Westminster Hall Sitting of 14 February 2001

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

AIDS
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
9.30 am
Sir Norman Fowler: I am grateful for the opportunity of this short debate. I raised the prospect of such a debate in business questions two weeks ago and was told that Westminster Hall would provide me with the best opportunity. I am genuinely grateful for being allowed to hold this debate, but I hope that time can be found to hold such a debate on the Floor of the House.
AIDS is a subject of undoubted gravity—almost 19 million people throughout the world have died of it, of whom about 4 million were children. More than 34 million people are now living with HIV and, barring a miracle, most of them will die during the next decade. The most recent estimate shows that in 1999, almost 5.5 million were newly infected with HIV. To put the problem at its mildest, the disease will not go away—it is becoming worse. I hope sincerely that the House of Commons will find time to debate it in full.
In terms of human catastrophe, it is difficult to think of a problem that should cause us more concern. I intend to refer to what is happening in the United Kingdom, although it is impossible to do so and ignore the context of AIDS throughout the world. As each minute passes, four more young Africans are infected. As the Secretary-General of the United Nations said, when he came to London a few months ago, every day Africa buries 5,500 of its sons and daughters who have died of AIDS. A child born in Botswana should have an average life expectancy of 70 years, but thanks to AIDS he will have an even chance of dying by the time he is 41.
The epidemic is expanding in new directions. It has spread to eastern Europe, where even five years ago the virus was still almost unknown. In India, HIV is firmly embedded in the general population. In east Africa and the Pacific, new HIV infections rose by 70 per cent. between 1996 and 1998. This debate takes place against that dire background.
I shall concentrate on the United Kingdom for two reasons: first, we can do something directly about the position here. We have the responsibility to do so. It is no one else's responsibility. It is most important to note that it is not a case of our advising others; it is a challenge for us to act.
Secondly, it is all too easy to say that, because our problem is not on the same scale as that in Africa, for example, it is of no consequence. That way lies complacency and a bigger and ultimately more deadly problem than we have at the moment. It is true that our figures are better than those for many other countries, including many of our European neighbours, and thank God for that. We should only take limited comfort, however, from the figures The Public Health
62WH
Laboratory Service estimates that about 35,000 people with HIV live in the United Kingdom. That equates to a prevalence among those aged 15 to 49 years of about one in 1,000. It also estimates that the number of people living with diagnosed HIV infection is increasing by at least 10 per cent. a year. That is one reason why the disease was the highest priority in the recent overview of communicable disease undertaken by the Public Health Laboratory Service. Although HIV is an entirely preventable infection—that needs to be repeated and repeated—in the past two years in particular there have been increases that give real cause for concern. In January, the Public Health Laboratory Service reported that, in 2000, there had been 2,868 new HIV diagnoses. That number is set to rise further as more reports of diagnoses made last year continue to come in. By the time all the reports are collected, it is expected that 2000 will have seen the highest ever number of new HIV diagnoses in the United Kingdom. That follows figures for 1999, which also showed an increase in HIV diagnosis. At that time, they were running at a 10-year high. Dr. Barry Evans, the head of the HIV division of the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, said that 1999 saw more diagnoses than any year since 1985, when HIV testing first became available.
As it happens, I was Health Secretary in 1985, when we conducted our high-profile health education campaign. The issue was how to respond. There was no cure and no vaccine. Today, the issue remains how to respond. There may be a perception among people at risk that HIV and AIDS are now curable, because of clinical advances. Despite the medical advances, there is still no cure and there is no vaccine.
When I was the Minister responsible, there were conflicting views about what the Government should do in the face of the challenge. Some said, "Don't do anything. People such as drug addicts have brought their sufferings on themselves and should be left to their own fate." Others appeared embarrassed by the whole subject. I remember going to the United States after we launched the health campaign in this country and politicians there who could not bring themselves to mention the word "AIDS". It was not only politicians—I recall journalists in this country who were content to cover wars but preferred not to cover the battle against AIDS. Even the churches tended to be schizophrenic. They wanted to help, but they did not want to give the impression that they were encouraging promiscuity, drug taking and the rest.
As you may imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I received a lot of advice during that period. In 1997, I met the then Chief Rabbi. As I sat down, he handed me an aide memoire, which complimented me on the urgency and boldness of the campaign, but he went on to set out no fewer than 14 reasons why he was disturbed by the general thrust. He said:
"It tells people not what is right, but how to do wrong and get away with it. It is like sending people into a contaminated atmosphere but providing them with gas masks and protective clothing, or instructing thieves how to escape being caught…Say plainly: AIDS is the consequence of marital infidelity, pre-marital adventures, sexual deviation, social irresponsibility, and putting pleasure before duty and discipline."
Although that was possibly an extreme example, there was a lot of that sort of criticism and advice at the time. Many people thought that we should have been conducting an entirely different sort of campaign.

63WH
All those attitudes have echoes today. They explain in part, and only in part, why some countries respond with positive policies, while others, sadly and tragically, try to ignore what is happening all around them. My attitude was and is that antipathy towards AIDS sufferers is incomprehensible. Disease is disease, whether it is sexual or not. Suffering is suffering. One does not have to condone the conduct to help the casualties, many of whom—children, wives, haemophiliacs—are innocent victims of circumstance. Our first priority for a policy, as a country and Government, must be to prevent the disease from spreading further.
That leads me to one certain conclusion. In the campaign against AIDS, a particular responsibility lies with Governments. Voluntary organisations do heroic work, as I have witnessed in this country and the United States. They deserve enormous praise for the work that they do, especially when one considers the pressure that it puts on them. I pay tribute to the National AIDS Trust in this country and to the work of the all-party parliamentary group on AIDS. Particular tribute must be paid to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), the chairman of that group, who is taking evidence on the subject in another part of Westminster. The churches—in spite of some of the attitudes that they had when the problem was first recognised—also do invaluable work.
It is the Government's responsibility to lead in this area, however, by providing public education and the finance for it and for other necessary policies. If Governments do not do it, others will not be able to do it half as effectively; they may try, but they do not have the resources. If Governments fail to take up the challenge, the problem will not be tackled. That is a lesson for us—and it is a lesson internationally, too.
We should be in no doubt that public education remains the chief weapon at our disposal. Public education campaigns need to be more closely focused than they were in the 1980s; we cannot have the same campaign, 15 years on. We know more about the subject and about the groups at particular risk—homosexual and bisexual men, drug users, and heterosexuals who have visited areas of high HIV prevalence. We know a great deal more than we knew in 1986–87, but the lesson remains the same: public education is the only vaccine at our disposal.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the right hon. Gentleman share a certain dismay and disappointment that the excellent television campaign that ran in 1986–87, during his time as a Minister, has not been repeated on an annual basis?
Sir Norman Fowler: I do—and the fact that that campaign has not been repeated is a comment not only on this Government but on the Governments that followed the period when I was Health Secretary. Television is undoubtedly one of the chief mediums for advertising—I am a newspaper man, so I will not say that it is the chief medium. There is no question about the impact that television has. A commercial company that had one big campaign, followed by nothing discernible in the next few years, would be regarded as following an eccentric policy.
64WH
The campaign must be different, but the Government must use the resources at their disposal for health education and the message of prevention. That message is crucial, but it does not receive the attention that it might, and is not often enough the subject of public debate.
My short answer to the hon. Lady, therefore, is yes, we should do much more in the area to which she referred, and it is a pity that we have not done more in the intervening years.
I remember one important lesson from my experience: the public will accept sensible, objective advice given by the Government on the basis of the best medical advice from the chief medical officer—I was fortunate in Donald Acheson. Such advice is crucial. The Government are not condoning drug taking or promiscuity by issuing such advice; they are counselling against it. As was shown in the 1914–18 war, when there was an enormous problem not of AIDS but of sexual disease, and again in 1986–87, a campaign is much more likely to be effective if it offers practical advice rather than preaching—however well-intentioned that preaching may be. Frankly, I disagree with the Chief Rabbi on that matter. On balance, Ministers in any Government are not regarded as the fount of all moral guidance.
Ministers in non-health Departments are nervous about public education campaigns. I remember having a fascinating, but ultimately frustrating and delaying, debate about whether using the phrase "to have sex" was a proper description to be used in a newspaper advertisement.
It is also probably true that Margaret Thatcher's Government was not necessarily synonymous in most people's minds with a high-profile campaign on sex education, but that Government set up a special Cabinet Committee, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister and consisting of a good third of the Cabinet, to oversee our campaign, then sent out leaflets to every house in the country pointing out the dangers of AIDS, put up posters on billboards to remind people of those dangers and, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) mentioned, promoted and paid for a television campaign on AIDS that meant, according to later research, that 90 per cent. of the public understood something of the dangers. Apart from public education initiatives, that Government organised free needle exchanges for drug addicts, so that at least they would not pass the virus from one to another. Again, that action was enormously controversial at the time, but proved to be literally a life saver.
In parenthesis, perhaps an international lesson from our experience is that if Governments take the issue seriously and act upon it, that can have a real impact on AIDS. If we compare infection rates in the United Kingdom with those in other European countries, let alone internationally, we see that the Government had an impact. Other countries, such as Uganda and Senegal, have also shown that Governments that get serious can have an impact. The nations that do worst are those where Governments, for one reason or another, brush the issue under the carpet.
To return to the United Kingdom, I do not suggest for one moment that the Government are brushing the issue under the carpet; I do not remotely regard this as a party

