, I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development to continue to press our international partners in Europe to do more. It is particularly distressing that the French Government are currently blocking international attempts to offer Rwanda debt relief. British policy in the region needs to be co-ordinated with other Governments in the European Union. Although the EU is often criticised for putting more aid into eastern Europe than Africa, it is by far the most important donor to development work in central Africa and its aid to sub-Saharan Africa has continued to increase as the volume of world aid to the region has significantly decreased.
A co-ordinated approach to aid between European Governments is vital to development in Africa and so too is fast tracking of that aid. All too often we heard tales of financial assistance offered in one month that would turn up 18 to 36 months later. I hesitate to parody Opposition Members, but this is the worst example of European bureaucracy.
Our visit to the region was also a personal odyssey for me. My forebears come from Africa and I was preceded in the Tottenham constituency by Mr. Bernie Grant, who was clearly one of the greatest Africanists in the House. That makes the subject personal and important for me, but all British people can be proud of their commitment to the African continent.
The trauma in Rwanda defies imagination, which brings me to another of the report's recommendations. I struggle to describe the work of a group called AVEGA—the Association of Widows of the Genocide. Esther Mujawayo, one of the founders, provides a self-help group and an empowering philosophy for widows, which have dramatically changed the lives of the women and children involved. Not only does it provide physical and emotional space, but it is now able to fund co-operative financial projects for women to secure their livelihoods. Its work cannot be underestimated because women have traditionally been considered second class and were the easiest targets of the war. They lost husbands, were sexually exploited and returned to their villages marginalised and alone.
AVEGA believes that dialogue is important for mental health. Images of horror remain bottled up inside these women until they are able to speak about their experiences. AVEGA has managed to document cases of more than 1,000 women and girls as young as

143WH
seven and as old as 70 who were raped during the genocide. If it can be believed, in the national trials only two people have been charged with sexual violence. Among the women who experienced rape, an estimated 66 per cent. are HIV positive. About 80 per cent. are clearly traumatised and 32 per cent. have become physically handicapped and unable to cope with family life. About 80 per cent. have had no help whatever. Sadly, only two of AVEGA's staff are professionally qualified in counselling.
In areas subject to conflict, we must invest in people's minds and souls as well as in their basic needs. Psychological assistance is not a luxury but essential if we are to ensure that history does not repeat itself for the sake of the children who witnessed such horrors and ran timid when I approached them because of their experiences at the hands of male adults, and for the sake of the many hundreds of thousands of prisoners who still fester in local jails.
I am conscious that my hon. Friends want to participate in the debate, but I want to refer briefly to other countries in the region. In the DRC the Lusaka accords were signed in July 1999 by Rwanda, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia and the various rebel groups. The accords pledged the parties to call an immediate ceasefire and to implement demobilisation and disarmament. They agreed to accept the interposition of monitors, followed by a UN peacekeeping force. The peacekeeping force—MONUC—has been put in place, but it is too small to be effective. The promised ceasefire and demobilisation never happened and the current UN force on the ground is tiny, with only 90 military liaison officers scattered between Congo and the capitals of the countries involved.
In a country as huge and undeveloped as the DRC—as so many African countries are involved in conflict, there are no easy solutions—if nothing else, the Lusaka accords provide a framework for military withdrawal and recognise that the forces responsible for genocide in Rwanda—the Interhamwee and the FAR—are now influencing Congo's civil war. I urge that development and aid continue in the areas where it is safe and that the international community continues to put pressure on President Laurent Kabila to allow more human rights monitors into the country. Our priority must be to promote justice as well as peace.
After seven years of civil war in Burundi, the Arusha accords brokered by Nelson Mandela and signed during August and September this year provide a blueprint for Burundi's reversion to peace and democracy, fragile though that is. At present, details of the ceasefire and implementation of the transitional administration are unclear, but when the Arusha accords begin to work, Burundi will require developmental and humanitarian aid proportionate to the level of aid received by Rwanda. Although financial limitations are likely to ensure that the United Kingdom can never, on its own, be Burundi's main partner, I emphasise that the UK will have an important role in Burundi to ensure that assistance is forthcoming from our European partners.
Although many of my comments have been about aid, I preface those remarks with the assumption that unless education and the resolution of conflict through
144WH
peaceful means is a priority in Africa, African countries will never achieve parity with their international neighbours. None of us can take comfort in what is sometimes perceived as a paternalistic status quo and we must work to ensure that those countries can take a fully mature place in determining their histories.
I hope that Departments, especially in education, are taking steps to ensure that our children learn about the histories of the region. Too often, when we talk about genocide, we refer to the atrocities of the second world war, and it is right that we do so. However, two days after Remembrance day, it is vital that our children recognise that such atrocities continue—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The h Lady knows how strongly the hon. Gentleman feels about these matters.
Mr. Lammy: The atrocities continue; a black life is as a valid as a white life and it is important that our children learn what has taken place within the past 10 years.
10.19 am
Ms Tess Kingham: I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate. I apologise for the fact that, as I have explained to Opposition Members and my hon. Friend the Minister, I shall have to leave halfway through, for a Select Committee meeting. That is no reflection of the importance that the debate has for me.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) mentioned, our visit to the Great Lakes region in July and August was sponsored and facilitated by Christian Aid. It was my second visit to Rwanda and my first to Burundi, but it was probably my 13th or 14th visit to a country in conflict. This time more than any other I realised the importance of what my hon. Friend has explained about the interrelationship between conflicts in that region.
I was pleased by the British Government's relationship with the Government of Rwanda and the extent of the aid and support that we have given that country in the aftermath of the genocide, towards rebuilding and reconstructing society. However, I also experienced some forebodings and wondered whether all the effort would be in vain if nothing were done about the conflicts in Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo. I noted the close connection between those countries and societies, the similarity of the tensions in them and the deeply ingrained suspicion and hatred among some sections of society there.
I have been gratified in recent years by talk of post-conflict reconstruction and conflict prevention, in British Government Departments, the European Union, the United Nations and even the World bank. That focus on and prioritisation of world development and world relationships is right, but it distresses me that much of our foreign and international aid policy is still linked to the days of the British empire and colonial relationships. That is true of other countries besides

145WH
Britain, but often our relationships with respect to aid, and our support in international relations, focus more on countries with which we have a historic relationship. That is understandable, but it means that we miss opportunities for joined-up thinking and for regional approaches that could contribute to conflict prevention and post-conflict reconstruction.
I hope that the Government will pursue the recommendations in the report produced by the all-party group in an attempt to persuade the European Union and the United Nations to adopt a more joined-up and regional approach to the Great Lakes area. I have in mind in particular, after the Rwandan genocide, securing an adequate early warning system, co-ordinated by the United Nations, for the whole region rather than for individual countries. We should learn from the well-publicised mistakes made in relation to the Rwandan genocide that emerged from internal investigations carried out by the United Nations and countries such as France.
I should like the international community to contribute to the dissemination of the peace process into civil society in countries such as Burundi. We had excellent meetings with the United Nations special representative for the Great Lakes region and many other players in the peace process. It was obvious from speaking to them and speaking to members of civil society that resources had not been provided to ensure that society was engaged fully in the peace process. The process was not, in Burundi, making its way from top to bottom. The ingrained deep hatred and suspicion that we encountered in a meeting with a group of Tutsi whom I would describe as extremists, in a meeting facilitated by Christian Aid, knocked me for six. Any influence by such people on communities bodes badly for the peace process.
The involvement of Nelson Mandela in the peace process was very welcome and the United Nations provided considerable resources, but I was distressed to learn that little thought had been given by the UN and member countries to providing adequate funds for the demobilisation of combatants in Burundi and their reintegration into society. In my experience of working with aid agencies, I have been told repeatedly that if ex-combatants are not properly integrated back into society and given livelihoods and land, the cycle of violence can easily start again. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development, the Ministry of Defence and the new Africa conflict fund will now consider conflict in Africa together. I consider that new grouping to be an excellent example of joined-up government from this Government, and I hope that it will consider some of the issues in-depth and focus on Burundi and the Great Lakes region.
Another subject on which I want to focus is post-conflict psychological support for societies, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham. I have visited places such as Kosovo, El Salvador and Mozambique, and there increasingly seems to be a terrible lack of support for people who have suffered from conflict and its traumas. In Rwanda, mothers had to watch their whole families being wiped out. One of the workers that we met from AVEGA—my hon. Friend mentioned her—counsels widows of the genocide every day, yet she herself saw six of her
146WH
children and her husband being hacked to death. Day after day, she responds to the needs of other women in the same situation. If the issue is not tackled when we deal with post-conflict reconstruction, there will be a great gap. The cycle of violence is bound to start again if psychological support at a local level is not given in a strategic way. I do not want non-governmental organisations to go over to do one-off projects, but for there to be a proper, professional and strategic approach.
I shall give an example. We went to a village to meet a woman called Jeanne d'Arc, who was a member of AVEGA. She had to be helped from her house because she was so sedated. As they put it, she went mad every now and then, and had to be completely drugged. On that site, she saw a terrible thing: her husband and all but two of her children being hacked to death. The trauma has been so great that she cannot tend her land. She can rarely get out of bed in the morning and cannot care for her two surviving children, who are very young, in a society in which there is no social help. She is therefore reliant on other people to look after those children. They are deeply traumatised; their eyes appeared dead.
Jeanne d'Arc's case is representative of another 125,000 similar ones across Rwanda. If nothing is done to support those children in a strategic way, I believe that they will go out for revenge, or they will become deeply desensitised. The country's future looks grim if one takes them as representative of thousands in Rwanda's young generation.
Sadly, AVEGA works pretty much in isolation. It deals with 125,000 women, helping them with micro-finance, housing support and counselling, but has few resources. In none of the United Nations programmes for support in post-conflict countries is psychological support seen as so much of a priority as providing water, housing and long-term livelihoods. That message has been endorsed by SURF, the United Kingdom survivors fund for the victims of the Rwandan genocide. It says that the support is simply not there, and that it must be a priority if we truly believe in post-conflict reconstruction.
We were also given the example of a woman—again, the case can be multiplied thousands of times in Rwanda—who was mass-raped during the conflict. Many members of her extended family were murdered, including some of her children. As a result of the mass rape, she contracted HIV. On the day that we arrived at the project, two of her children had turned up at the AVEGA headquarters in a taxi. She had saved enough money for them to make that journey, and also to buy a coffin, because she died that day of AIDS. She told her children that, because of the genocide, they no longer had either their mother's or father's family, and that AVEGA would have to support them. Such cases occur repeatedly across the country. Not only physical support, in terms of livelihoods and material, but psychological support must be provided for the children.
The most pertinent comment made to me during the visit was at a meeting of civil society leaders hosted by Christian Aid, when a very experienced senior Minister told us that Rwanda had a broken heart and the international community must help to heal it. I would like psychological support to be considered by the

147WH
British Government and the international community in a strategic manner, as a fundamental part of post-conflict aid and support.
10.30 am
Ms Oona King: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) on securing this debate on British Government policy in the Great Lakes region.
Although the problems facing the region are indivisible, our Government's response to them is necessarily divided along departmental lines. One cannot divide poverty from conflict, but departmental responsibility for those problems is divided respectively between the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. While the former will concentrate on humanitarian aid and development assistance and the latter will take charge of areas such as the national strategic interest, arms control and the military, it is clear when examining the situation in the Great Lakes region that all those issues are tangled up in a melting pot. For example, in 1994, when the international community eventually became involved in the disaster, it concentrated on the refugee camps. One might say that they would be the responsibility of DFID, but at the time DFID did not yet exist—the present Government were not in power. Unfortunately, the efforts of the international community did nothing whatsoever to help. The refugee camps were awash with guns and controlled by the militias, many of which had been responsible for the genocide. I would like to use that as an illustration of why the Government's approach to the area must be cross-departmental.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) in welcoming the new conflict fund that the Government have introduced. However, I would also like to touch on the issue of small arms and their devastating impact on the region. There have been calls to introduce tougher arms legislation—which I support wholeheartedly—to control the activities of arms brokers, for example. One needs a licence to get married, but not to broker arms. If it can be arranged for weapons to be transported without touching British soil, then that is all right, and that is exactly what the British company Mil-Tec did during the Rwandan genocide, by flying Albanian and Israeli guns into the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo, which is just across the border with Rwanda. Will the Minister tell us what the Government's proposals are to bring brokers' dealings more under control? Are we considering a system for monitoring the end use of UK arms exports? Amnesty International and Oxfam have argued—very reasonably in my opinion—that if we can track British beef every step of the way, from producer to consumer, we should be able to track British arms.
In 1998, the Government said that they would tighten United Kingdom arms controls and they deserve credit for that. I believe that such an intention was firm and it would be the first such change to the law since the second world war. Will my hon. Friend the Minister say whether such a policy change will be made in the near future?
148WH
I refer now to the recommendations of my colleagues who visited the Great Lakes region. I was sorry not to be able to go with them. In fact, I have not yet stopped sulking about it. However, I am delighted that, after my first trip to the region that I made with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), the issues contained in the Select Committee's report on conflict have been followed up in the work undertaken by the all-party group on Rwanda, the Great Lakes region and the prevention of genocide. One of the most important aspects that we must focus on is the regional aspect of the conflict.
I hope that Europe will soon be able to have a common policy on the Great Lakes region that will lead to a regional stability pact. The Department for International Development's regional strategy paper should—in theory, at least—complement the policy-making processes of the EU and its member states. I hope also that the Government will support the holding of an international conference on the Great Lakes region after the signing of the Arusha peace accord, which has now happened, and the implementation of MONUC II, which is still awaited. At present, there is a reality gap in Europe and in some of its capitals there seems to be a blanket denial first, of the responsibility that Europe has to the region and secondly, of the lack of action being taken now that could engender a similar situation to that which was witnessed in 1994.
I support an EU embargo on the import of diamonds. The Minister has been particularly active on the issue of conflict diamonds and, given that the DRC is the third largest exporter of diamonds in the world, that is of great importance. I am glad that diamonds get into the news when there is a James Bond attempt on the dome, but I would be more pleased if they were in the news because of the suffering that they have caused and because of their impact on the conflict. My hon. Friend the Minister has done more than almost anyone else to highlight that and I hope that the position in the DRC will improve. The position of those in the diamond mines would improve if there were more transparency in the methods that are used to extract the diamonds and get them on to our high streets. Perhaps it would be more accurate for me to refer to the international diamond dealers' warehouses—although that might be an exaggeration, as I cannot imagine warehouses full of diamonds. One of the saddest things is that, because diamonds are so small, and warehouses are not necessary, they can be easily smuggled.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has responsibilities in the FCO, not DFID, but, as I said earlier, it is impossible to draw a line dividing aid and Foreign Office policy in the region. Two years ago, when I was in Burundi, I visited a humanitarian centre where food was given to underweight babies. The babies were measured, and once they had reached a certain level of malnourishment, they were brought into the feeding centre. At the same time, DFID had taken the decision—which I understand, but do not necessarily agree with—to give humanitarian but not development assistance to the region because of a regional embargo on Burundi and the imposition of what some people would describe as a military dictator. The FCO perspective was also involved in making that judgment.

149WH
For whatever reason, we were giving only humanitarian aid. When a baby was brought to the centre to be given aid, a nurse remarked how ridiculous the circumstances were, as the same baby had been treated three months previously. As we had withdrawn what was considered to be a long-term development assistance programme to bring clean water to his village—dropping wells—it was inevitable that that baby would get sick again and be returned to the centre. When a baby has lost enough weight, the Government are able to provide assistance, but until that time, we cannot. In other words, we cannot consider long-term assistance. Consequently, the baby's father felt that, as he had no way of safeguarding his children's health or his family's future, it might be best to take up arms.
Hon. Members might not think that such an anecdote is relevant, but I believe it to be fundamental. Until we can see a continuum, with humanitarian assistance at one point, development assistance at another and peacekeeping operations at the extremity, we cannot have the type of joined-up government that is envisaged in the conflict fund, for example, in enough areas of Government policy. Our humanitarian aid should be both preventive and reactive. That means more strategic and long-term thinking in granting humanitarian aid in the region.
United Kingdom military advisers should assist moves to reform military structures in the region. That has been successful in Mozambique and could be equally important in the Great Lakes region.
I reiterate my thanks to Christian Aid, and to Richard Burge for facilitating our visit. I also thank Ben Crampton, co-ordinator of the all-party group. I welcome Anya Bensberg and wish her well, because the all-party group is exceptionally important in raising issues of relevance to British Government policy in the Great Lakes region.
10.44 am
Mr. Desmond Browne: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) on securing this important debate, and I commend him on his contribution to it. He carefully and accurately reported our experiences during our visit to the region, and in doing so and in initiating the debate he has done the House a great service.
In my 30 months as a Member of Parliament I have twice had the opportunity to visit areas of conflict abroad, and on each occasion I have had the honour and privilege to meet people of extraordinary dignity and courage. In Rwanda and Burundi the people who fitted that description are too numerous to mention. However, one particular meeting stands out, and the impression that it left will remain with me for ever.
At Cyangugu in Rwanda, on a beautiful hillside overlooking Lake Kivu, one of Africa's great lakes, we met several civil society activists from the Democratic Republic of Congo, a country that is in the grip of bloody confrontations between Government troops and disparate rebel forces, which are backed variously by the Governments of Rwanda, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia and Burundi. Life for the 50 million innocent Congolese caught in the eye of the storm of that conflict is desperate. Without sustainable peace, the disastrous
150WH
humanitarian circumstances will deteriorate further. Some 14 months ago in Lusaka the protagonists, including all but one of the foreign Governments involved, signed a series of peace accords. However, the war still rolls on, and the civilian population, especially in the eastern DRC, continues to pay a heavy price for it.
In June, shortly before we arrived in Africa, Ugandan and Rwandan soldiers, who are nominally allies, fought a full-scale battle in Kisangani, where over six days a comparatively minor local disagreement between commanders escalated to the point at which opposing troops exchanged artillery fire and fought hand to hand in the streets and houses of their host city. Entire neighbourhoods were destroyed and reduced to rubble, and when the smoke cleared more than 600 civilians and about 300 soldiers lay dead.
In implementing the Lusaka peace accords, the United Nations mission to Congo, MONUC, should by now have 5,500 soldiers deployed throughout the Congo to monitor the ceasefire. Instead it has just 250, and even that token force may soon be withdrawn.
At the end of this month, the UN will have to decide whether to send the promised 5,500 troops to the region. It seems highly unlikely that it will do so. If it pulls out completely, it will kill all chances of peace in that part of Africa.
It was from that environment that several civil society activists travelled to Rwanda to meet us. They had come from Bukavu, the main Congolese border town on the southern shore of the lake. Bukavu is under the control of Rwandan-backed rebels from the Rassemblement Congolais pour la Democratie, but is in effect run by the Rwandan Patriotic Army.
One of those activists, a human rights worker, produces a regular newsletter detailing alleged human rights abuses by the RCD and the RPA. He is never short of copy, but he has few friends or allies among the powers that be in Rwanda or Burundi. To meet us, that brave man travelled across the Rwandan border, carrying on his person a letter from the RCD authorities that specifically forbade him to leave the Congolese province of South Kivu. To him it was more important that three British Back Bench Members of Parliament should hear first hand how his people are suffering than that he preserve his relations, fragmented though they are, with the authorities. That man risked his liberty and, perhaps, his life to meet us. It was a humbling experience, and I am grateful for the opportunity to pay tribute to him and to the many thousands of other human rights workers throughout Africa who do such work.
From Cyangugu we travelled overland to Bujumbura, the capital of Burundi, arriving there on 29 July. It was an important time to arrive in the city, because it was between the two deadlines set for the Arusha peace agreement. Nelson Mandela, who took over the facilitation of that agreement, had originally set 20 July as the date for signature. When that date came and went he enforced a later deadline of 28 August, with some degree of success. We entered a city that was in the grip of tension; when we met President Buyoya, he described the feelings of the city and the country as being between hope and fear. The fear in the streets was palpable. There was a fear of escalating violence and constant rumours of violence circulated in Bujumbura

151WH
and other parts of the country. People did not know in which direction the country was going, whether towards peace or into a deep and damaging conflict. For security reasons, we were restricted to Bujumbura, but many people came to meet us there to explain what was happening in their country.
Among ordinary people, there was overwhelming ignorance and some cynicism about the peace process. They felt disenfranchised by the peace process, to a degree, both because it was happening far away and because some of those taking part in the negotiations were felt not to represent anyone in the country. Despite that, some people were actively involved in building links and making peace at a local level. The best example of that approach that we found came in the quartier of Nyakabiga, which is a part of Bujumbura. On our second day, we visited that quartier, having visited other quartiers in the city, and were struck immediately by its cleanliness and orderliness. We were the guests of the chef de zone, Hazikimana Emmanuel, who sported one of the most glorious technicolour jackets that I have ever seen. He was a former Tutsi police officer and had been appointed to the quartier by the mayor.
In 1993, the Hutu population, that represented about 45 per cent. of the population of the quartier, fled Nyakabiga because of attacks by Tutsi extremists, in which some 250 homes were destroyed. After becoming the chef de zone, Emmanuel had striven to rebuild shattered communities. He started on a small scale, running sporting and cultural activities among the community. As his work expanded, he developed co-operation and partnership with local and international non-governmental organisations, arranging for houses to be rebuilt so that returnees could settle back in the area. At great danger to himself, he toured the country and visited refugee camps in Congo to find former residents and persuade them that their homeland was at peace again and a safe place to return to—and they did return. Many British politicians would welcome the adulation and respect that that man enjoyed as he moved around his community; clearly, he was a people's politician.
Hazikimana Emmanuel was a truly remarkable man but, in our experience, he was not unusual in seeking peace. His efforts, however, will be in vain—as will all those other local peace initiatives that we witnessed—if no political deal is struck.
Following Mwalimu Nyere's death, Nelson Mandela took up the facilitation of the Burundi peace talks, and pushed for a settlement. His focused contribution to those talks cannot be underestimated, although many in Burundi thought—and still think—that he went too fast. We heard that opinion from President Buyoya, among others. The deal has now been made, as promised, and signed by all 90 political parties at the negotiations. Unfortunately, however, no immediate peace has ensued, but that does not surprise those of us who practise politics in this country. The deal was part of a peace process, and such processes take time, as we have seen in Northern Ireland.
The major sticking point in the advancement of peace in Burundi is clearly the need for a ceasefire. Some groups that were unrepresented at the Arusha talks stayed at a distance from them until signature; thankfully, those groups are now in discussion with the
152WH
Government of South Africa. The Burundian Minister responsible for the peace process has appealed for international pressure on those opposition groups to agree to the ceasefire and to be bound by the Arusha deal.
I want to draw the Minister's attention to a number of issues and questions prompted by my experience on that visit. Will the Minister tell the House what pressure the British Government can bring to bear on the rebel groups that have not yet signed the ceasefire to enable them to do so and what help can they give to the African initiative to achieve a ceasefire? The lack of a ceasefire continues to cost lives and money, which was made clear by the new refugee movement into Tanzania and will require action by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. What can the Government do to help Burundi when a ceasefire has been achieved? Nelson Mandela, among others, is convinced that there will be a ceasefire and there are some green shoots to suggest that it may be achieved in the near future.
Many people in Burundi and elsewhere in that part of Africa believe that poverty is at the root of the conflict. It was clear to those of us who visited the region that there was much truth in that and that there would be no lasting peace in the area unless the problem of poverty was addressed. I commend the Government's work in Rwanda to build on economic stability to lay a platform for peace. It is not the Minister's responsibility, but will he assure us that he and his colleagues in the Department for International Development are co-operating on plans for the donors' conference on 11 December, the purpose of which is to build upon the peace deal in Burundi and to provide the sort of economic development and financial structure that that country needs to cement peace?
I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the setting up of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa—COMESA—was good news for the region, because economic development is at the heart of those countries' development. Burundi and Rwanda are not members, but economic development in that part of Africa is good news for them also. What support can this country provide with know-how and trade liberalisation to ensure that COMESA is a success?
Burundi and Rwanda are involved in the war in the Congo, but President Buyoya of Burundi told us that his only interest in the conflict was to fight a war that would otherwise have been fought on his territory and that he had no other interest in the country. What representations have the British Government made to the Governments of Burundi and Rwanda to encourage them to limit their involvement to just that and to abide by the terms of the Lusaka accords for the Congo? Does the Minister believe that Burundi should be a party to that agreement in contrast to President Buyoya's belief?
As if to demonstrate that the regional dimension, which is the principal recommendation of our report, is not just rhetoric, human rights organisations and those who work on the ground in Rwanda, Burundi and Congo, have banded together to form a regional group—the Ligue de droits de la personne de la region des Grands Lacs. Will the Minister join me in supporting that group?
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) made it clear that there will be no hope for peace in the region unless ordinary people take