65WH
political issue. Nevertheless, there is a serious question as to whether today's response is adequate to the challenge that we face. I say that for two reasons. First, there is a real danger that we have become complacent. The figures do not justify complacency and we should listen to people such as Dr. Barry Evans, when he says:
"This is the second consecutive year where we have reported record high levels of HIV diagnoses. We are now two decades into the HIV epidemic but we continue to see new cases of an infection which is largely preventable. We cannot afford to become complacent about safer sex. The basic prevention messages remain the same: use a condom when having sex with a new or casual sexual partner and in the case of injecting drug use never share injecting equipment. As health professionals we have to find new ways of making the risks of HIV clear to the public and in particular to young people."
That is a challenge to health professionals, but it is a challenge to political professionals, too. It is a challenge to the Government—any Government. We must find ways of communicating the risk, and we must find and finance ways of warning people, especially young people, of the dangers, and influencing their behaviour.
The second reason that further action is required is that we have now been waiting a long time for the Government's promised strategy on sexual health and HIV. Perhaps the Minister will be able to say more about that this morning. On 6 February, the Minister for Public Health said in a written reply:
"We plan to issue the strategy for consultation shortly."—[Official Report, 6 February 2001: Vol. 362 c. 508W.]
"Shortly" is certainly better than "in due course", but it is not as good as "very soon". We—at least, those of us who have been Ministers—have all used those words from time to time, but as the Government now seem to be in a mood to define what they mean by those generalised terms, I should be grateful for the Minister's guidance.
If we were dealing with any other matter, the excuses for delay might not be accepted as easily as they have been in this case. Given the problem, it is the Government's duty to publish now. To provide some encouragement, I need no instruction on how nervous a Government machine can become on entering into the area: I remember the debates. However, in my experience, when it came to publication and the campaign, the public were substantially more mature than all the so-called media experts pointing out the possible pitfalls. "Trust the people" is not a bad guiding policy, even in such an area.
The case for a new set of initiatives is overwhelming. The Government have the responsibility for detailing those initiatives, and I hope that any lead that we give here might have at least a persuasive effect on other Governments with bigger problems who are still strangely reluctant to act. Above all, however, an initiative in this country could help save lives and prevent unnecessary suffering. After 30 years in the House—I believe that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I entered on the same day—and having experience of several Government Departments and shadow Departments, I can imagine no greater aim than that—the saving of lives and the prevention of disease.
9.53 am
Mr. Peter Brooke: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) for a
66WH
characteristically magisterial introduction to the debate, and for having arranged it. Mine will be a much less substantial contribution, but I am delighted to speak in support of his interest.
I declare an interest myself. I have a natural constituency interest, given that my part of London is one of the areas in which AIDS has been most prevalent, and more specifically, I am a patron of the La Verna housing association in Paddington, in my constituency.
Apart from La Verna, in which my interest is continuous, I have a continuing interest in developments in Africa, having travelled widely as a young man in South Africa and central and east Africa. However, my direct involvement has been in the United Kingdom and in parliamentary terms had three brief stages. In the first instance, I was, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, in at the beginning, in that I was the Civil Science Minister in 1985. By an extraordinary coincidence, my first wife died in March 1985, and in that same week, between her death and the funeral, Sir James Gowans, then the executive head of the Medical Research Council, visited Sir Keith Joseph, the Secretary of State. I remember the redemptive quality, from my point of view, of attending a meeting about so serious a matter at that moment in my life.
Sir David Phillips, later Lord Phillips, had advised us as chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils that virology was one of the fields in which the United Kingdom had fallen behind—he said that no nation can keep up to date with every field of science simultaneously. When Sir James visited us, he said that one of the disadvantages that we would have in coping with the circumstances would be that inattention to virology in the previous decade. He told the late Sir Keith that it was extremely important from the point of view of those planning the campaign to cope with the epidemic to have the best possible statistical information about where the case load was occurring. However, the Medical Research Council could not fund that out of the resources then available to it, and he asked whether the Secretary of State might provide extra money for that purpose. We were heavily pressed at the time: we had had to introduce the idea of student tuition fees because the science budget was so stretched. Nevertheless, Sir Keith found £2 million for the MRC to set up a statistical database to show where the incidence was occurring.
My second stage was brief. I left the Government for a five-month sabbatical in 1992 and obviously needed to look for new interests. I identified AIDS, and had developed a programme of how to become more expert on the matter, but that was nipped in the bud by my return to the Government.
I subsequently left the Government permanently in 1994 and I have endeavoured to be a regular attender of the all-party group, although following the explosion of all-party groups in this Parliament, diary conflicts do not allow me to attend as many meetings as I would like. I join my right hon. Friend in paying the warmest possible tribute to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) for the way in which he chairs and leads that group, which is responsible for his absence today because of hearings elsewhere.

67WH
On a series of mornings in the summer of 1998, the all-party group held hearings because it was anticipated that the Government were on the point of delivering their national strategy. Rather a long time has elapsed since then without our having seen that strategy. Like my right hon. Friend, I am looking forward to hearing the Minister's comments on that. The timing of 1998 related to a seminar that was due to take place involving experts in the field in the autumn—perhaps October—of 1998, and we wanted to have held our hearings. We held them in this Room and elsewhere for three or four hours on three or four mornings and we heard many witnesses.
The timetable required to complete or agree the report before the summer recess, in anticipation of the seminar in October, worked marginally to the disadvantage of the report. We were not a Select Committee; we were operating in necessarily rather improvised circumstances, and we did not pay as much attention as we might have done to what we said in the report. Tell it not in Gath nor in the streets of Askelon, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I would not have signed up to absolutely everything that we put in the report, but we did not have the opportunity to explore such issues in detail.
Having gone to that trouble in 1998, we have obviously been listening carefully to the Government. We have heard noises at intervals since the summer of 1998 that the report was imminent, coming, on the way, or would be with us soon. Each of those dawns turned out to be false and we are still waiting. Rumours suggest that it may, as my right hon. Friend said, be with us in the next month, but after so many disappointments we shall, necessarily, believe it only when we see it.
It would be helpful if the Minister could explain why it has proved difficult to produce the report, given that many people are interested in it and waiting for it. If it does not appear before the end of March, I can only echo the dying words of General Braddock, who was ambushed by the Iroquois in 1763. While propped up against a tree to die, he uttered the memorable words,
"We shall know better how to deal with them next time."
In the meantime, we get a cri de coeur. I received one this very week from the president of the Mildmay Mission hospital, which is to the east of my constituency. The president said:
"I expect you have seen in the press recently that Mildmay Mission Hospital has been forced to close one of its eleven bedded units due to the financial difficulties.
Funding comes from many different Health Authorities, but regrettably due to the lack of resources this is having unfortunate repercussions on Mildmay. It is strange that, when more men, women and children have been treated in 2000, funds are becoming less available.
I have just read in Hansard the debate on hospices"—
on 6 February, the same day as the written answer—
"and how the funding is ad hoc throughout the service. I feel however that Mildmay does come within a different category. It's the only specialist hospice in London (where most of the patients come from) and we are the only place that care specifically for patients with brain impairment, as a result of AIDS.
It is not generally understood that only about ⅓ of the patients can take the combination drugs and recently we have had more deaths than previously, though not as many as when we first opened."
68WH
She proceeds to invite me to the hospice, which I have visited in the past.
Finally, like my right hon. Friend I want to say a few brief words about Africa. It is commonplace to quote with praise the example of the Ugandan Government, and such a reference is a much happier one than the usual euphemism for Uganda of which we read in Private Eye. Last month, I visited South Africa with the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office briefing included the following ominous words:
"South Africa is one of the countries in the world most seriously affected by HIV/AIDS. Recent estimates suggest that, at the current rate of infection, 25% of the population will be HIV positive by 2005, the most affected group being women between the ages of 15 and 25. Four million South Africans are expected to have died by 2008."
I shall not get involved in the controversy surrounding the way in which the South African Government are dealing with the problem. Of course, it is a further commonplace that the middle classes throughout Africa will be greatly affected by AIDS and that the leadership in Africa will thus be decimated.
We visited townships in East Rand and Natal, where 90 per cent. of children who were fortunate enough to have completed secondary schooling were nevertheless unable to get jobs. Such township areas consist of about 250,000 people, and in that climate of despair it is easy to see how the problems that we are describing could be exacerbated. It would be helpful if the Minister could comment on the work of the Department for International Development on AIDS. The figures that I quoted epitomise the African problem—a problem that the whole of mankind faces. I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
10.3 am
Mr. Russell Brown: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) on securing this debate and I offer my sincere apologies for missing the beginning.
Like others in this Chamber who are members of the all-party group on AIDS, I was torn between appearing at today's evidence-taking session, which is also taking place tomorrow and on 28 February, or contributing in some way, however small, to this debate. Compared with that of more experienced Members of the House, my contribution will be somewhat limited and will relate narrowly to certain aspects and issues, on which I seek a commitment from the Minister.
As I know from speaking to different organisations about health issues and from considering HIV and AIDS in global terms, people in this country are astounded that, without a shadow of a doubt, in 2001 the problem is not going away; if anything, it is escalating. It can even be put in terms of a missing generation in many African states and it is astonishing that such a thing can happen—it is almost unbearable.
One aspect is not talked about as much as it should be—gay men in this country. I am deeply concerned about what is not taking place rather than what is. The Government's approach to HIV and sexual health is at different stages throughout the country. The Welsh Assembly's sexual health strategy was published in draft

69WH
form about 13 months ago, the Scottish Executive has prepared, but, according to the information that I have received, not published an HIV prevention strategy and, in England, a sexual health and HIV strategy was scheduled to appear late last year. The Northern Ireland Assembly has not produced a separate strategy. However, the HIV strategy of the London national health service is being produced.
Gay men remain the main group affected by HIV in the United Kingdom and make up the majority of deaths, the majority of those living with HIV and the majority of new transmissions. Paradoxically, concern for their needs and lives has often been low on any list of priorities and on occasions, I regret to say, has received scant attention in national and regional planning.
The level of diagnosed infections in gay men has remained remarkably constant at around 1,400 a year. Data show that the average age of those diagnosed has remained the same, showing that new generations of gay men continue to become infected. According to the answers to two recent parliamentary questions, about 70 per cent. of transmissions of HIV in the UK, as opposed to diagnoses that include people infected in Africa, are through sex between men. However, health authorities report that only 24 per cent. of HIV prevention money is targeted at gay men and even that figure is viewed with suspicion.
In October, the UK gay men's health network launched a document called "Ten Questions for UK HIV and Sexual Health Strategies", in which it argues that, although gay men make up the majority of those infected, paradoxically concern for their needs and lives has been a low priority. For instance, while Ministers have set up expert advisory groups for mother-child transmission, for which there is full justification, and also for infection among health care workers, the same attention has not been paid to the much higher rates of infection in gay men.
The network also argues that the social determinants of health are often ignored and that HIV bypasses the health inequalities debate. In many fields of health promotion, the myth that behaviour can be changed solely by the provision of information and/or medical treatment has been discarded, but that simplistic model has persisted for many years. To make real improvements, the true determinants of health inequalities need to be tackled. The continuing social exclusion, inequalities, prejudice and discrimination experienced by gay men must be challenged and legislative as well as long-term cultural changes are required. It is important to consider that seriously in society today.
Concern has been expressed that HIV in gay men has been marginalised as a voluntary sector issue. If the voluntary sector will not consider it, what real hope is there for it to be considered seriously elsewhere? The voluntary sector has an important role to play and can exert an influence through work in schools and so forth.
I seek some commitments from the Minister this morning. I hope that he will give an assurance, if not a guarantee, that the continuing high rate of HIV infection among gay men is at the top of the priority list and that the forthcoming strategy will reflect that. Furthermore, the report of the social exclusion unit on teenage pregnancy shows that a bold and imaginative
70WH
approach is possible to tackle the social determinants of health inequalities. I hope that the Minister will extend that approach to HIV and gay men.
I again apologise to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield for not having been present at the start of the debate and congratulate him on having secured it.
10.11 am
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who is a fellow member of the all-party group on AIDS, on securing this debate. It is long overdue and we are still awaiting the Government's strategy on sexual health—four years is a long time in the AIDS epidemic, which is sweeping the world.
Twenty years ago, or perhaps longer, an Australian medical colleague—a cardiologist—spent a weekend at my house. We were discussing heart transplants and so on, but he said that HIV would be the big news in medicine. He was right, but I did not think so at the time. As the right hon. Gentleman said, sexually transmitted disease was not much talked about 20 or 25 years ago. The clap clinics, as they were affectionately called, were up the back stairs by the mortuary in most hospitals and patients crept in wearing dark glasses and a wig. The terrors of the then known sexually transmitted diseases of syphilis and gonorrhoea had almost been eliminated. I remember whispering and giggling in a corner when I was a student because a grand and pompous old lady was suffering the effects of tertiary syphilis on one of the wards. She did not know that and the consultants would not have dreamt of telling her, nor would they have dared, but that was the way in which sexually transmitted disease was generally dealt with.
That attitude must and is changing and whole departments are now devoted to AIDS alone. A huge amount of time and money in many departments, including cardiology, neurology and immunology, is devoted to patients suffering from AIDS. The rise in tuberculosis, which is a serious public health problem, is largely attributable to the AIDS epidemic. We are discussing a serious business. As the right hon. Gentleman said, 19 million of the world's population are estimated to be HIV positive.
My first trip to Africa was to Uganda, where I naively wondered what type of business was done in the shops that sold different sized rectangular boxes. They were, of course, coffin shops. In the west we have coffee shops; in Africa they have coffin shops. It is a good trade because so many people are dying from AIDS. Furthermore, Uganda has had some success in controlling the number of patients suffering from AIDS because of their excellent education and basic health care programmes. We ignore their experience at our peril because travel is widespread and people go in and out of every country in the world. We are no longer confined to the so-called civilised developed world; people can go anywhere on holiday.
Human beings are, I regret to say, often indiscriminately sexually active, which means that they will pick up sexually transmitted diseases—especially AIDS. We do not know how far AIDS has spread in Asia, eastern Europe and Russia because many of those countries are in denial about the epidemic. AIDS affects the economically active members of the population,

71WH
which makes it different from any other disease that has affected the world. It affects those people whom their country most needs. In the past, diseases have killed babies, the weak, the elderly and people with other diseases. AIDS kills economically active people, which means that it is a great threat not only to developing countries, but to the world.
We are discussing a public health problem, which is an old-fashioned concept. We used to have medical officers who looked after the public health. They were concerned whether water was clean, whether sewers were sound and whether there was evidence of disease spreading through their communities. However, we have lost that concept in Britain—we have become used to diseases being treated by antibiotics or operations. A major proportion of expenditure in the health service should be on public health and the prevention of diseases that affect the community and the economy of the community.
In the UK, we have concentrated on treatment. The drug firms have gone ballistic and have had a wonderful time inventing new drugs. They have done brilliant work inventing some fantastic combinations of drugs that can prolong fitness in a patient suffering from AIDS, so that he or she can go on working, which is important, and to prolong life. However, there is no cure. The great danger is that many people—especially young people—think, "Ah, there is a cure," or, "By the time I get it there will be a cure, so there is no need to worry." We are wrong if we think that there will be a complete cure in the next 10 or 20 years.
Therefore, we must push home the preventive message. When the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was speaking, I mentioned television advertising. I am incensed by British television, which shows sex or sexual activity every evening. Whether it is teenagers grappling with one another in "Neighbours" or the full Monty after the watershed, one can watch sex. Human beings are sexually active; it is nothing to be ashamed of. We would not be here if we were not sexually active because we depend on it for our survival. Young people watch television and believe that to be sexually active is the norm, but where are the antidotes or warnings? There are no warnings about sexually transmitted diseases such as chlamydia, gonorrhoea and AIDS on television.
Where are the warnings about getting pregnant? If we want people to take sex seriously, we must be upfront about it and talk about the downside. Yes, sex is great, yes, sex gives us babies if we want them, but it also produces unwanted pregnancies and, dangerously, diseases that can kill. We should use television more to put over that message.
Oxfam recently launched a campaign against TRIPS—trade-related intellectual property rights. That is the convention that protects patents for the pharmaceutical industries that manufacture drugs so that, it is said, developing countries cannot manufacture them more cheaply at home. A test case is being heard in South Africa soon. Again that puts the emphasis on the treatment, and the real message in developing countries must be prevention. It would cost $2 a day to treat an AIDS patient in a developing country if the drugs were made locally and cheaply. The annual
72WH
budget per person in most developing countries is about $8 a year. Hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong. Where will they get that sort of money? We also need drugs that will prevent vertical transmission from mother to child, but they will be expensive. Wherever one looks in the world, the preventive message is the most important. We must not rely on drugs to solve our problems for us all the time.
Even if the drugs were available in developing countries, where is the basic health structure to deliver them? Those of us on the AIDS group have heard about the complicated business of taking retroviral drugs. The right combination must be taken at the right time of day and then it must be repeated, and this drug cannot be taken with that one. How can we explain that to someone who has had no education, when the nearest health clinic may be 200 miles away? There is no way to deliver the treatment. Again, the preventive message is so important.
I am my party's spokesperson on international development and the Department for International Development is to be congratulated on its work in this area. It took the problem very seriously. I remember as a newly elected Member of Parliament going to talk to it, in 1997, about something that I felt passionate about—the rise of AIDS in developing countries. At that time there was, rightly, an emphasis on malaria: malaria kills millions of people and we had to do something about it. But I have noticed how well the Government have taken that message on board. For example, in 1998 they earmarked a small amount of money for AIDS vaccine research. Now they are putting an enormous amount of money into it, with the international AIDS vaccine initiative, and the Chancellor promised more concessions in his autumn statement last year. I congratulate them on that.
In conclusion, I repeat two messages. First, prevention and the ultimate development of a vaccine against this terrible disease are the only answer, but the vaccine could be 10 years away, which leaves us with prevention, education and the need to spread the message. That is why it is vital that the sexual health strategy is launched soon.
10.23 am
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) on securing this debate on such an important topic. It is also good to hear from him because he brings his experience of government to the debate, and it is important that we hear how difficult it sometimes is in practical terms to persuade the Government machine to move in an area that might be regarded as controversial, but which it is dangerous to ignore. I commend all that my right hon. Friend did during his time in government to ensure that the matter was tackled and that resources were allocated to it. I also add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who battled at a time when it was difficult economically to persuade the Treasury to spend money, but important to do so. It is important to nip an epidemic in the bud and to intervene early.
In common with many hon. Members, I have been greatly moved by the documentaries on the AIDS epidemic in east African states in particular, and the