153WH
ownership of it. They need information otherwise rumours fly and lead to conflict. Radio is the most widely received medium, so the BBC World Service has an important role, which the Government in Burundi and elsewhere recognise, in promoting peace, as do others such as Studio Ijambo, a production company that was set up by Search for Common Ground and works under difficult circumstances. I am confident that my hon. Friend the Minister will join me in praising the BBC and all other radio stations that promote peace, but will he assure the House that the BBC's Kirundi service will be maintained while there is a need to promote peace in the region? Will he also join me in congratulating Studio Ijambo on being named a grand citizen of peace by the Burundi Government?
Finally, does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that a lasting peace can be achieved only through the marriage of grassroots peacemaking efforts such as those in Nyakabiga, national peace deals such as Arusha and a regional approach to conflict such as that mooted by the conference on the Great Lakes, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) referred? What steps is his Department taking to promote such initiatives?
11 am
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Thank you, Mr. Maxton. To save time, I shall, with your indulgence, cut out the niceties and plunge straight into my comments on the report.
I am the vice-chairman of the all-party group on Rwanda and, as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) said, I have visited the country. Today, the debate has consisted of listening to the experiences of the people who went out there in July, which is important and interesting.
One or two matters arise from the recommendations in the report. First, on psychological aid, I have worked in a British counselling and psychotherapy centre and I know that such aid is enormously expensive. In some cases, it takes years to have any effect on even the relatively mild cases that we have in Britain. In psychotherapeutic terms, I dread to think how long it would take to right some of the wrongs in Rwanda, which is my only reservation about the call for psychological aid. Unless such aid is set against a background of stability, security and prosperity in Rwanda, it will prove to be a waste of money. Before those people can come to terms with what has happened to them, they must have a better place in which to live. That is a rather depressing view, but it is how I feel.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow highlighted the distinction that we make in this country between humanitarian and development aid. I, too, am worried about that. In southern Sudan, the Department for International Development is keen not to dispense development aid because a war is raging and that view is equally applicable to the Great Lakes region. A great deal of humanitarian aid is wasted unless it is backed up by development aid. Minor items such as fishing tackle and farm implements are considered to be development aid, but they should be dispensed with humanitarian aid because they are so useful.
154WH
Education is cheap to dispense as development aid. As I saw in southern Sudan, we need only to supply slates, chalks and a teacher, and to find a tree to provide shelter from the sun. We must emphasise development regardless of the war.
No one has mentioned the appalling judicial situation that we saw in Rwanda during our visit two years ago. We heard many stories there that I could discuss for hours. The prisons were visions of hell—we had never seen anything like it. There were bare racks full of men who had been incarcerated for years, while the yard outside was equally crowded. For a change, the crowds in the yard sometimes swapped places with those in the racks, which were situated in what looked like old aircraft hangars. There were insufficient judges and resources, so there was no prospect of any case being brought to court. I had hoped to hear about the progress that had been made on that front.
Ms Oona King: Does the hon. Lady agree that the Rwandan Government should be supported in their efforts to introduce the Gacaca system, which is a more traditional system of justice, given the crises that we witnessed?
Dr. Tonge: I agree that we should examine that. The Minister cannot hope to answer all of our questions, so a paper that deals with all the issues—in the form of a letter to those participating in the debate—would be useful.
I shall emphasise some of the points raised by the chairman of the all-party group, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow. If we are to achieve any form of peace in the Great Lakes region, we must look at the root causes of the conflicts, and diamonds are certainly one such cause. According to The Observer, diamonds are financing half of Africa's wars, but that is a modest estimate.
Sudan, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Burundi and Uganda have their fingers in the pie. We welcome the Pretoria agreement, but can we be certain that the system will be independently monitored? What pressure is being put on trading centres in Antwerp and Tel Aviv to ensure that they abide by the agreement and report uncertified diamonds? I fear that, unless African Governments have full control over their diamond areas, the system will prove ineffective. It would be interesting to study a progress report.
The illegal global trade in diamonds is worth £5 billion to £7 billion, which buys a great many AK-47s or kalashnikovs, and I want now to discuss my favourite topic of anus embargoes, to which the Minister would expect me to refer. Arms embargoes operate in countries throughout the region, but why are they not more effective? We need not discuss again the details of Mil-Tec and other such examples, but when will legislation on arms brokers, about whom I am particularly concerned, be implemented? Huge sums of money are spent on tracking drugs and infected beef. I guarantee that, were we to spend as much money on tracking arms brokers as we spend on tracking drugs, more lives—hundreds of thousands of lives—would be saved throughout the world. Please let us get on with it.

155WH
Finally, as the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) said, the United Nations peacekeeping force in the Democratic Republic of Congo is isolated. When will the UN sort out that problem? Does it intend to establish a proper peacekeeping force?
Mr. Lammy: Before the hon. Lady concludes, I want to return her to the subject of psycho-social assistance. I am surprised that she does not take a holistic view of human experience. Psycho-social support should involve not merely psychological or psychotherapeutic support in the classic, western sense. We need also to spotlight this issue by recognising that a given community contains many stakeholders, such as priests, social workers and carers, who can provide support. We are talking about general support in the form of counselling, as well as psychiatric support. That is the holistic approach, and I am surprised that the hon. Lady feels unable to support it.
Dr. Tonge: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but we cannot debate that issue now because we are running out of time, although I shall discuss it at length in due course. Suffice it to say that we saw some crass attempts at psychotherapy and counselling during our visit to Rwanda. I should hate those attempts to be repeated in the mistaken belief that they will do some good, because they will not.
It is important that the UN decides whether it is going to keep the peace, or get involved in events in the Great Lakes region. This huge area of conflict needs to be taken seriously. If we are not careful, it is likely to spread throughout Africa.
11.09 am
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: May I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) on initiating this debate? That was his maiden speech in this Chamber and I hope that it is the first of many. He brings great interest and passion to a subject that has been spoken about passionately by hon. Members in Westminster Hall.
I agree with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) that it is difficult to do justice to the subject of the debate in a mere hour and a half. Indeed, the complexity of the situation in the Great Lakes region has been well evidenced in previous speeches and in the moving accounts of the most recent visit of the all-party parliamentary group on Rwanda and the prevention of genocide, so ably led by the chairman, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), to whom I pay a personal tribute: she has been driving forward the agenda of the group with great alacrity, for which she is to be admired. I am sorry that I could not join the visit to that part of the world.
The complex tribal and ethnicity issues are reflected in the violence, genocide and disturbance in the most densely populated region of Africa and hon. Members ably described the war and its consequences. We heard, too, about HIV and AIDS and of the large percentage of the population that is infected. How distressing it is to learn of women who survived the conflict and escaped with their families only to face a slow and protracted
156WH
death from a disease contracted perhaps through rape and the ravages of war. No one could fail to be moved by such stories.
We did not hear about the outbreak of malaria in Burundi. I hope that the Minister will say what help the Government are giving to the area, as the disease is a spreading scourge, which often follows conflict and natural disaster.
We heard about human rights, but there is a vast amount of intimidation and wrongful imprisonment in Burundi, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where there are political prisoners. What does the Minister have in mind on the monitoring of human rights in the region? The arrival of Amnesty International in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was much vaunted when the Government came to power. Amnesty's involvement is welcomed by all hon. Members, who read its reports, take its advice and try to take action. What advice has Amnesty International given the Minister on the region and how does he intend to act on that advice?
We heard about the tribunal and the poor system of justice in the area. The Rwanda tribunal is an extremely expensive process. Millions of pounds go into the justice system, which is bringing only a small number of criminals to book. Does the Minister think that the arrangements for the Rwanda tribunal are effective? Does he have any suggestions or alternatives? Much of the money spent could be redirected—tens of thousands of people in Rwanda are still awaiting trial for horrific crimes. I am not sure that I have the answer, but I want to know what the Government intend to do about it. The latest news from the tribunal is that one of the lawyers, David Danielson, has backed down from defending his client, the former founder of the extremist radio Television Libre des Mille Collines because he has taken instruction from his client not to go forward. Once again, the tribunal cannot even get the lawyers to participate in the legal process. I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that development.
We have heard about health problems and genocide, and the problem of displaced persons continues. According to the latest reports on 7 November, 27,000 people have been displaced by fighting in Shabunda, near Bukabu in the DRC. Those people have descended on the town of Kalima, where they remain without humanitarian assistance. That report came from the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in Kinshasa. The frightening aspect of that recent development is that only religious workers operate in the area, which continues to act as a battleground. Will the Minister tell us the latest information about the displaced people? What is being done to deliver aid to the area? What is the latest update on the situation?
The hon. Member for Richmond Park mentioned the control of arms. What is the Government's policy in that regard? Many of the small arms coming into the area are from the Ukraine and Bulgaria. Have our Government made any representations to those Governments with whom they have dialogue? What is the Minister's assessment of the success of his anti-blood diamond policy? It is one thing to discuss the size of the market, but by how much has it been reduced since the initiatives following the Sierra Leone debacle? Little evidence exists to show that the flow has stopped, including in

157WH
Sierra Leone. I have long called for European Union aid to Zimbabwe to be closely investigated and, indeed, stopped while Zimbabwe continues to give aid to that war region, helping to provide weapons, militia and men to cause mayhem and disaster.
Much of the criticism from the speakers in today's debate has come from Labour Members. In many ways, that is far more powerful than any criticism that I could lay at the Government's door. One of the great issues to emerge is the co-ordination between the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Minister must start to face the fact that co-ordination between the two Departments has, to say the least, been poor. In March, the Minister, in response to a written question, stated:
Britain is playing an active and constructive role in international efforts to resolve the crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Our aim now is to: help all the parties, including Rwanda and Uganda…We are also providing practical support: British officers are deployed in the region.—[Official Report, 1 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 275W.]
The region is therefore considered important enough for the United Kingdom to deploy British officers there. However, as recently as 9 November, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), who has visited the Great Lakes region and asked about DFID's policy on it, was greeted with the immortal reply,
We have decided to undertake some analysis in the Department to deepen our understanding of the regional context. It would be an exaggeration to call this a regional policy.—[Official Report, 9 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 372W]
I am sure that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun is too much of a gentleman to question that reply. Given that the Foreign Office has been deploying British officers in the region, it is depressing that, on 9 November, another Department should decide to undertake some analysis. I hope that the Minister will enlighten us on what analysis will be undertaken by DFID, when it will begin and why it was not being conducted in the first place? After three years, we need an assurance that the UK's foreign policy will not fall foul of poor co-ordination between the Departments.
I am sure that the Minister will not be able to answer all of the questions off the top of this head. I therefore echo the hon. Member for Richmond Park in asking the Minister to prepare a written response, in conjunction with DFID, because the aid issues that have been raised are equally important. I trust that the Minister will accede to a reasonable request.
11.19 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Peter Hain): I welcome you to the Chair for the first time in this Chamber, Mr. Maxton, and I thank you for presiding over the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) on another first in securing it. He is well placed to talk about the issue, given his African ancestry, and I am pleased that he and other colleagues take such a close interest in Africa, particularly the Great Lakes region.
I shall give detailed replies to the detailed questions asked by hon. Members, including the enlightening ones asked by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), and I am sure that Ministers from the Department for International Development will do the same.
158WH
My hon. Friends' recent visit to Rwanda and Burundi with other members of the all-party parliamentary group on Rwanda and the prevention of genocide, which was facilitated by Christian Aid, resulted in the publication of this excellent report, which I commend to the House. In my time as a Foreign Minister, I do not recall reading such a perceptive analysis of the complex situation in the Great Lakes region. I hope that other parliamentary colleagues will take time to read the document about the many serious problems faced by countries in that region. Sadly, some of them have been long forgotten by many people in the outside world. I hope that the report and our debate will raise awareness in Parliament and encourage more people to take an interest in the region.
We fully support the recommendations in the all-party group's report and look forward to working closely with it, non-governmental organisations and the international community to ensure that they are fully implemented. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Tottenham and for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) and others that the neighbouring countries—the Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi—are crucial to resolving Rwanda's future. I also agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Tottenham and for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) about the need for an integrated foreign policy and development response to events in the Great Lakes region.
Notwithstanding the somewhat grudging comments by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, we are working closely with DFID. However, the time scale for implementation of our policy depends on the pace of the peace process in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow that I will raise her point with DFID. I will also mention the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester about psychological support for victims.
Access and security conditions on the ground, especially in the DRC and Burundi, will affect donors' plans to engage in post-conflict reconstruction in the Great Lakes region. Recent fighting in the Katanga province of the DRC highlights the difficulties that we face in trying to deliver urgently needed humanitarian assistance. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham and others, we recognise the importance of developing that policy with our European Union colleagues and the wider international community to support progress towards long-term peace and stability in the region. We work closely with France, the Netherlands, Belgium and the EU special envoy in formulating our policy. I have had several meetings with my European and United States counterparts to discuss the issues and take matters forward. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester that we will follow up the report with the EU.
The conflict in the DRC dominates the lives of many people not only in that country, but in surrounding nations. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost, towns and villages have been destroyed and widespread abuses of human rights have been perpetrated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) asked about the deployment of the MONUC II force of 5,500 United Nations peacekeepers. I am extremely worried that the UN may

159WH
decide to put it on hold, even though it has already been on hold for a year, because of the failure of parties to implement the Lusaka peace agreement. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) asked what we were doing. We continue to work hard to encourage the peace process in the DRC. Properly implemented by all parties, the Lusaka ceasefire agreement and the Kampala disengagement plan could bring an end to the war. We have already provided: six British military liaison officers to the UN observer force in the DRC;£160,000 to help get the joint military commission, which is responsible for supervising the ceasefire and military disengagement, up and running; and £25,000 towards the national dialogue process by providing an expert to work with the talks facilitator, the former president of Botswana, Sir Ketumile Masire.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appointed a special representative, Douglas Scrafton, to the Great Lakes region and he is present today. He has travelled extensively in the region to discuss progress in implementing the Lusaka and Arusha agreements. One of his tasks is to co-ordinate closely with his EU, US and Belgian counterparts and key African and western colleagues on options for moving forward both peace processes.
We are also committed to doing more to stop wars before they start—not only in Africa but throughout the world. A joint pool of funds was established between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence to support common objectives in global conflict prevention. That is real joined-up government. The fund comes into operation in Africa next year and we hope to use it to further peace in the Great Lakes region.
I want to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, and the hon. Members for Richmond Park and for Chesham and Amersham, who spoke about tougher arms controls. We are committed to introducing tougher legislation to deal with arms brokers and end use. The legislation is in draft form and we shall introduce it as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.
I note with interest the report's proposal for the introduction of an EU embargo on the importation of diamonds from the DRC—an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow and the hon. Member for Richmond Park. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her acknowledgement of the Government's role and my own. We have led the way and the results can be seen.
To answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, there is some intelligence that UNITA and the Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone are finding it much more difficult to secure arms
160WH
because of the difficulties of trading diamonds, but we have much further to go and we shall continue with our attempts.
We have not stood still on the countries in the Great Lakes region where we believe that we can make a difference. As has been acknowledged, on Rwanda, Britain has a clear lead in providing flexible funding and engaging in genuine and open dialogue on a range of complex political and social risks. We recognise the efforts that Rwanda has made in building an accountable and inclusive system. We have expressed our hope to the Rwandese that their commitment to an inclusive Government will remain strong. We have encouraged them to reflect the wishes and aspirations of all Rwandan people and to be committed to working honestly on their behalf.
Where problems are outstanding, we have tried to deal with them with the Rwandans. On detainees, Britain and the international community have expressed concern to the Government of Rwanda about the slow pace of trials and the number of prisoners being held. The Government of Rwanda told us that they plan to use participatory methods of justice to clear many of the cases. We have encouraged them to ensure that human rights standards are observed at all times. This year alone, the international community gave approximately $2 million to support that process.
We do not support the involvement of Rwanda or any of the parties in the DRC war, although we recognise that it has legitimate security concerns. The Lusaka agreement must be implemented in full by all parties. We continue to press all parties, including rebels, to adhere to the agreement that they signed. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun raised that matter. I agree that the BBC—with other local radio stations—has a vital role to play in the peace process.
On Burundi, we shall continue to provide funds to help implement the Arusha peace process. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, we will be part of the 11 December donors conference. I have worked closely with Nelson Mandela—travelling twice at his request to Arusha to give Britain's active backing to his peace facilitation efforts. We are not well placed to become a leading bilateral donor. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham asked for parity of aid, but we do not have close historic ties with Burundi, or any representation in Bujumbura. We are keen to contribute to post-conflict efforts-bilateral and multilateral-led by others who are better placed to take the lead and we will back them.
Ultimately we hope to support an international conference to address all the political, economic and social issues that have blighted the Great Lakes region. That will be of most value once the implementation of the Lusaka ceasefire agreement and the Arusha peace accord has begun. I thank you, Mr. Maxton, and hon. Members for their excellent contributions to the debate.

Bus Services (Mid Essex)
11.30 am
Mr. Alan Hurst: I am pleased to have the opportunity to mention the state of bus services in Essex in the Chamber. I am particularly pleased to see my neighbours the hon. Members for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) in their places. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) wanted to be here but had Select Committee commitments.
In the past few years, there has been a growing demand to provide a public transport system that is fitted for the purpose and offers an addition or an alternative to private cars. I do not propose to discuss the environmental benefits of public transport or bus transport. That subject has been well debated and the argument is gaining general acceptance.
Until 1985, the guiding legislation was the Road Traffic Act 1930, which was enacted by the second Ramsay MacDonald Labour Government and sought to bring some order to a chaotic system. Until 1930, bus services could be described as a free for all. I remember my grandfather describing that there were two major companies in London, London General and Tilling, but also many private operators, some perhaps with only one vehicle. The private bus would habitually arrive just ahead of the London General or Tilling bus, just as now the buses of small operators occasionally arrive before those of Eastern National or Hedingham in certain parts of our county. That is not a helpful position. It may have been less damaging in the 1920s, when the demand for bus transport was so much greater and people did not have an alternative means of transport in many areas.
The present consequences are particularly harmful for rural areas. In the 1920s, most people would have worked close to where they lived. They would not have needed transport to get to work and therefore the need for the bus was not as great, notwithstanding the fact that there were more buses then than there are now. From 1930 onwards, with a degree of regulation the bus companies were increasingly in the hands either of local authorities or subsidiaries of the National Bus Company. Further legislation was introduced in 1968 and 1973, presumably on a bipartisan basis, which gave local authorities an increasing role in maintaining public transport through revenue support payments. Indeed, an obligation was placed upon them to provide effective public transport to meet the needs of their residents. There was a certain equality: profitable routes cross-subsidised unprofitable routes and there was a considerable public consultation.
In a previous existence, I served on Southend borough council and was a member of its public transport committee. I was lobbied by my residents and others to provide particular bus services at particular times. The decision was not entirely in the hands of that committee but the council ran its own undertaking with a joint service with Eastern National. As a consequence, the provision of public service was high on the agenda. The system was not perfect. One could be overeager to please local residents when there was little financial justification for a particular service, but the public generally felt that that system showed a responsiveness that is now absent.
162WH
The situation drastically changed with the Transport Act 1985. The licensing system of 1930 was brought to an end and registration came in its place, the crucial role of local authorities in consulting on the provision of bus services dropped away and the power generally to subsidise was brought to an end. That is not to say that there is no more power to subsidise.
Initially, when the legislation came into force, there was fierce competition between bus operators, but gradually one or another bus undertaker in an area has developed, if not a monopoly, a predominant market position. The consequence, which is hard for the public, is that the timetabling, the number of stops, the number of services and the routes are in the hands of the bus undertaking. The public are not actively involved to the degree that they were.
I accept that the enshrining of the free market in this context has been modified to an extent. That has come about through the degrees of subsidy and assistance that exist in the system. The fuel duty rebate scheme allows 70 per cent. of the fuel duty paid by operators to be reclaimed in defined circumstances. For a time, that placed community transport schemes at a disadvantage in that they did not qualify because they did not provide a service to everyone who wanted to ride on a bus. I am pleased that that difficulty is being brought to an end.
Particular routes can also be subsidised. In Essex, the Government have provided more than £1 million of rural subsidy. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford may be pleased about the considerable subsidy of, I believe, more than £800,000, for the Dengie peninsula. I too am pleased about that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Dengie was formerly part of my constituency and, as one of the lost territories, I regard it with affection.
There is certainly public subsidy for some rural services in Essex, but nevertheless, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are problems in towns and urban areas.
Mr. John Maxton (in the Chair): Order. I am Mr. Maxton, not Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Hurst: Thank you, Mr. Maxton. Terminology changes so frequently in this place. I shall change the appellation as I continue.
The use of the term mid-Essex in the title of the debate is somewhat vague, because that is not a defined geographical area, but if anything is mid-Essex it is the town of Witham. It was originally a small market town and grew rapidly in the 1960s and 1970s, as new estates were added and people came from London to seek a new life there. Consequently, the edge of the town is now further from the centre than it was and the ageing of the population has made the problem more acute. People who came to Witham in the 1960s are now retired and bus service provision is not as good as it was.
In September, the services were drastically reduced. Parts of the town that were served quite well, with services every 20 minutes, have had those reduced to one an hour. Routes in the town have been altered so that some of the outlying estates are not served as they once were. As a consequence, elderly people are deterred from travelling as much as they otherwise might. That fact has been brought to my attention by Mrs. Ivy Phillips of Forest road, a prodigious participant and