73WH
devastating impact on their society, especially on children. The documentary with the greatest impact showed children sleeping under cardboard at the side of a road because, not only had their parents died, but they had no living family of their parents' generation. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) emphasised the seriousness of the problem for African society and its economy. The economically active cohort of society is being lost and the African continent is already suffering—it is not attracting the same amount of investment from international corporations and business. Added to that disadvantage comes the dreadful affliction of the AIDS epidemic.
The hon. Lady referred to the impracticality of those countries being able to afford the medication that could help the afflicted. A recent headline case in the newspapers concerned nurses from Kenya coming to work in the west midlands who were found to be infected with HIV. Regrettably, the media did not focus on the right issues. We are taking nurses and trained medical staff from Kenya and other countries that need them. We heard about the role of the Department for International Development and I urge the Department of Health to reconsider. Should we be draining the third world of qualified medical staff'? The Government have said that that is not their intention, but it is still happening.
What about some reverse traffic? Should we not provide more assistance to those countries when they are losing their trained professional help? People in their 30s and 40s are dying from this dreadful disease and their hospitals and medical services are being depleted. There must be something that we can do, as the world's fourth largest economy.
Mr. Brooke: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the announcement last year that special arrangements would be made to provide entry visas for people with particular specialisations has also led to the removal of the condition that those who come here as students should return to their countries on completion of their studies? That also robs the third world of a valuable resource.
Mrs. Spelman: My right hon. Friend has a valid point. Most Members of Parliament meet qualified medical professionals in their surgeries who want to settle here permanently. Members ask themselves whether, by helping them to do so, they are removing a resource from countries that desperately need it. The moral argument should be examined.
The attention of hon. Members has turned from the plight of countries in Africa to the domestic situation. That is important and is doubtless what sparked my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield to secure this debate. Given the fact that the incidence of HIV and AIDS is again rising in the United Kingdom, we should all want to readdress that question. There is certainly no room for complacency. Although the rate of infection in this country has been contained below rates in other European countries—due, I suspect, in no small part to early intervention by the Government of the day—it is once again on the increase.
Like other hon. Members who have contributed to this debate, I want to know what has happened to the Government's integrated sexual health strategy, which
74WH
was initially promised for spring 2000. After a period of consultation, we were told that it would be available in the autumn. A 1999 Department of Health press release states:
"The Department of Health will publish a short Emerging Findings report in January 2000. The report will set out key facts, principles and issues to be addressed. It will provide an opportunity for a wider audience to contribute informally to the development of the strategy. We will publish an HIV/AIDS Strategy Document setting out the action to be taken in spring 2000."
There must be a good reason why that document has been delayed, given the increasing prevalence of the disease.
There are other problems with the existing programme. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster referred to the Mildmay Mission hospital, and I wish to discuss the practical reality for what is the UK's leading centre for HIV and AIDS. Funding from London health authorities has not been forthcoming, so the hospital has been forced to make 10 people redundant and it faces a year-end deficit of £650,000. On 3 November, the Department of Health announced an extra £41 million for the type of work that Mildmay undertakes. Why is that money not flowing through? Why is that specialist centre in such difficulties? Why is it forced to cut services at a time when the incidence of the disease is increasing? The hospital told me that it is difficult to apportion its limited budget between the high cost of combination drug therapies and the specialist supportive rehabilitative care that it offers. If the extra money has been made available, it should by now be flowing through to an establishment such as Mildmay.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park referred to the role of pharmaceutical companies. Surely the Government can put pressure on those companies to make life-saving drugs available—particularly for AIDS sufferers—at a more realistic price, regardless of wealth or nationality. Many such companies are sited in the developed world and some of the most successful are in the United Kingdom. Surely the Government can do something.
On speaking to professionals who work with these drug combinations, I was concerned to discover the difficulties associated with the delivery mechanism. If the drugs are not taken 95 per cent. of the time, they are dramatically less effective. If they are taken less than 80 per cent. of the time, resistance builds up and a patient can become immune and unable to take them. In the end, there is no other treatment for such patients. It is clear that an AIDS patient needs a great deal of support if drug therapy is to be effective. Given the cost of the drugs, ensuring that they are taken in the most effective way is surely a cost-effective use of medical support. I am sure that we can understand why those conditions will make it increasingly difficult to ensure that the drugs are taken appropriately, especially in the developing world, unless more professional help is on hand.
As hon. Members have said, this is a preventable infection. The most important reason for accelerating the delivery of the sexual health strategy must be the need to highlight what can be done to prevent disease. There is much evidence to suggest that the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases is deteriorating. Established diseases that we thought had been contained, such as syphilis and gonorrhoea, are back on the increase.

75WH
Syphilis and gonorrhoea are reappearing throughout the country. There were 30 cases in Manchester in 1999 compared with two the previous year. Taken together, Rochdale health authority and Oldham health authority have seen 54 cases of gonorrhoea in the past year. There is a simple cultural reason to explain those increases—a new generation has begun to experience life. Perhaps younger people think that the predicted AIDS epidemic has not happened and so they have become complacent about the need to use preventive barrier methods of contraception. The rise in other sexually transmitted diseases provides ample evidence that barrier methods are not being used. The increasing use of oral contraception and the Government's recent support for the morning-after pill, which is another oral method, does nothing to stem the tide of sexually transmitted disease.
Dr. Tonge: I think that the hon. Lady will agree that when young people need the morning-after pill it is because they have already had unprotected sex and laid themselves open to the risk of catching a sexually transmitted disease. That is why it is important to attack on all fronts by providing another outlet where education can be made available and warnings can be given.
Mrs. Spelman: Absolutely. The hon. Lady is right to say that the morning after pill is after the event. Unfortunately, it gives the public a reason not to consider prevention before the event. Preventive methods thought through in advance are most likely to stem the tide of infection.
I want to finish by speaking up, as the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) did, for the plight of a generation of young men who, through the absence of a sufficiently vigorous public health campaign, are in danger of losing their lives. I am depressed by the analysis of the Public Health Laboratory Service of the dangers facing that particular group. It states:
"Perhaps most worryingly of all, a substantial number of HIV infections remain undiagnosed. Only about 63 per cent. of gay and bisexual men in 1999 who are HIV positive knew they were infected; among heterosexual men, this figure falls to just 48 per cent."
That lack of information is one of the most worrying aspects of the rising incidence of HIV and AIDS. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield is right to say that we should trust the public with information. As people do not have that information, they may unwittingly infect others simply because they are unaware that they are carriers. We must be grown up about that aspect of the disease, which is something that we have not been in the past.
There is a screening programme for pregnant women. When I was pregnant with the first of my three children. I was asked whether I would be prepared to undergo the test for HIV. Of course, I was glad to do so. I had had a blood transfusion, so I wanted to be sure that I had not contracted an infection that I was about to pass on to my child. I did not know that the test was anonymous, but, although I heard no more and was happy not to know more, women are not subsequently told its result. It is
76WH
important to help the gay community, to whom the hon. Member for Dumfries referred, to prevent the spread of infection.
The nation has grown up with this debate, as a result of good health education campaigns. The Government must introduce their delayed sexual health strategy and reinvigorate this important aspect of the public health agenda.
10.40 am
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to the Minister for making it possible for me to contribute briefly to this debate. I am sorry to have missed the speeches of two former Secretaries of State to whom I was Parliamentary Private Secretary. I had to meet a Minister about a vulnerable constituent.
I want to make three points. First, we should base the discussion on the grounds not only of sexual health but sexual activity. Celibacy is something that we cannot inherit from our parents; we can adopt it and it may be forced on us, but it is not an inherited characteristic. How can we reduce the adverse consequences of sexual activity? We must throw away the language of birth control, family planning and saying, "No" to people, although we may be able to find examples in which that policy has been worth while. We must understand that many people in future generations will do the things that we did in our time. For sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, barrier methods matter more than contraceptive methods. We must be open about that.
Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said, HIV is caused not only by sexual activity. The blood route is what matters in various countries—some of my friends have been exposed to that danger as haemophiliacs or recipients of emergency blood transfusions.
Thirdly, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) made a point about the media. Reasonably, it goes on a lot about sex, but it seldom shows people discussing contraception or the use of barriers during sex. It does not mention the embarrassment felt by people in their early years of sexual activity, when looking for contraception of whatever kind—for an act that is more intimate than sharing a toothbrush. Radio might be an important means by which to overcome embarrassment and on which people might be reasonably explicit. It is no good simply for Simon Bates to present chocolate box romances on Classic FM. People need to talk, not offensively but in detail, about how one can get past desire and embarrassment to safe sexual activity.
10.42 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) on securing the debate, and join hon. Members in paying tribute to his contribution and the lead that he has taken in raising awareness about AIDS, especially in the early years of the epidemic. Some of the quotes that he included in his speech showed just how courageous a stand individuals had to take at that stage, because there was a tremendous amount of hypocrisy and ignorance and a simple unwillingness to face facts. It was easy, in those early days, not to acknowledge the potential scope

77WH
of AIDS and HIV. I pay tribute, too, to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on AIDS.
The national plan formulated by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield to combat AIDS included public health measures, research and service development and very open public education. The campaign of public information was followed by more specific health education directed towards the groups most at risk. The first ever Government-funded campaign, in 1986, had the slogan, "Don't die of ignorance." I am sure that we all remember it, which shows its impact. It broke new ground in raising awareness and providing everyone with basic information on HIV.
The message of that campaign was powerful, as was the scale of media coverage. It included television and posters, and a leaflet containing facts on HIV and AIDS, which was sent to all 23 million households in the United Kingdom. It is widely acknowledged that the United Kingdom remains a low prevalence, low risk country for HIV infection as a result of the early and sustained investment in HIV prevention and health promotion campaigns.
The scale of the AIDS problem in other countries in the new millennium is staggering and of grave concern. The number of people estimated by the joint United Nations programme to be living with HIV and AIDS was more than 34 million at the end of 1999. The vast majority of infected people are in the developing world, which is least able to cope. Countries in sub-Saharan Africa are by far the worst hit, with an estimated 24 million infected. Several Members referred to that, in particular the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who referred to South Africa and the economic impact. When I attended a World Health Organisation meeting in Geneva last year and spoke to a South African Health Minister, I was struck by the economic impact of stripping out a whole generation. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said, the economically active generation is being hit. As a result, we are left with the children, who are still growing up, and the older t generation.
The Department for International Development has made a considerable contribution by working not only with the South African Government—part of the development plan last year was an overall contribution of £11 million from the United Kingdom, and a specific project worth £7.5 million—but with India, where the United Kingdom has contributed £37 million to a project. HIV and AIDS remain one of that Department's key priorities. Last year, it spent £100 million on HIV and AIDS. In a written answer, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development said that she expected that contribution to increase.
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster also referred to hospices, which play an important part. He is right to say that the previous funding structure was far too ad hoc and was not strategic. For that reason, an extra £55 million will be available for care by 2003–04. It is also expected that health authorities will enter not merely annual agreements for funding but three-year agreements, to ensure that support is provided where it is most needed.
78WH
The hon. Member for Richmond Park was right to say that prevention is the most effective way to tackle the disease. She drew attention to other sexually transmitted diseases, because HIV and AIDS should not be seen in isolation. I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), who said that we should not ignore gay men, maternal transmission and the voluntary sector. I hope to be able to reassure him.
Before I outline the direction in which the Government are moving, I make it clear to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) that, in spite of what she said, the Department of Health does not actively recruit nurses from third-world countries. A strategy is in place, and she knows that in the case to which she referred in Wolverhampton, trained nurses were not being recruited. They were not trained when they came. I want to place on the record forcefully that that case should not be misrepresented. Guidelines are in place, of which we are acutely aware. Overseas recruitment by the Government is mainly from countries such as the Philippines. An agreement has also been reached with Spain. No one should get the wrong impression about that.
Mrs. Spelman: There is no misunderstanding. I understand the Department's guidelines, which are clear. The loophole is through nurse recruitment agencies that do not stick to those guidelines. That is where the weakness lies at present.
Ms Stuart: I do not wish to depress the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield. He is right when he says that in campaigns we should trust the people, but as a fellow Birmingham Member of Parliament—I know that the royal borough of Sutton Coldfield has still not come to terms with being part of Birmingham, but it is—he will know that we still face battles to convince the public, not least of the value of initiatives such as the Safe project in Birmingham, in which condoms are handed out to sex workers, which has been extremely effective although sections of the community deeply resent it. That is why it is important for politicians and Governments to stand up and say what is right and to be seen to do so.
On the overall situation and what the Government are doing, in western Europe, the scale of our problem is less than elsewhere, but that is no reason for complacency. We still have an estimated 500,000 people living with HIV. The United Kingdom has fared better than some other countries in Europe: Portugal has seven times our prevalence of HIV infection; Spain has five times; France four times; and Italy three times. Other European neighbours such as Germany and Sweden have managed, like us, to keep HIV infection at a lower level.
Developed countries are more able to afford to take advantage of the development of effective treatments for HIV. Those developments have been both exciting and challenging. Since the arrival of combination antiretroviral therapies in 1996, people with HIV have benefited from a reduction in debilitating infections and failing immunity, which previously characterised the disease. That may be one reason why public awareness has diminished: the number of people who die from HIV has been reduced. We still have a long way to go—the complexities of following the treatment have been mentioned.