163WH
activist in many organisations in the town. She sometimes has to take a taxi in the evening, at a cost of £5 to and from the town centre, as opposed to buying a return bus ticket for £1.40. Such examples show how the alteration and reduction of bus services affects some sections of the community more than others.
Young people are also harmed. It is difficult for them to travel around town after dark. Naturally, parents are concerned about young people walking the streets, not particularly in Witham, but in any town in the country. Other than through bus services to other towns, there are no evening bus services in Witham, nor are there bus services on Sundays. Such a lack of services constricts people's personal lives. It is unhelpful to them and it is certainly unhelpful to the promotion of public transport as an alternative to the motor car.
The problem concerns not only Witham, but the routes between towns. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford would have been as worried as I was when it was proposed to remove the bus service between Chelmsford, Hatfield Peverel, Nounsley, Ulting and Maldon. After much public protest, that service has now been reinstated—by public subsidy. Furthermore, I think that the service between Witham and Maldon has been reinstated this very day, again by way of public subsidy as opposed to commercial operation.
Private operators are willing to run public services, but I am worried, as I am sure are other hon. Members that, if those services are not profitable, they must fall back into the public domain to be paid for by money from the public exchequer. I applaud the fund for rural transport. I am encouraged that the village link scheme that runs through the north-west side of my constituency from Finchingfield to Wethersfield and eventually to Broomfield hospital is a great addition to the lives of people who live in the area, but it can never be perfect. The village of Great Saling is on the same route—one of my esteemed ministerial colleagues is speaking at an agricultural breakfast there this morning. He would not have travelled there by bus, because there is not a bus that would drop him off in that village. Although the bus takes the route up to Wethersfield and Finchingfield, it does not stop at Great Saling.
I accept that not all villages and hamlets can be served each hour by buses. The Government are making strides to assist rural transport, but there is such a long way to go and a great number of people need to be served. I would be encouraged, however, if the concept that everything could be left to the free market could be modified. It does not make good business sense that we, the public, take all of the losses.
Mr. John Whittingdale: Many of the services to which the hon. Gentleman referred start in his constituency and end up in mine, so I entirely share his concern about the matter. Essex county council is spending £2.4 million on subsidising rural transport, but it will overspend by £400,000 this year because of the steady withdrawal of non-profitable services. The real answer to the problem is that we need to give more money to counties such as Essex that have large rural areas, where such problems cause great distress and inconvenience to constituents.
164WH
Is that not another reason why we should reconsider the formula that allocates money to local authorities, as rural authorities have steadily lost out in recent years?
Mr. Hurst: In some ways, the hon. Gentleman has understated the position. County council expenditure is £2.8 million, but that excludes the rural fund of £1,050,000. It also excludes the Dengie payment of £800,000. Therefore, approximately £2 million is coming into the county for rural services from Government sources alone. I accept that there may be a good case for additional funds to come in, but it will be a bottomless pit.
Unless private operators take some share of the responsibility and respond to the population in the county, the problem will not be solved. Every time that a route is less than profitable, it will drop out of the private sector and into the public sector. That is an invitation to concentrate private resources entirely on self-evidently profitable routes. The situation is different from what it was when there was cross-subsidy within a bus undertaking. I hope that the Government can move some way towards greater regulation of bus undertakings, so that the operators bear part of the social cost when a route is not self-evidently profitable.
11.45 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) on securing the debate. He raised many issues about bus transport and the impact that it can have, especially on people in rural communities. He also graphically outlined the historical perspective that we need to consider in relation to the current situation in counties such as Essex, and the impact of the fragmented market that has developed—especially under the previous Government.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for acknowledging that our Government have attempted to give a high priority to transport and the needs of those in rural areas. Earlier this year, we announced our 10-year transport plan, which set out our ambitious further targets and investment plans for transport in the next decade. We have clearly recognised, as he recognises, the crucial importance of public transport to meet the needs of modern, sustainable communities, and the special needs of rural communities.
My hon. Friend indirectly pointed to the fact that the increasing ownership and use of the car in the past 30 to 40 years has brought new pressures and problems, although it has also brought benefits. That, combined with the structure for local transport that has been created in the past 20 years, has led to urgent problems in some parts of the country. Buses are by far the main form of travel for local journeys on public transport, so we want to ensure that bus services can be improved. I shall say more about the matter later.
My hon. Friend outlined some details of the situation in Essex. He will know that, in line with the position in the country generally, the vast majority—about 90 per cent.—of bus services in Essex are provided by commercial operators without any subsidy from the local authority. They are not contracted services but are provided by the operators in response to consumer

165WH
demand, so they have to be profitable. I understand that a reasonable peak-time service is generally provided in urban areas and on routes into urban areas but, as we have heard, there are some problems with the adequacy of the service, especially to rural areas. In talking about young people and the elderly, my hon. Friend highlighted the impact that a poor service can have on certain groups in such communities.
In common with the rest of the country, rural areas in Essex are most likely to rely on contracted services that are subsidised by the local authority. Essex county council acknowledges that there have been several service cuts and frequency reductions, which have resulted from commercial decisions made by the operators. An additional £450,000 has been allocated to the county's local bus subsidy budget for this financial year and the next. That enables some of the gaps created by the commercial service withdrawals to be filled. My hon. Friend mentioned service 90 from Maldon to Witham and service 73 from Maldon to Chelmsford as two of the most important routes.
I recognise that local authority budgets are frequently under pressure and that difficult decisions need to be made concerning competing priorities. Quality partnerships offer one of the first opportunities for service improvements. They relate to one of my hon. Friend's main questions, which is how we are to persuade commercial operators to take on some of the social responsibility for sustaining services in communities where demand is low. That is a good question and the answer—as I think he is implying—is not simply to allow operators to reduce those services and then lob in more public money to sustain the operators. We should get them to the table to talk about how they can sustain and, if possible, develop demand for bus services, and quality partnerships provide opportunities for that. They recognise the fundamental role of local authorities in improving public transport—something to which he subscribes—in
particular, their traffic management responsibilities.
There are now about 150 different quality partnership schemes in towns and cities throughout the country and they show that getting the operators to sit down with other stakeholders and community representatives can improve the quality of the service, thereby sustaining and in some instances increasing demand. That has a knock-on effect in sustaining the profitability, or at least the financial viability, of a particular route.
For example, bus operators can be persuaded to think about the standard of their vehicle, or its size. It may not be commercially viable for a single-decker bus with 30 seats to trundle around a country lane, but using a smaller vehicle could make the route viable. Operators are not incentivised to think about such issues on their own, but through the quality partnership mechanism such measures have been introduced in other parts of the country. Essex county council is seeking to establish a bus quality partnership with the operators in the area. An example is route 42 in Chelmsford, which serves major housing areas, two hospitals and the town centre. Through quality partnerships, I hope that we can persuade the operators to think about those issues.
On the possibility of service frequency enhancements, we want local authorities to be able to buy in additional frequency on bus routes that they are not already securing. That could be an effective way of pump
166WH
priming particular routes, perhaps to influence modal shift or meet other local objectives. Our experience suggests that although such measures were supposed to be possible under existing powers, in practice there have been problems and local authorities may have been deterred by legal restraints on doing anything to inhibit competition. The Transport Bill will clarify that position and also help integration.
My hon. Friend mentioned the additional funding that the Government have introduced in several ways to support rural services. It amounts to £175 million in three years, to next April, and it has been specifically targeted to guarantee the protection of transport in rural communities.
We will build on the success of the introduction of the rural bus subsidy grant. Nationally, there are more than 1,800 new or improved services, and Essex's share of that grant is £1.05 million per annum. I understand that following extensive consultations with local communities, the funding is providing new countywide links for work, shopping and school journeys, and about 250,000 passenger journeys were made on those services in Essex last year. There will be another £100 million to enable that grant to continue at present levels for three years from next April.
As my hon. Friend says, under the rural bus challenge Essex county council received more than £800,000 for the innovative Dengie peninsula village scheme using accessible seven-seater vehicles connecting with a regular conventional service operating to the main towns in the area. My hon. Friend may be aware that Ministers do not often receive letters of thanks from the public; such was the impact of that service, however, that Ministers received such letters. Calls are already being made for vehicles to be increased in size so that more passengers can avail themselves of the service. We should aim to replicate elsewhere the impact of that rural bus challenge scheme.
My hon. Friend referred to services in urban areas, which is an important issue in some Essex towns. The urban bus challenge will issue guidance and invite areas to make their bids as soon as possible, with the aim of starting the first rounds of new projects next year. That opportunity should be considered in Braintree and other parts of Essex.
Local authorities play a most important role in respect of bus services. Local authorities and bus operators must work constructively together to meet bus travellers' needs—that necessity cannot be overstated. The introduction of local transport plans means that authorities must now have clear strategies for buses in their areas. The 10-year plan includes the investment of £19 billion of public money to modernise transport in every region, which will provide a major incentive for local authorities to develop the priorities for their areas. The local transport plans that the Department is assessing contain many forward-looking proposals.
Last December, we increased by 25 per cent. Essex county council's allocation for integrated transport in its provisional local transport plan and we are now assessing its first full local transport plan. To enable local authorities to build upon initiatives proposed in their provisional plans, we have increased by 35 per cent.

167WH
the resources available nationally for those first plans. That should enable local authorities such as Essex to progress with their strategies.
I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that buses are a key element of Essex county council's road passenger transport policy—that is reflected in its local transport plan. However, we expect bus operators to rise to the challenges ahead—a point that my hon. Friend stressed. We hope to build on the best that we have, ensuring that we provide bus services that meet the demands of rural and urban areas.
I cannot comment on the quality of the plan submitted by Essex or any other authority because decisions on the local transport plan settlements are not due until December. However, I have noted that the county is working closely with the bus operators to increase bus use and that that is a priority in its plan. The county's proposals include several important schemes to aid bus services.
More work needs to be done and difficulties must be overcome for us to reach the standards that we want in all areas, including rural areas. However, I believe that the industry, local authorities and all others involved are motivated by the resources provided, which enable them to get together as partners to deal with the issues raised by my hon. Friend.
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my acknowledgement of the difficulties faced by the communities to which he referred, which he outlined clearly. However, I hope that he will acknowledge—as he has before—that the Government have put in place measures for development and resources that will allow people on the ground to bring bus operators to the table, through the local authorities. As a result of our provisions, those parties can work together in partnership to tackle the problems that people in his community face.