79WH
The effects of such treatment are evident also from the changing epidemiology of HIV and AIDS in this country, which shows a 60 per cent. decrease in the number of people progressing to AIDS last year compared to 1994. That decrease is a result of the fact that people with HIV are not progressing to an AIDS-defining illness as rapidly as before. The mortality figures also tell a story, with a 73 per cent. decrease in HIV-AIDS-related deaths recorded last year compared with 1994.
There are people living with HIV throughout the country, but 60 per cent. of them continue to be in the London area, and overall the gay community remains the largest single group affected. However, in 1999, for the first time the number of new HIV diagnoses among heterosexuals was higher than among gay and bisexual men, and that trend has continued. The majority of those infections were acquired abroad—again, the hon. Member for Richmond Park made this point powerfully—usually by people from, or who have visited, countries of high HIV prevalence or risk, such as those in sub-Saharan Africa. The increase in HIV diagnoses among heterosexuals is probably in part the result of initiatives in the past few years that have encouraged people to come forward for testing.
Into the second decade—I think that my speech should say the second millennium—of HIV-AIDS in this country, we cannot afford to drop our guard. We now need a comprehensive strategy that encompasses prevention and education, treatment and care. New generations of young people need a new approach to make them aware—not merely of HIV but of other sexually transmitted infections. That is one reason why we decided to merge the work undertaken in the sexual health and HIV strategies last year. As the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) said, a combination of the two is needed. That joint approach obviously needs careful consultation with key groups, so that both HIV and other sexually transmitted infections receive the detailed and specific attention necessary if we are to make progress in combating the rise in transmissions.
There is disappointment that the strategy is taking longer than was hoped. I am sure that right hon. Members who have served in government will agree that sometimes Ministers share frustration when work does not progress as quickly as expected. I hope that the phrase "is nearing completion"—the "is" is written in italics—provides an escalated reassurance that we will issue the draft document shortly. We are determined to get the message right and ensure that strategy proposals can be implemented. To answer the question about why it has taken so long, on balance, we would prefer to get it right by bringing the two together in a wider consultation. We hope that it will be introduced shortly.
Sir Norman Fowler: Will the Minister be a little clearer? We have heard the word "shortly" before. Can we expect the strategy document to be published in the next few weeks? We have been waiting for it for a very long time.
Ms Stuart: The right hon. Gentleman is tempting me to put a figure on the time, but I say simply that it will come shortly.
80WH
On the important role of HIV prevention activities, it is as important not to exaggerate the risks of HIV for the general population as it is to recognise that those risks have not gone away Sexually active young people have information and health promotion needs and we continue to deliver new campaigns in recognition of that fact.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the effective campaign of the 1980s was right for the time, but that a simple repetition would not be the answer. The new campaigns must be more focused. The recent "Clem and Lydia" television advertisements, which dealt with chlamydia, put the HIV safer sex messages into the wider context of other sexually transmitted diseases. Chlamydia is more common than HIV among young people and presents a more immediate risk.
The large increase in inquiries to the national AIDS helpline and to Health Promotion England's "Lovelife" website show that it is possible to engage young people with the safer sex message. The hon. Member for Richmond Park pointed out that the situation was different 20 years ago, and referred to dark glasses and wigs. Ten years ago, condoms could only be acquired in gents' toilets or through cryptic messages at the pharmacists; they are now to be found on the shelves in Tesco, next to Lemsip and aspirin.
Effective drug treatments have increased life expectancy and improved the quality of life for many with HIV. They have had an impact on HIV prevention work; for example, for some gay men, the duration of the epidemic may have bred a familiarity with the effects of HIV. There is a danger that prevention messages may lose their impact if they become familiar. The challenge for health promotion planners and providers is to develop and deliver sophisticated interventions that engage target audiences, whatever their experiences of HIV. Those must be relevant and based on research into people's behaviour that accurately identifies how people live their lives in relation to HIV.
We shall ask the health development agencies to review and publish evidence-based, effective HIV and sexually transmitted disease prevention and sexual health promotion. The response to those problems must be local. National health promotion work is designed to respond to the changing nature of the AIDS epidemic. For example, health promotion resources are now available for African communities and we are developing, in partnership with community-based groups, a strategic prevention framework that aims to reduce transmission among those communities.
The sustained financial investment in local HIV prevention since the start of the epidemic has undoubtedly contributed to England's low prevalence. We provide the national health service with some £55 million for local work, but need to ensure that prevention services take account of up-to-date information on successful strategies to identify and disseminate best practice.
We are making headway in the reduction of mother-to-baby transmission of HIV. In 1998, we introduced a policy that offers an HIV test to all pregnant women as a routine part of ante-natal care. Most HIV-infected pregnant women accept the offer of measures such as drug treatments and caesarean section to reduce the risk of their babies becoming infected. In 1999, about 76 per

81WH
cent. of pregnant women with HIV in inner London had had their infection diagnosed before delivery, compared with 50 per cent. in 1998. We estimate that that will prevent about 45 infant HIV infections in 1999 alone. Although everyone wants to meet a target of zero children born with HIV, we do not believe that that is possible. However, our aim is to reduce the number of children with HIV by 80 per cent. by 2002.
We have not discarded HIV as one of our major priorities. We are building on the success of some of the campaigns of the past 20 years, particularly the work with mothers and children. I hope that the strategy to be published shortly will reassure hon. Members that there has been no reduction in capital investment or in the Government's commitment to combatting HIV.

Cyprus
11 am
Mr. Stephen Twigg: I am very pleased to have secured a debate on an important subject of long-standing concern. Cyprus has many friends in all parties at Westminster, as I believe will be reflected in our debate.
Before I begin, I draw colleagues' attention to the relevant entries in the Register of Members' Interests.
One reason why it is a great privilege to represent Enfield, Southgate is that it is a multicultural community, of which the Cypriot community forms a major part. I believe that my constituency contains the largest number of people hailing directly or indirectly from the island of Cyprus—both Greek and Turkish Cypriots, living together—and I pay tribute to their contribution to local life. Yesterday, I was grilled by one of the toughest possible audiences—the school council of my old school, Southgate comprehensive. When I go back there I am struck by the large number of pupils from Cyprus—Greek and Turkish Cypriots studying together.
I want to pay tribute to some of the excellent welfare work done locally—my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) and for Edmonton (Mr. Love) are both here today—and, in particular, to the work of the Greek and Greek Cypriot community of Enfield and the Enfield Turkish Cypriot Association, which provide welfare advice, information and support for local people, assistance for those for whom English is not their first language, luncheon clubs and other social, cultural and communal activities. Those organisations and others like them, not only in Enfield but throughout the country, provide an important local voice for those who hail from a Cypriot background.
For me, Cyprus is not simply an international issue or a question of foreign policy. It is a real, local issue of direct concern to thousands of people living in my constituency. The question of Cyprus arises every day that I am in my constituency, whether on the doorstep, visiting schools or at meetings, so I am acutely aware that there are differences of opinions and experience not only between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities but within them: they are lively, democratic communities that enjoy the full cut and thrust of debate.
It is a privilege to have this debate, which is timely, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe is to visit Cyprus next month, and following the sad withdrawal of Mr. Denktash from the proximity talks. I have no doubt that there is enormous frustration in the Cypriot community at the lack of progress towards a just, peaceful and lasting settlement in Cyprus. Such a settlement should respect the human rights of everyone in Cyprus and create a united, demilitarised island with real devolution for both Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities. That would enable people to return to the villages and properties from which they have been separated for almost three decades.
During the general election campaign almost four years ago, I spoke to a teenage boy at my old school who was from Cyprus. He had never been able to go to the village from which his family had come to this country