Incinerator Proposals (Surrey)
12 noon
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I am delighted to be debating this important subject today. It is the first opportunity that any hon. Member has had to put Ministers on the spot over their proposals for incineration plants since the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs launched its inquiry in the summer. On 23 October 2000, the Environment Sub-Committee published "Delivering Sustainable Waste Management", a valuable body of evidence showing that the Government have adopted the wrong strategy for taking waste management forward in this country.
I raise the subject in respect of Surrey, where there are some outstanding planning applications. The process will continue for months, but decisions will start to be taken soon. There has been a lack of proper guidance, and questions are being raised about the way in which the Government are planning waste management. Those issues are being raised at every level, and we need clear answers now because we cannot afford to wait any longer.
Almost 10,000 letters have been written to Surrey county council about a proposed incinerator plant in Guildford and 7,000 letters have been received by the Environment Agency on the same proposal. There is a very high level of public concern in the constituency that I represent and in other parts of Surrey, such as Capel and Redhill, where similar incinerators have been proposed by other operators. The Government's plans have generated a lot of heat, but today the heat is on the Minister and we want him to give some clear answers.
Incineration is a flawed policy. For many years in this country we enjoyed the luxury of landfill and we are almost the largest users of landfill strategy among the advanced countries. A major advantage of that has been that the cost of dealing with waste in this country has been low. However, a huge disadvantage is that it is not a sustainable policy as landfill sites are used up.
At this point, the Government could respond in two ways. They could look forward to see what other countries are planning for the next 10 or 20 years and examine their strategies for dealing with waste, or they could copy what other countries have done when they have moved beyond landfill. It is increasingly clear that the Government have decided to follow the next stage in the historic progression from landfill sites to incineration. The public relations benefit is that incineration with an energy content has a green tinge but, unfortunately, it also has a health warning attached and the implications for the places where the plants are built have generated much local concern.
It is worth recalling some of the evidence that the Select Committee has received during the few months in which it has been considering the matter. As Friends of the Earth said in its submission:
High recycling rates in other countries show that we could easily meet EU targets for diverting biodegradable municipal waste through recycling and composting. and citizens are angry at our failure to match these achievements.

169WH
From the other end of the spectrum, the Road Haulage Association said:
We consider the current average size of energy-from-waste plant as inimical to both waste reduction and to the development of a sustainable market for recyclables. Plants of a throughput of 200,000 tonnes per annum or above—
the size that is being considered in Guildford—
require long-term contracts guaranteeing the
amount of waste going through. It also said:
As such they limit, and possibly preclude, the development of alternatives, particularly when new opportunities appear.
Therefore, not only is the Government's strategy a tired failure as far as other countries are concerned—in Australia, New Zealand and the United States, no new incinerator plants have been built during the last five years—but incinerators may pre-empt our advance to the more positive strategies of recycling waste and, equally importantly, increasing the pressure on producers to limit the amount of waste that their products generate by cutting down on packaging and rethinking the way in which they bring their products to the market.
Today, I seek a general statement of principles from the Minister. I understand that he cannot deal with specific planning applications such as the one in Guildford, but in the light of my experience as a constituency Member of Parliament and the points raised by the example of my constituency, many of the flaws in the Government's policy will become apparent.
One problem is the Government's announcement of the principle of proximity. The Government would not propose to build a giant smokestack in the middle of a historic county town such as Guildford, which today depends on high-technology and service businesses, were it not for the single argument—which is repeated time and again—that that would deal with the waste where it is produced. That is the proximity principle.
However, the plant that has been proposed for Guildford and other such sites would require six times the waste that is generated locally. Building on the proximity principle would mean drawing in a great deal of waste from other areas, which would be contrary to the proximity principle.
What is the proximity principle? I have received a letter from the chief executive of Guildford borough council, which has lodged serious objections to the local proposal. It says:
Planning Policy Guidance No. 10, issued by the Government in 1999, deals with the proximity principle in one line as follows:-
"Waste should generally be managed as near as possible to its place of production because transporting waste itself has an environmental impact."
It is vital to both planning authorities and local people that the Government define the proximity principle more precisely. For example, is the proximity principle so important to the Government that building incinerators in urban areas overrides other normal planning considerations? Does it make sense to build a plant that will dominate the skyline of our county town with a chimney that is higher than Guildford cathedral? Should we permit the building of a plant that is the same height as the Clock Tower that houses Big Ben, given
170WH
that, according to the planning criteria for any other development of the site, such an intrusion would be unacceptable in any terms to any right-thinking planning authority? I therefore hope that we receive clearer guidance on the proximity principle from the Government.
It is noticeable that the evidence that the Department gave to the inquiry did not include a single paragraph on the proximity principle. The Department dealt with its waste strategy, but not with that principle. As the local pressure group, Guildford anti-incinerator network, pointed out, we in Surrey import a great deal of waste to landfill sites, so the proximity principle is being applied inequitably. It does not apply to landfill, where we suffer, but apparently it will be applied to incineration, where we might have other alternatives on our doorstep.
Another problem with the proximity principle is that it is unenforceable. Once the plant is built, it is not planning but commercial pressures that will dictate where the waste comes from. Energy-from-waste plants need a continuous feed of waste. If the plant had to warm up and cool down between the periods when it is dealing with waste, the efficiency and commercial viability of the plant would be immediately drawn into question. I hope that the Minister will frame his answer on the proximity principle in the context of the damage that those plants could do to the local environment and the local economy.
The Energy from Waste Association, which represents those who build and run the incinerators, has pointed out that the Government's plan for 75 incinerators throughout the country is a hopeless over-estimate. According to the association, the figures for growth in incineration
demonstrate that claims…that the strategy will lead to a flood of new EFW plants in the UK, are misplaced. Over the next 10 years, the industry predicts that some 15 new plants will be needed—very much in line with the numbers planned by developer companies before the strategy was published.
Therefore, before the Government announced their plan for 75 incinerator plants throughout the country, the industry was planning to build only 15 plants. It is time for the Government to take another look at those projections, and recognise that an incineration strategy that establishes a few plants in places where they will do least damage is better than the proliferation of speculative developments that we are witnessing in Surrey and other parts of the country.
Will the Minister please make it clear whether his Department intends to stick by the principle that each county should deal with its own waste? Surrey is one of the smallest counties, and over half our area is covered by the green belt. It is proving impossible to find a site for an incineration plant that is acceptable to the local community and makes commercial sense. Local people—be they in Guildford, Cape' or Redhill—are up in arms, and rightly so. On the other hand, just a few miles across the Surrey border in Colnbrook, which is near Heathrow airport, permission has already been granted for a new, far bigger incineration plant that can process 400,000 tonnes a year. Grundon, the project developer and owner of the site, has made it clear that it is keen to take Surrey's residual incineration requirement. Would that be acceptable to the Minister? If we were to decide to transfer part of the operation to

171WH
an incineration plant located a few miles outside our county, would our new waste strategy grant, which is worth £100 million, remain secure?
I should not leave this issue without raising the health concerns that, in many ways, have sparked the most resistance in the country as a whole. It is quite something for Labour Back Benchers such as the hon. Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler), who is a member of the Environment Sub-Committee, to accuse Whitehall of secretive behaviour and a cover-up in respect of the health risk. It is worrying to note that departmental officials did not disclose correspondence with the Environment Agency that suggested that the risk from cancer-causing dioxins may be far greater than was first thought. In June, when I raised that issue in the House with the Minister for the Environment, I was assured that there was no health risk. However, evidence that has since been submitted to his Department suggests that there are very real concerns. That is why the Conservative party has made it clear that we would impose a moratorium on new incinerators until all the health concerns have been investigated thoroughly and openly.
Only a couple of weeks ago, a headline in The Observer said that "Toxic fumes from refuse ovens could kill 9,000". The accompanying report pointed out that, based on the Government's own figures, the proposed new incinerators could produce 17,000 tonnes of nitrous oxides each year. Moreover, according to a recent report by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 50 tonnes of nitrous oxides would, on average, lead to one death. Over a period of 25 years, that would amount to nearly 9,000 deaths.
I do not know whether those estimates are true, but they are causing my constituents immense concern. So is the revelation that, according to the latest evidence, existing incinerator plants double the risk of cancer in children who live within three miles of sites that were built and operated in the past 25 years. There is a democratic deficiency, because the Environment Agency, not the local authority, judges the health issue. The local authority, within its planning remit, cannot take that into account.
It is time for a new approach, placing more emphasis on recycling. There should be a recycling target of more than 50 per cent.—it has been achieved by many American states and by many countries in Europe—rather than 25 per cent. That would completely remove the need to build new plants. It is time for the Government to rethink and to restore the confidence of my constituents and people throughout the country who believe that speculative developments, sponsored by the Government's programme and subsidies, threaten their local community.
12.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) has raised an important issue. We still have a long way to go before the public take recycling as seriously as they should. The hon. Gentleman and I probably agree that we cannot keep digging deep holes
172WH
in the ground and filling them up because, apart from the environmental effects of landfill, we are running out of holes.
Guildford in particular and Surrey in general have a relatively good record of recycling, but even there, there is a long way to go. There are some problems with the public perception of the issue, and it is the job of responsible politicians not to whip up misunderstanding or to seek cheap votes but to help to confront the public with stark choices.
I was told a while ago about a survey conducted in Guildford, in which several options for the disposal of waste were suggested on a questionnaire that was put through people's doors. One suggestion was to export more waste—it did not say to where, but presumably it was to anywhere but Guildford. That option, unsurprisingly, attracted the highest response. That is not realistic and the hon. Gentleman is not proposing that option, but, as I said, it is the job of responsible politicians to help to confront such issues responsibly.
No one is forcing Guildford to build an incinerator in the town centre or anywhere else; how waste is disposed of is a matter for local decision. The Government have set out targets, which we insist must be met. If, as the hon. Gentleman said, there are alternatives, it is for the local authority to adopt them and for people like the hon. Gentleman to make the relevant suggestions, which we would welcome. There should be a serious debate on the issue, but much of what the hon. Gentleman said should be said to his local authority, not to the Government.
Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Mullin: I will in a moment.
The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Government have plans for 75 incinerators is false; we have set no figure on the number of incinerators that will be necessary. As I shall explain if I have time, we recognise that incineration has a part to play in waste strategy, but it is utterly false to suggest that we have a big programme for incinerators.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether it was the Government's policy that waste should not be transported across boundaries. That is not our policy; we recognise that waste can be transported across boundaries, but we aim for regional self-sufficiency.
Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Minister confirm that the grant of £100 million to help Surrey to develop a new strategy would not be jeopardised because, regarding our incineration plans, we came up with an alternative solution to burning within the county boundaries?
Mr. Mullin: As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, I cannot talk about particular applications in Surrey because they may eventually be referred to my Department, so I cannot get too involved in the detail of particular schemes. I can repeat that we are not forcing any authority to set up lots of incinerators. There are alternatives and we are anxious that they are pursued; the Government will provide incentives to ensure that they are.
The tone of the hon. Gentleman's speech and his mock indignation come ill from a member of a party which, when in government for many years, was—to put