83WH
and he could not visit his grandparents' graves. All he wanted was to pay that important respect, and it struck me that it was simply a question of dignity—the human side of the tragic events in Cyprus in recent decades.
If progress is to be made in Cyprus, people must sit down and talk. I am wary of drawing parallels between different international situations, but lessons can be learned from Northern Ireland, South Africa and even the middle east. Discussion, dialogue and negotiation are crucial. It is against that background that I want to express my regret and, I am sure, that of all hon. Members at the decision of Mr. Denktash and the Turkish Cypriot leadership to withdraw from the proximity talks. However, I welcome the fact that that withdrawal has attracted criticism from opposition parties and the media in northern Cyprus, as well as—unusually—from the media, the business community and politicians in Turkey. What action are the Government taking to press Mr. Denktash and the Government in Turkey to return to the proximity talks at an early opportunity?
Sir Sydney Chapman: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I apologise that I cannot remain for the whole debate because of another engagement.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the influence that Britain must have on Mr. Denktash. Will he confirm that the new American Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said that the US will remain firmly engaged in seeking a solution? Does he agree that, when the Minister goes to Cyprus next month, he should use his influence—I am sure that he will do so—with the American Administration to ensure that they bring pressure to bear on Mr. Denktash to return to the UN proximity talks?
Mr. Twigg: The hon. Gentleman anticipated the next paragraph of my speech. I had a brief opportunity yesterday to speak to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in advance of his forthcoming visit to the United States. I impressed on him the importance of raising the Cyprus question and telling the new Bush Administration that America has a crucial role to play in getting the proximity talks back on track and obtaining the just and lasting settlement to which the British Government and, I am sure, all hon. Members in this Chamber are committed. Does the Minister agree that America has a pivotal role to play? She has not used her influence with Turkey in the past, but it is vital that she now takes the opportunity to do so.
The desire for progress in Cyprus is common to the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot communities. If there is to be progress, confidence-building measures will be necessary between the two communities. In recent years, there have been several opportunities for Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot people to come together to discuss issues of concern. Two years ago, a group of Chevening scholars—some from the Republic of Cyprus and others from northern Cyprus—who were studying in this country came together in the House to exchange experiences and ideas. I want to pay particular tribute to the Cambridge Cyprus Campaign, which has continued its excellent work to facilitate debate and
84WH
dialogue among young people from the island of Cyprus who are studying in the United Kingdom. As the example of Northern Ireland shows, such dialogue and debate can play a very important part in promoting reconciliation and securing consensus for the just and lasting settlement that we all seek.
In the past 12 months, events in the northern part of Cyprus have demonstrated that there is a lively debate among Turkish Cypriots. Opinion polls in northern Cyprus suggest not only overwhelming support for the northern part of Cyprus joining the European Union, but strong support among Turkish Cypriots for a federal solution to the Cyprus question. Late last year, a poll showed that that option was supported by 31 per cent. of those surveyed. It has been clear for some time that both Greek and Turkish Cypriots want to be part of the European Union.
I want to consider the very important matter of the current discussions on European Union accession. Being part of the European family confers both rights and duties, and that is an important starting point. It is some time since the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case of Mrs. Titina Loizidou. As hon. Members will recall, on an important and central question of human rights, the judges found in favour of Mrs. Loizidou and against the Turkish Government by a margin of 15 to two, but there has been little progress in terms of that Government's response. What are the British Government doing to press the authorities in Ankara to implement fully the terms of the decision reached by the European Court of Human Rights?
Despite his being in the British sovereign base area of administration on the island of Cyprus, Mr. Panicos Tsiakourmas was detained by Turkish forces in December and he appeared in court in Famagusta last week. His case has been raised several times by my hon. Friends the Members for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and for Edmonton. What representations are the British Government making in respect of this important case, which appears to involve a fundamental breach of Mr. Tsiakourmas's human rights?
The European Union provides a real hope that progress can be made in meeting the needs and aspirations of all the people of Cyprus, and the British Government's support for the Republic of Cyprus's application for European Union membership is much appreciated by the Cypriot community in the United Kingdom. As has been said many times, all of us would prefer that a united Cyprus entered the European Union, but the Government's commitment to the view that no power can have an external veto on Cyprus's application is an important one, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reaffirm it today.
President Clerides of Cyprus invited Mr. Denktash several times to provide Turkish Cypriots for the delegation that is discussing European Union accession and several Turkish Cypriot opposition parties have called for Turkish Cypriot participation in those discussions, yet Mr. Denktash has refused. What action are the UK Government taking to press for Turkish Cypriot participation in discussions on Cyprus's accession to the European Union? There is no doubt that, economically, politically and socially Cyprus is ready to be a member of the European Union, and impressive progress has been made in the accession discussions. There is clear majority support for joining

85WH
the European Union among the people of Cyprus, both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, and membership could deliver enormous economic, political and social benefits for all the people. Does the Minister recognise that Cyprus has made real progress over recent months?
The United Kingdom is a guarantor power of the independence of Cyprus, which is a highly valued member of the Commonwealth. Hon. Members have a duty, and the Government a responsibility, to play an active, positive and constructive role in helping to secure a just and lasting settlement that will enable all the people to live together on a united island that respects both traditions. I hope that the Minister will use the opportunity of today's debate and, more importantly, his forthcoming visit to the island, to reaffirm the priority that the Government attach to support for Cyprus's application to join the European Union and for all efforts to secure the just and lasting settlement that the majority of people in Cyprus want, as do hon. Members of all parties.
11.16 am
Mr. Tom Cox: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) on securing this debate. I declare an interest at the outset as chair of the Cyprus group of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
As my hon. Friend has said, Cyprus is of great importance to this country. We are one of its guarantor powers, and it is also a member of the Commonwealth. When I look back over the years since the invasion of the Republic of Cyprus by the Turkish army in 1974, I think of the many debates in which I have taken part and the questions that I and many other colleagues have tabled to successive Foreign Secretaries. As my hon. Friend also said, the great strength of this Parliament is that we are as concerned about the rights and security of Turkish Cypriots as about those of Greek Cypriots. Regrettably, many of our hopes for an honourable settlement have not been realised, and in a debate such as this there must be clear speaking.
One has simply to read the reports of successive Secretaries—General of the United Nations. Whom do they blame for the lack of progress? Mr. Denktash and his friends in Ankara. The proximity talks began a year ago. What is their position now? When did the two sides last meet? When are they expected to meet again? I look to the Minister to be open and frank with us. Has Mr. Denktash stopped the talks? I understand that he has clearly said that, unless the state that he has declared in the occupied area of northern Cyprus is recognised, he will take no further part in the talks. If that is true, what is the Government's view of that attitude? Turkey is a close ally of Mr. Denktash, but in recent months, at both Helsinki and Nice, Turkey has sought membership of the European Union. I am not criticising Turkey for wanting that, but if it really wants to be part of the EU, what constructive role does the Minister expect it to play in the Cyprus issue?
Do we accept some of the comments that have been made by prominent Turkish politicians, including the present Prime Minister of Turkey, who said that there is no Cyprus problem because that was resolved by the invasion of Cyprus in 1974? Irrespective of which party they belong to, many hon. Members do not accept such a statement. It would be interesting to know what the Government think about that statement.
86WH
The current talks started one year ago, with no preconditions. I believe that the many resolutions that were passed at the United Nations should be the cornerstone of any meaningful discussions on Cyprus. Otherwise, why did successive British Governments and others support them? We are now in the 26th year after the invasion of Cyprus—a Commonwealth country, a third of which is occupied by foreign troops. What does the Minister regard as the basis of a settlement? After 26 years, we must have a vision. What is that vision?
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate rightly talked about the role of the United Kingdom Government and the European Union. We must bear in mind the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, of which the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) and I are members. We regularly meet Turkish politicians and we have a close relationship with many of them. They are charming, capable people. When I talk to them about Cyprus, however, they believe that they have no role to play and that it is entirely up to Mr. Denktash to decide what happens.
I do not believe that for a moment. Prominent Turkish politicians repeatedly express their support for Mr. Denktash and describe the system that they support for the occupied area. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that, after all the years since Mr. Denktash set up the so-called independent state, the only country in the world that recognises it is Turkey. When opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate said that the Minister is to visit Cyprus shortly. I welcome that, as, I am sure, will the Cyprus Government and Mr. Clerides. The Minister will go to the north and meet Mr. Denktash. I hope that he will convey clearly the views that are expressed, irrespective of party, in this Parliament.
We want a settlement. We do not accept that, after 26 years, there has not been time to achieve one. We want a settlement under which the rights of both traditions are safeguarded and protected. Turkey wants to become a member of the European Union, but it plays no willing role in trying to reach the settlement that the people of Cyprus, both Greek and Turkish, want. The Minister spoke about the disturbances that have taken place in the north. They did not just happen; they have been going on for a long time.
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. It is always a great pleasure to see the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, because he and many other Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members have always been fully supportive of Cyprus. That is a great strength of this group in the United Kingdom Parliament. Clearly, the Minister will have a lot to say, and I hope that he will be frank and tell us exactly what vision the British Government have, what views he has expressed to Turkish politicians, and what views he will express to Mr. Denktash when he visits Cyprus next month.
11.26 am
Valerie Davey: The Greater Bristol area has a relatively small but long-established Cypriot community, which is almost entirely Greek Cypriot with one or two Turkish members. The newly formed Bristol Friends of Cyprus met recently and was concerned to learn that, in some circumstances, the expression of

87WH
thoughts and ideas in the north could lead to five years' imprisonment and a considerable backlash from extreme right-wing groups.
That has been brought to the attention of more people recently, as a result of the publication in two newspapers of an advertisement by the executive committee of the Turkish Cypriot teachers' trade union, KTOS, 30 members of whose executive are facing up to 150 years' imprisonment if they are convicted. The trade unionists gave their testimony about the advertisement, and other trade unionists were there to support them. The advertisement did not question the sovereignty or integrity of the Turkish Cypriot state, but said "No to Ankara." It stated:
"Ankara: we do not want your money, your package or your civil servants. We do not want to be slaves."
The reaction of right-wing groups has been extreme—using verbal abuse and threats against trade unionists. Indeed, Mr. Denktash has called on the Attorney-General to consider laws to ban the trade unionists from teaching in schools. I understand from a more recent e-mail that the head office of KTOS has been ransacked by the secret police, who have taken all the office equipment. I have contacted the National Union of Teachers, of which I am a member, and I hope that we will show solidarity. I mention that before the Minister's visit, so that, if he is able to speak to those in the north—especially Mr. Denktash—he may question such a denial of freedom of speech.
11.29 am
Mr. Roger Gale: I apologise for not being present for the start of this debate. I was otherwise engaged in receiving a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation. I apologise if I make points that have already been made in my absence.
I am worried about the manner in which the press are being treated in the northern part of Cyprus. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and I visited the area last autumn. We met journalists and learned at first hand the pressures under which they are placed and the fear that they experience in trying to tell the truth—which is what any journalist worth his or her salt would do naturally. The truth is not something that comes easily to the so-called Government of the Turkish republic of northern Cyprus—a Government whom we, of course, do not recognise. My hon. Friend—if I may call him that in the circumstances—the Member for Erdington and I are both members of the National Union of Journalists.
I listened with great interest to the comments made by my colleague and parliamentary friend, the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who referred to the role of the international community, the Council of Europe and the European Union. I did not want to interrupt him, so I did not intervene, but he did not mention the United States in that respect. The US gives a great deal of succour to the regime in Turkey, both literally and metaphorically—literally, in the form of hard cash, and metaphorically through political support. It seems to think that Turkey is the last bastion between east and west against the rampages of Muslim fundamentalism. Personally, I believe that that is a misconception, and that the United States can and should play a greater role.
88WH
The United States of America is not a guarantor power, whereas Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom are, but if the US brought sufficient pressure to bear, the problem could be solved within weeks or months, if not overnight. So far, the problem has not been solved in 26 years. I hope that the Minister will influence his colleagues to make it plain to the new Administration in the United States that they have a role to play, and that, were they to play it, the problem would be solved relatively swiftly.
Everyone says that the Cyprus problem is intractable, but it is not. We are dealing with two communities—Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots—who fundamentally want to live together in peace and harmony. The problems are caused by people outside the island of Cyprus. The communities may have had their differences—and there have been wrongs on both sides in the past—but that is what they want.
We are discussing a long and gross violation of human rights: 26 years of illegal occupation has been tolerated by the Western world and the world community. That flies in the face of successive United Nations' resolutions, but nothing of any practical substance has been done. There have been trade sanctions, but what sanction is in operation when full-page advertisements are placed in the London Evening Standard by British travel companies advertising holidays in northern Cyprus? Citizens of the United Kingdom, who would be genuinely horrified if they understood the politics of the matter, spend good money buying cheap holidays in an area of a country that wants to be part of Europe.
The Loizidou case is well known. Property has been misappropriated and occupied for 26 years. I never enter such debates without remembering my, by now very elderly, constituent George Gerolemou, whose home is still occupied after 26 years. His wife has died and will never see her home again. There are scores of such people in the United Kingdom, dotted throughout the world and on the island of Cyprus. They simply want to go home. That is what we are asking for. When will the Government, the United States and the world community say that we will not tolerate this illegal international action any longer and we intend to do something about it?
11.34 am
Ms Joan Ryan: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) on securing this debate, which is timely given the Minister's imminent visit.
I want to speak briefly on behalf of my constituents. Like my hon. Friend, I have a large number of Cypriots living in my constituency—both Turkish and Greek. They live together, Work together and study together; that does not pose a difficulty. They do not always agree on everything, but they live peacefully together. I am convinced that eventually that can and will be the case in Cyprus. On behalf of many of my constituents, I could echo many of the remarks made in the debate. I talk with elderly Cypriots, who live with the sadness that they cannot return to their homes. They are getting older, and many others have died and will never return to their home. I speak on their behalf, and on behalf of their children who, having lost their parents, want to go back to see their family home and visit family graves.

89WH
It is easy to list such issues, but when they comprise the tragedy with which people live as individuals and as a community, they scar people, and we have a responsibility to do something about it. If I did not have a single Cypriot constituent, it would still be right to speak today because, as the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) said, this is a human rights issue, so we all have a responsibility to speak on behalf of Cyprus. When the human rights of one are threatened, the human rights of all are threatened. Many of us here have stood at the green line and seen and felt the tragedy of that division and the deep sorrow of Cypriots. We do not experience it as they do, but we can empathise when we stand there and see the feeling and hurt.
Cyprus's application to the European Union, and the interest that Turkey has expressed in eventually becoming a member, could still be the catalyst for the settlement that we seek. It must be a settlement based on international law, UN resolutions and the policy of the Government. There is nothing wrong with the policy that we have, or with any of the resolutions—we are all signed up to them, and so is Cyprus, which is fine—but the problem is that nothing happens.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate used exactly the right word when he talked about the frustration of the Cypriot population in both north London and Cyprus. We must try to ease that deep frustration as soon as possible. There have been times when it could not be said that everything that could be done was being done. I ask the Minister to ensure that the Government do everything that they can, on the basis of sound policy. When he visits the island, I hope that he will reassure the Cypriots and the Cypriot Government that we are playing our full role, given our especial responsibility as a guarantor power.
The British Government have been supportive of the Cypriot Government's right to apply to join the EU and have made it clear that no external power has the right of veto over the application, and we must continue to be so. Europe would be the gainer from Cypriot entry. Cyprus meets the qualifications and would be a positive advantage to the EU. I would prefer a settlement to be achieved first, but I want Cyprus in the European Union with a settlement or without, if necessary.
Turkey has expressed an interest in getting more involved with the European Union, and that provides the opportunity to ensure that it is aware of the hurdles standing in the way of a closer relationship. A closer relationship would be an advantage for Europe, but if it is to be truly welcomed, Turkey must remedy certain problems both in Turkey and in Cyprus. We must make it absolutely clear at every opportunity that Cyprus is a major hurdle to a closer relationship between Turkey and the European Union. Will the Minister explain the Government's attitude to the Cyprus application and to Turkey's stated aims concerning the European union?
Britain is a guarantor power, and we have a close and long-standing relationship with Cyprus, which is valued on both sides. Many Cypriots live in England. North London has the largest Cypriot population outside Cyprus, and the borough of Enfield has the largest Cypriot population in Britain. Cyprus is a valued trading partner. Many Cypriots speak English as their second language, and for many Cypriots living here, it is their first.
90WH
We have a responsibility as a guarantor power, and if we look back over the past 26 or 27 years we cannot say that we have always fulfilled that responsibility. We can do more. The Government have a strong and clear policy on Cyprus that is welcome, but we must move from policy to practice. I know that that does not lie entirely in our hands, and I hear what is said about Ankara, Mr. Denktash and America. However, we have a special responsibility and we are in a unique position in being able to facilitate talks.
It is distressing that the proximity talks have foundered, but that was not the result of action or lack of action on the part of the Greek Cypriot representatives. The Greek Cypriot Government and their representatives have gone out of their way to make progress, to work with Turkish Cypriots and to involve them in the application for entry to the European Union. I pay tribute to them for their work in building trust among Turkish Cypriots for a good working relationship throughout the community. The blame for the breakdown of the talks lies firmly with Mr. Denktash, but we must work to achieve peace, a just solution and recognition of human rights under UN resolutions and international law. We must have a better relationship to lead to agreement between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities. I look forward to that and I am pleased that the Government are working to facilitate it.
11.44 am
Mr. Andrew Love: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) on securing this debate. He takes a close interest in Cypriot affairs and has a good relationship with the Cypriot community in his constituency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) said, in north London we have the largest Cypriot community outside Cyprus itself. That is a reflection of the close relationship that has existed between Britain and Cyprus since 1878, and which has continued since Cyprus achieved independence in 1960. We cherish that relationship—indeed, many hon. Members whose constituencies do not contain Cypriot communities take a particular interest in Cyprus and in finding a solution to its continuing division.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's planned visit to Cyprus. Many of us believe that the Cyprus problem cannot truly be understood without visiting the island. On his arrival he will discover that a framework solution has been available since 1974, when the original United Nations resolutions were drafted, and since 1977 and 1979, when high-level agreements were reached. He will also discover that since that time, the UN and the international community have consistently tried to sponsor negotiations. As has been said, the most recent negotiations were brought to a premature end by Mr. Denktash, who refuses to accept the international community's failure to recognise his illegal state.
The Minister will further discover that the sponsored negotiations have not been successfully concluded because the international community has failed to put Cyprus at the top of its agenda. It is undoubtedly true that the international community has not focused on the Cyprus question to the extent that it has focused on numerous other disputes that have occurred in the past 25 or 26 years since the island was invaded. We must