173WH
it mildly—lethargic in its approach to recycling. The present Government are considerably more energetic in that respect. We recognise the difficult issues that must be faced: they cannot be dodged and we shall not dodge them.
As you are aware, Mr. Maxton, in May this year we published the national waste strategy, setting out the Government's policy for sustainable waste management in the next 20 years. The strategy identifies the need for a giant change in the way that we think about and manage our waste. It will mean curbing the growth in waste and learning to recognise waste as a resource. The Government are committed to dramatic increases in recycling and composting. We shall also need to recover energy from waste where doing so represents the best practical environmental option. Care must, however, be taken to ensure that any plans for incineration do not crowd out recycling. That was the hon. Gentleman's argument.
For the first time ever, the Government are setting statutory targets for household waste recycling and composting. They will require councils, on average, to double recycling by 2003–04 and triple it by 2005–06. We have set even higher targets for 2010 and 2015 and we shall keep them under review, raising them if practicable.
A key driver behind these goals is the European landfill directive, which will require substantial changes to the way in which we manage our waste. At present, the United Kingdom landfills more than 80 per cent. of its biodegradable municipal waste. The directive will require substantial reductions in the amount of waste sent to landfill. If waste continues to grow at the current rate, by 2020 we would need to divert 33 million tonnes of waste from landfill each year. Recycling and composting alone will not deliver the rates of diversion necessary to meet the targets in the landfill directive. We must all face up to that reality.
Any increase in incineration should be part of an integrated, sustainable system of waste management. Authorities in the incineration industry need to plan to ensure that expansion in securing energy from waste does not crowd out recycling. Contracts should allow flexibility and ensure that incineration does not compete with recycling. Incinerator operators should always maximise the environmental benefits of their facilities by including combined heat and power.
Other European countries are already achieving recycling rates far in advance of our own, largely because they make widespread use of energy from waste. The problems mentioned by the hon. Gentleman have not materialised. The Netherlands and Switzerland both have an extremely good record, which we would be wise to emulate. They both incinerate to far greater levels than we do.
We are aware that plans by local authorities to increase recycling and composting rates and divert waste from landfill will place an extra burden on their finances. We announced in the spending review that major new funding would be made available to local authorities.
It is to Surrey's credit that, faced with a lack of local landfill capacity, it sought more sustainable waste management options instead of looking towards more distant landfill—with all the environmental impacts,
174WH
particularly increased traffic movements, that that would entail. Increased traffic movements are an important factor. Under the statutory targets, Surrey will have to increase its recycling rate from 13 per cent. to 26 per cent. by 2003–04.
I fully understand local people's concerns about the proposed development of an energy-from-waste plant in Surrey. However, emissions from such plants are strictly regulated and we are confident that the current environmental protection standards are sufficient to protect the environment and public health. We also strongly support a forthcoming European directive on incineration, which will set even tighter emission standards.
Mr. St. Aubyn rose—
Mr. Mullin: The hon. Gentleman wants me to get to the proximity principle. There is a chance that I will, but it diminishes if he intervenes on me.
The provisions of the European directive on incineration will update the environmental standards of existing directives in respect of advances in technology, and introduce water discharge controls for the first time. The hon. Gentleman quoted an article in The Observer. It is probably based on a report by environmental consultants called Entec, who suggested that the environmental benefits of new tighter standards would be that 51 deaths and 97 hospitalisations of people with an existing respiratory illness would be avoided. The hon. Gentleman should be aware, however, that Entec subsequently found a mathematical error in its calculations and the figures should not be 51 and 97, but six and seven respectively—a difference by a factor of about 12. Entec has corrected its mistake and we look forward to Greenpeace, The Observer, The Guardian and anyone else who printed the story acknowledging that mistake. I am not holding my breath on that.
The proximity principle advises that waste should generally be managed as near as possible to its place of production. That is because transporting waste has an environmental impact. Dealing with waste in this way is generally preferable to exporting it elsewhere although for certain waste, especially hazardous or toxic waste, transporting to specially designed facilities may be the best practical option. The proximity principle will apply to Surrey in the way that it applies to any other waste planning authority. PPG10, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, advises that the proximity principle is one of the principles-not the only one-of waste management that needs to be taken into account in identifying the combination of facilities and other waste management options that give the best balance between environmental, social and economic needs.
The proximity principle is not a statutory requirement and would not overrule other planning rules, but it would be a material planning consideration to be taken into account by a waste planning authority in deciding any planning applications for waste management facilities. Planning permission for a waste facility would not specify any distance from the facility within which all waste would have to be managed. Account would have to be taken of existing waste disposal authority contracts and the proximity of alternative waste facilities.

175WH
I suppose that if I could put the proximity principle in layman's terms that would be readily understandable both to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, it is that Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph readers cannot expect that their waste will be disposed of in the back yards of Sun and Mirror readers. We expect the people who produce the waste to take some responsibility for its disposal.
Mr. St. Aubyn: Would the Minister not acknowledge that higher-earning groups have the best track record of recycling waste? That has been shown across Europe and America. Would he not also acknowledge that in Surrey in particular we have imported a great deal of waste for landfill from London and other areas? Far from relying on others to deal with our waste, we have been dealing with theirs for years.
Mr. Mullin: I certainly will acknowledge that last point. The track record of councils across the country is variable. Some local authorities in relatively prosperous areas have a good track record, and some in areas that are not so prosperous have a bad track record. Nevertheless, I believe that my layman's approach to the proximity principle still holds.
I hope that my comments today will be of some use to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. Many of the points that he made are arguments that he needs to have with his local authority. He should not go round whipping up spurious indignation against the Government when his party, when in government, did little on this issue. I used the word "lethargic" a while ago. That is the gentlest way to put it.
Mr. John Maxton (in the Chair): It may be for the convenience of hon. Members to remind them that because I am a temporary occupant of the Chair, I am addressed not as Mr. Deputy Speaker, but as Mr. Maxton.

Organ Donation
12.29 pm
Mr. Hilary Benn: My interest in the subject of organ donation—I am glad to have the opportunity to raise it in debate—stems principally from the presence of the Leeds general infirmary and St. James's hospital in my constituency. I also want to express the appreciation that I am sure all hon. Members feel for the work done by the all-party kidney group. The debate today is about organ donation in general, not just kidneys, but I shall refer to kidneys in particular.
Leeds is the fifth largest of 30 centres nationally providing kidney transplants, and the third largest of seven national centres for liver transplants. The first transplant in the city of Leeds was done in 1967, 13 years after the world's first, in Boston. Interestingly, that was a living donation—one twin gave a kidney to the other. About 100 kidney transplants a year are carried out in Leeds, but about 350 people are waiting and the number is growing, as is the number of people on dialysis, by about 12 per cent. a year. Cadaveric donation remains the main source of kidneys, although in recent years live donation has come to play an increasingly important role.
The figures from Leeds reflect what is happening nationally. Although the number of kidney transplants in the United Kingdom has risen from just over 1,000 20 years ago to just under 6,000 last year, there has been a corresponding increase in the number of people waiting for a transplant—about 6,500 men, women and children. We know that the number of patients with end-stage renal failure who start dialysis is predicted to grow by a further 30 per cent. in the next few years. If we cannot do something to increase the rates of organ donation we shall have an even more serious problem than we have now.
The reasons for the gap are well understood. First, there has been a welcome decline in the number of people killed on the roads. Secondly, better treatment is now available in hospital for people with brain injuries. Thirdly, the development of surgical skill and immunosuppressive drugs has greatly increased the success rates, and therefore demand, for transplantation. In addition, we are all living a little longer. The result is a shortage of organs. That means that every year people die while waiting for an organ to become available.
That point was made forcefully to me last year when I met Mr. Padgett and Mr. Liddell, the representatives of the kidney patients associations at the Leeds general infirmary and St. James's hospital in my constituency. That conversation was directly responsible for the scheme that was launched on 1 November, which will allow bank and credit card customers to carry the organ donor symbol on their card.
The idea is simple. Although about 8.5 million people are on the organ donor register, we do not always carry our organ donor card with us. We may leave it at home in a drawer; it could be in the house that we moved from some years ago; we may lose it. However, there is one card that we always carry with us when we leave home in the morning and that we take great care of—our bank or credit card. I am sure that all hon. Members in Westminster Hall this morning could immediately point to the place where they keep their bank or credit card.

177WH
If we could make that bit of plastic another means of carrying a donor card, with 45 million credit cards in the country and between 35 million and 45 million bank debit cards, there is the potential to add to the 8.5 million people already on the organ donor register, and therefore the potential to make a big difference to the number of organ donors. To do that, we need as many banks and credit card companies as possible to take part. I pay tribute to the response to the initiative from Goldfish, the first credit card company to take it up. Having heard about the idea, the company expressed interest. Having shown that it could be made to work, it demonstrated commitment to it.
That commitment is crucial, because it has shown the rest of the industry that the proposition is practical. From January, Goldfish will ask new customers or existing customers whose card is to be renewed: "Do you want to be an organ donor or are you one already?" If the answer to either of those questions is yes, Goldfish will issue its ordinary credit card, but with the organ donor symbol on it, and pass the customer's name and address to the organ donor register. That is the essence of the scheme.
Apart from allowing a new way to register and therefore a method of maximising the chance that the donor card will be carried, the scheme has an added advantage: it may help to keep the organ donor register more up-to-date. When we move home, the chances are that we do not tell the register that we have moved, although we do tell our bank and credit card company. If the scheme takes off, the banks will be able to help United Kingdom Transplant to keep a more accurate register of donors' addresses by passing on data.
There has been considerable support for the scheme from Visa and Europay—responsible for Mastercard—whose symbols feature prominently on our pieces of plastic. Nationwide and MBNA are sending leaflets to their customers to encourage organ donation. The Department of Health has given unstinting support not only at ministerial level, but among officials, who have got their teeth into the idea and shown government at its best by working in partnership with others to make something happen. That has included giving participant companies the flexibility to ask their customers just one question—"Do you want to become an organ donor?"—to get people on the register, rather than going through each organ individually, as happens with the donor card. United Kingdom Transplant has also given support and help in enabling companies easily to transfer information about customers who want to be organ donors on to their systems. While I am in a generous mood, I thank hon. Members who have signed early-day motion 1107 in support of the initiative.
I simply hope that, where Goldfish has chosen to lead, the rest of the industry will follow. We have had two meetings with representatives from several banks and credit card companies, and I have corresponded with the British Bankers Association. A lot of interest has been shown and the response has been positive. However, to get the critical mass that we want and need, we must turn that interest and good will into action. The hopes of many people concerned with organ donation and transplantation will now be with those companies that, because they produce a valuable piece of plastic, hold one key to increasing the number of organ donors.
178WH
If the scheme takes off, asking millions of customers about organ donation will be a valuable way of raising awareness and encouraging us to discuss with our nearest and dearest our wishes in the event that something happens to us. All the evidence shows that such a conversation is absolutely vital because it is practice—rightly—always to ask relatives for their consent. In addition, organ transplant co-ordinators say that it is rare for relatives, knowing that someone wanted to donate organs in the event of his death, to withhold permission. The more companies that participate, the more people who are asked and the more conversations that take place, the greater the chance that we will increase the number of organ donors and of relatives who give permission.
This scheme is one approach, but there are many others. In 1998, the Department launched a national publicity campaign, which has been widely welcomed, and other initiatives are in operation. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency asks people applying for driving licences whether they want to take part. Boots launched its Advantage card and allowed the organ donor symbol to go on it. In my part of the world, the Yorkshire Evening Post is running a carry-the-card campaign. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) hopes to say a few words about another campaign with which he is involved. They are all ways of raising the profile of organ donation as we move towards the target, set by the Royal College of Surgeons, of 10 million organ donors.
The donor card is, however, just one aspect of the supply of organs. Another is the practice in hospitals in dealing with potential donors. I was interested to read the Royal College of Surgeons working party report on transplantation, which was published in January last year, not least because it made some interesting points about organ identification and recovery in hospitals. Could my hon. Friend the Minister tell us what work is being done to support the development of non-heart-beating donor programmes in respect of kidneys? According to the report, Newcastle has the highest kidney donation rate in the country because it has such a programme. I am not medically qualified or especially technically gifted, but the report drew attention to the need to obtain what is called pre-arranged consent from the coroner to allow in situ perfusion of the kidneys following cardiac arrest, prior to asking relatives' consent. I understand that such permission must be negotiated on an area-by-area basis. Could that issue be taken up nationally?
Another issue that I should like to identify is the practice of hospitals in identifying potential donors and checking the register to establish whether they have expressed a wish to become a donor. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Minister would say what work is being done to ensure that good practice in particular hospitals becomes best practice throughout the national health service. I should also be grateful if she would comment on the impact of the number of intensive therapy beds on the possibility of keeping patients ventilated while they are considered for their suitability for organ donation.
I am aware that there has been considerable debate about a proposed change in the law to require people to opt out if they do not want their organs to be used, which is referred to as "presumed consent". I do not

179WH
support that approach. If hon. Members will pardon the pun, it would be presumptuous to presume on a matter that must be one of personal choice. In any event, the recent controversy about post mortems and the retention of body parts in hospitals throughout the country demonstrates, if such demonstration were necessary, how sensitive the matter is. Better information is the key to enlightened consent.
We must recognise that people have strong feelings about what they want done with their body when the time comes for the spirit, wherever it goes, to shake off our mortal remains. At the risk of denying worms and grubs further sustenance, I am happy for my organs to be used, but we must recognise that many people feel differently. Interestingly, a National Kidney Research Fund poll found that whereas 77 per cent. of those who said that they were willing to become organ donors would be willing to donate a kidney, only 11 per cent. said that they wanted to donate their liver—I do not understand the distinction—and only 6 per cent. their cornea. That shows that people have different feelings, in particular about their eyes.
As everyone has different views, and because there are different cultures and religious standpoints, earlier this year Professor Sandy Davison from Leeds organised a conference on the issue in Bradford. I read the report, and although it seems that the Sikh, Hindu and Muslim faiths all have no difficulty with organ donation as a matter of principle, that is not always reflected in the decisions of family members from those faiths. That in part accounts for the lower rate of donation from ethnic minority communities even though their rates of kidney failure are some three to four times that of the population as a whole. Does my hon. Friend the Minister believe that there might be some benefit in taking the good initiative of West Yorkshire and examining whether it would be worth doing something at national level to raise awareness so that people know about the attitude of their faith community and so that that position can be publicised?
Organ donation is of course the best and only route available at present, although we have great hopes about possibilities for the future, such as xenotransplantation and the product of stem-cell research. Such developments may become available as we understand more about how we are made and made up. A book that I read yesterday expressed the hope that
some day it may be possible to patch up an injured kidney with a cluster of kidney cells grown in a test tube from a tissue culture.
That book was written 35 years ago, and we are still waiting. For the time being, those 6,500 people who are still waiting for the gift of life need a donor organ. While we await further scientific and medical progress, the best and most practical contribution that we can make today is to ensure that we do everything that we can, leaving no stone unturned and no initiative untried, to increase the number of organs available for donation. As Professor Davison from Leeds said to me yesterday, "We have got to keep at it." I could not agree more.
12.45 pm
Mr. Tony Colman: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) for securing the debate and allowing me to speak briefly.
180WH
I also pay tribute to my constituents Mr. M. Bewick, a consultant renal transplant surgeon at St. George's hospital in south-west London, and Jane Cooper, who led the Donor 2001 scheme. Mr. Bewick pointed out that every survey carried out has found that a minimum of 65 per cent. of the population want to donate their organs, but less than 1 per cent. are able to do so because the relevant card and information are not available. Miss Cooper has been pushing for a question to be included in the census, and although it is obviously too late for the coming census, there should be a debate on how that might be achieved for the following one.
I support an extension of one of my hon. Friend's many ideas that was pursued by Mr. Bewick and Miss Cooper, having pursued it with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health and the Home Secretary. The idea is to ensure that the electoral registration forms distributed each year by local authorities include a donor registration form in the same envelope. Both forms could, if the elector so wishes, be returned to the local authority, which could pass any donor registration forms to the national organ donor register. Of almost 500 local authorities in the United Kingdom, some 28 currently do so.
The key is to find a way to extend the scheme. In a written answer that I received on 6 November, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health and the Home Secretary supported the extension of such a scheme on a voluntary basis. Will my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health find out whether it might be possible to survey all councils in the UK to determine which of them already have such a scheme and whether donor registration forms are sent annually? Will she ask the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to mention including donor registration forms with electoral registration forms in the best practice documentation that it issues to every local authority?
12.47 pm
The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) for raising this important issue, on which he has done a lot of work. I join him in paying tribute to the work that is being done in his Leeds constituency, at St. James's hospital. Much of that work obviously makes a difference to my constituents in Pontefract and Castleford, too. I should also like to place on the record my thanks to him for the time and effort that he has put into the issue, especially in promoting the Goldfish scheme to join the national health service organ donor register and other innovative programmes, to which I shall return later.
My hon. Friend is right. We face serious challenges in transplantation services due to the shortage of organs. Until 10 November 2000, 2,164 people had received life-saving operations. Each year, organs from about 900 donors give a new lease of life to nearly 3,000 people throughout the United Kingdom, and a further 3,000 have their sight restored as a result of organ donation. Transplants are now so successful that many more patients can be considered for such treatment. More are being added to waiting lists every week, and that is faster than organs are becoming available. There are now 6,733 people on the waiting list for transplantation in the UK. The vast majority are waiting for kidney transplants, and will have a reduced quality of life on

181WH
dialysis. For those waiting for heart and liver transplants there is no alternative, and some will, sadly, die while they are waiting.
My hon. Friend is right that one of the reasons for the shortage of organs is success in other areas of policy, including safety on the roads and better treatment. Potential donors are usually those who have had unexpected, traumatic and untimely deaths. Many families find solace in the thought that their relatives' organs will be used to give life to others. I pay tribute to those who agree to donate organs for the impact that those decisions can have on huge numbers of families across the country.
Three out of four families who are asked about relatives' organ donations agree to the request. However, potential donors can be lost when families are not asked in the first place, when they are not aware of all the issues involved and, most important, when families are not aware of the wishes of the deceased. My hon. Friend is right that when a family knows that a relative wanted to donate organs, it is rare for that family to refuse the donation. I also agree that consent is vital and a fundamental principle. The views of relatives are critical, and underlie the principles of organ donation. Much work is under way to improve organ donation and increase the supply of organs for transplantation. However, much more work remains to be done. We need to be imaginative along the lines described by my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, Central and for Putney (Mr. Colman), in order to raise awareness and communicate people's wishes to their relatives and to the national health service.
Last year, we welcomed the reports of the Royal College of Surgeons and the British Medical Association on the future development of transplantation services. In February, following the review of the United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority, we announced an extensive package of measures to increase the availability of organs for transplantation, along the lines of the recommendations set out in the reports. Those measures include the development of United Kingdom Transplant to promote organ procurement throughout the NHS; ensuring that best practice in organ procurement is shared; expanding and supporting the network of transplant co-ordinators; mounting publicity campaigns with a wide range of commercial organisations; increasing the provision of intensive treatment unit beds, and working with the Royal College of Surgeons and other professional bodies to ensure that all transplant units are staffed to deliver a high quality of service.
Three key issues exist: first, increasing people's awareness and willingness to donate organs; secondly, increasing access to those patients and changing the number of questions asked by the NHS when a potential donor is found; and, thirdly, increasing the quality of care to make the best possible use of organs when they are donated and to maximise the impact on patients' lives. I shall take each of those in turn.
It is important that people sign up to the organ donor register and communicate their wishes to their relatives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central said, that can be an extremely sensitive and difficult issue for families to confront. In October 1998, we launched the organ donation publicity campaign. The aims of the
182WH
campaign are to raise public awareness of the shortage of organs for transplantation, and to attract new potential donors by persuading people to express their wish now to be an organ or tissue donor in the event of their death—ideally, by registering on the NHS organ donor register and by carrying a donor card, or by making their wishes known to family and friends. More than 8 million people are now registered—about 14 per cent. of the population—but we need to reach many more people.
The NHS organ donor register was set up six years ago to give people the opportunity to register their willingness to be a donor and to ensure that a record of donor wishes is available 24 hours a day. Clearly, we also need new and innovative ways to raise awareness and communicate those wishes to relatives. I therefore pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work on using bank and credit cards as a way of raising awareness and signing people up to the organ donor register. The work of Goldfish is very welcome and I am delighted that other companies are now interested in it. It has huge potential, particularly among commercial ventures, to encourage people to support the organ donor register.
I also welcome the proposals by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney to encourage local authorities to issue invitations to join the organ donor register. We are aware that several local authorities issued invitations to join the register as part of their electoral canvass. I am advised that United Kingdom Transplant could supply information about the outcome of that activity and I shall ask my officials to supply the information to my hon. Friend also.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central referred to the importance of reaching different faiths and different communities. He was absolutely right to do so, and the shortage of donor organs is more acute among members of some ethnic minority communities because of the relatively high rate of diabetes, coronary heart disease, hypertension and kidney disease.
Although about 3 per cent. of the United Kingdom population are of Asian origin, about 15 per cent. of those on the United Kingdom kidney transplant waiting list are of Asian origin. We are also aware that there is a higher rate of family objections among that community. That can cause problems with kidneys in particular, because it is important to match the tissue type of the donor to the recipient and tissue types vary according to ethnic group, so some people from one ethnic group will reject organs from some other ethnic groups. That is why it is so important to promote organ donation sensitively throughout every community. For that reason we launched the South Asian Community Campaign in February 1999 to recruit more donors from that community. We are currently developing a similar campaign aimed at the African and Afro-Caribbean communities.
The Department was happy to support the multi-faith conference in Bradford last year, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central referred. I am advised that all the speakers at that event emphasised the value of transplantation and offered their support for organ donation as a worthwhile activity compatible with their faith. We must build on that work and we have maintained links with the leaders of the faith communities who spoke on that occasion and, through them, with their communities.

183WH
Other innovative schemes to promote organ donation include that of Boots the chemist, which promotes organ donation through its in-store loyalty card. HTV West and Meridian adopted the NHS organ donor register in their Year of the Promise campaign and The Sun has run a campaign urging readers to join the register. We must work throughout the community to ensure that willing and suitable donors are identified, and that an approach is made to their families. That requires a whole-hospital approach.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central asked what we could do in the NHS to ensure best practice. We must adopt a whole-hospital approach to promote the value of organ donation throughout the organisation. In one example in the west midlands, all trust chief executives have agreed to do so. First, they will inform their staff of the trust's positive view on donation. Secondly, they will support staff when approaching relatives for donation. Thirdly, they will have further discussions with staff who are reluctant to
184WH
approach families about donation. Fourthly, they will support transplant co-ordinators in their aim to promote general hospital-wide consciousness of issues concerning organ and tissue donation. We must work to ensure that such best practice exists throughout the NHS.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central referred to coroners. I shall raise that matter further because we shall be discussing the matter with the Home Office. My hon. Friend also mentioned intensive treatment unit beds, and he is correct to say that we must ensure that the quality of care is available to make the most of all potential organ donation. Expansion in the number of critical care and intensive care beds is part of the picture.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter and increasing awareness of it. Anything that encourages more people to join the organ register and to be willing to donate organs can make a huge difference to families' lives.
It being One o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.