91WH
recognise that the solution lies in Ankara rather than Cyprus itself. In recent discussions with the US Senate, Colin Powell suggested that the United States will take a particular interest in Cyprus. I welcome that because the United States can bring the parties together for fruitful negotiations.
However, negotiations on Cyprus's accession to the European Union can also play a part as a catalyst for bringing together the two communities. As has been said, the main beneficiaries of accession to the European Union would be the Turkish Cypriot community, who have been invited to participate in the negotiations. In the light of the policy that I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will reaffirm today, it is my belief that no third party will veto the final negotiations for Cyprus's accession to the European Community. That will act as a catalyst to bring the parties together to find a solution.
I want to discuss the continued detention in northern Cyprus of Mr. Tsiakourmas, which was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, and is a matter of great concern to the Cypriot community. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that Mr. Tsiakourmas was, in the words of the official investigation, "violently forced" from his car and bundled into another vehicle while driving in the sovereign base area of Dhekelia on 13 December 2000. He was abducted to the Turkish occupied area where he is still being detained.
Mr. Tsiakourmas was travelling in the sovereign base area to pick up Turkish-Cypriot workers who were employed by him on construction sites in the Government controlled area of the island. He has been accused of possession of 1.5 kg of cannabis, for which he was originally remanded in custody for eight days, but he has since been charged with possession with intent to sell. As has been said, a preliminary hearing was conducted on 8 February and his trial is likely to commence on 25 February.
There is additional cause for concern because Mr. Tsiakourmas is a diabetic. Although he has undergone various health checks and was seen by a Hungarian specialist in Nicosia, there remains considerable concern about his deteriorating health. Indeed, he was taken to hospital on 30 January where he has remained. Reports from there suggest that his blood sugar level is dangerously high.
Interestingly, 10 days before Mr. Tsiakourmas was arrested, Mr. Omer Tekugul, a Turkish-Cypriot coffee shop owner, was detained in the sovereign base area on a charge of heroin possession with intent to supply. Mr. Tekugul is currently being tried in Cyprus, and I was interested to note that there have been various attempts by the Turkish-Cypriot authorities to swap Mr. Tekugul for Mr. Tsiakourmas. One must conclude that there was an element of tit-for-tat when Mr. Tsiakourmas was arrested on 13 December.
All attempts to engineer a swap have been wholeheartedly rejected by the Cypriot Government. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, the investigating authorities in the sovereign base area have interviewed witnesses and staged a reconstruction. Their investigation shows that Mr. Tsiakourmas was taken forcibly, his vehicle was left with its engine running,
92WH
lights on and door open, and, perhaps more importantly, the incident occurred well within the sovereign base area. The results of the authorities' forensic examination show that there were no drugs in the vehicle at the time Mr. Tsiakourmas was taken. Furthermore, he has an unblemished record and has never been linked to drugs.
Mr. Tsiakourmas was arrested in the sovereign base area, so he has become the responsibility of the British authorities. I know that the high commissioner, Mr. Clay, has made strong representations to Mr. Denktash. Indeed, Sir David Hannay has made representations to the Turkish Cypriots and to the Turkish authorities in Ankara and in London. I am also aware that the Minister met Mrs. Tsiakourmas and has been brought fully up to date with not only the events but the strength of feeling in Cyprus and the United Kingdom about what happened to Mr. Tsiakourmas.
Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, I want to press the Minister on three main areas. First, there has been some concern about Mr. Tsiakourmas' medical condition. He is a diabetic and has been in hospital since 30 January. We understand from reports from his wife and family, who visit him regularly, that his condition is deteriorating and that he is suffering from considerable depression. What reassurance can the Minister give us that he is being properly cared for?
Secondly, there have been extensive investigations. A report that is with the British authorities goes into considerable detail about the events and about the evidence relating to Mr. Tsiakourmas' innocence. Has that report been made available to the Turkish authorities in order to secure his early release?
Finally, I know that the Government have made strong representations, which I and the Cypriot community welcome, but what further action can the Minister tell us is being taken to ensure that the events that took place in the sovereign base area are followed by the restitution of Mr. Tsiakourmas's freedom and his return to his family in the south of the island?
That case is important because it establishes that the rule of law must apply across the island. It is essential that we, the legitimate authorities in the sovereign base areas, undertake to ensure Mr. Tsiakourmas's release. That will contribute to a better atmosphere in Cyprus. I know that when the Minister goes there he will discover that not only the Cyprus Government but many of the political parties in the Turkish Cypriot community want to foster the good will that exists and develop it into proper negotiations. If we can bring the two communities together with that good will, that could be the catalyst for a process that leads to fruitful negotiations towards resolving the division of the island.
11.57 am
Mr. Mark Oaten: We have had a splendid debate, which has shown an incredible depth of knowledge of the issues from a number of hon. Members with large Cypriot communities in their constituencies. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) for triggering the debate. I know that he has long-held interests in Cyprus, which he referred to in his maiden speech, and his constituents from the Cypriot community should be proud of his continuing efforts to keep raising the issues at Westminster.

93WH
An extraordinary change has taken place over the past 15 to 20 years, and many countries are now desperate to join the European Union. It is a tribute to its work and its role that so many countries now want to be part of that community. It is bizarre that, at a time when so many countries want to join, some in this country would rather turn away from it. Cyprus has been on the waiting list for the past 10 years. A number of hon. Members have spoken this morning of their enormous frustration that it is taking so long for new countries to join. Certainly, the Liberal Democrats regard it as a major aspect of foreign policy to speed up EU enlargement. We want to see Cyprus in that early wave of countries, joining as soon as possible.
There are responsibilities not only for the applicants but for the EU itself. We have not said much about the EU's responsibilities in relation to welcoming Cyprus. The EU needs modernising as well as more democracy and less bureaucracy if it is to be able to welcome not only Cyprus but many of the other countries that want to join. As a pro-European, I am frustrated with the mechanisms in Brussels and, just as the EU accessions are a catalyst to help the applicant countries to change, they must also be a catalyst for serious reform in the way in which Brussels operates. Unless that happens, we will end up in gridlock if many more countries join the EU.
The strong principles that the applicants must put in place are set out in the Copenhagen criteria. I want to spend a few moments celebrating the achievements of Cyprus rather than its problems, as it has gone an extraordinarily long way towards meeting many of the criteria. Let us consider some of the requirements, such as satisfying economic and political conditions, guaranteeing democracy, the protection of minorities and a functioning market economy. It is good news for Cyprus.
The progress report on the applicant countries had a great deal of praise for Cyprus. It said:
"Cyprus is a functioning market economy and should be able to cope with competitive pressure and market forces required within the Union."
On administration, it said that
"Cyprus has further strengthened its administrative capacity"
and cited the example of the shipping industry, where much better systems had been put in place to deal with inspection and safety.
Agriculture is a major barrier for several countries that want to join the EU—especially Poland—but the report stated that Cyprus had made good progress. More needs to be done, but it said that Cyprus was going in the right direction. It also said that Cyprus was making progress on the matters of justice and border controls, which are a worry, because it will have an open border with the enlarged community and it is crucial to get that right. We have spoken a lot this morning about difficulties, but it is worth highlighting the progress that has been made.
In its opening assessment of Cyprus, the November 2000 progress report stated:
"The predominant political problem is the continued division of the island, but over the last year important efforts have been made in the search for a political settlement in line with the Accession Partnership. From the fourth round of proximity talks held in September there were encouraging signs that the two sides were engaging in substantive discussion."
94WH
Sadly, with the decision to withdraw from the talks, that critical progress seems to have been set back—a matter that several hon. Members have raised this morning. What pressure can the Minister bring to bear to ensure that those talks begin as soon as possible?
A further concern is the progress that Cyprus is making on human rights. Again, the Copenhagen criteria are rightly clear and state the need for the
"stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities".
Cyprus has ratified most of the international legal instruments in human rights. We heard this morning about several high-profile problems. The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) asked the Minister endless questions about the non-implementation of the European Court of Human Rights ruling on the Loizidou case. I hope that the Minister can reassure us and say how he plans to raise that matter. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) has referred many times in the past few months to the case of Mr. Tsiakourmas and again raised the matter forcefully this morning, which is another matter that I hope the Minister will raise in future meetings.
I hope that we can move speedily towards getting the talks set up again. There could be enormous benefits for those who live in the northern part of the region. Their income is a third lower than that of people in the south. The pressure that needs to be brought to bear to make the authorities realise that it is in their people's interests for them to join the European Union is a catalyst that must restart the negotiations. Progress must be made on some key human rights issues. Otherwise, such issues and those concerning the divided nation will set back much of the progress that has been made on economics and infrastructure, on which Cyprus is in the leading pack of countries that could join the European Union. I strongly favour Cyprus's joining, and I hope that we shall be able to make progress as soon as possible.
12.4 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) on having introduced this important debate, and all hon. Members on having made such worthwhile and well-informed contributions. I wish the Minister well on his intended visit to Cyprus.
Given the historical perspective, the question of Cyprus is important for all British politicians and political parties. It has long involved all political parties in the House, and like many other contentious international subjects based on partition or division, it evokes passionate debate.
Cyprus is an island with which the United Kingdom has long historic associations. We enormously value Cyprus's membership of the Commonwealth. Many Cypriots of both communities have settled in Britain and greatly enriched our national life. They are supplemented by many thousands of young Cypriots who come to university here.
Successive British Governments have rightly paid close attention to developments in Cyprus over the past 25 years. We have tried to play our part in Britain in doing whatever we can to promote the interests of peace and stability on the island itself and in the region as a whole. We condemned the invasion in 1974, and we

95WH
drafted and secured the adoption of Security Council resolution 541 in 1984, which declared the Turkish Cypriot declaration of independence legally invalid. That position remains today.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, and both his Foreign Secretaries, Lord Hurd and Sir Malcolm Rifkind, specifically raised the future of Cyprus with their Turkish and Greek counterparts. The previous Government appointed the distinguished diplomat Sir David Hannay as our special representative to Cyprus to help bring the two sides together.
We respect the fact that, as guarantors of Cyprus, Greece and Turkey have their own, different views about the status of the island, as do the two Cypriot communities themselves. Our role as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council underlines the importance and dedication of our involvement, especially in view of the personal commitment and involvement of the UN Secretary-General.
The disputes that emerged from the conflict of interests focused attention on Cyprus and the surrounding region. Now, as previously, a settlement is clearly in the interests of both communities on the island. It would also help Greece and Turkey to normalise their relations and would end tragic stories of atrocities and unfairness, displacement from homes and alleged abuses of human rights.
Fortunately, today's debate on Cyprus takes place in a political climate in which there is at least some optimism, in stark contrast to previous parliamentary discussions on Cyprus, which were conducted against a background of discouraging developments. The stand-off over the acquisition of missiles by the Cypriot Government, and the Turkish response, have been succeeded by a new era with greater hope for stability. To some extent, that emerged from the two devastating earthquakes of 1999. The response and generosity of the Greek people to their Turkish neighbours was heartfelt and impressive.
The House has already welcomed the UN initiative announced in September 1998, and resolution 1218, which endorsed it. The UN has begun to try to achieve its aims of reducing tension and promoting progress towards a settlement. President Clerides's decision in December 1998 not to bring the S300 missiles to Cyprus is an example of that, as was the visit of the Greek Foreign Minister to Ankara last year. We now have a series of agreements in the region on tourism, environmental protection, investment and the fight against crime and terrorism. Those are tentative steps, but in the right direction.
In November, the fifth round of the proximity talks was concluded, following a fourth round in New York last September. At that point it was clearly felt that a more substantive phase of the process had been reached with special representative Mr. de Soto. The UN Secretary-General reported to the Security Council that a qualitative step forward had been made. Further progress is now awaited, but we welcome the commitment of the Foreign Minister of Cyprus that the elections in May will be no impediment. We can only
96WH
continue to urge all concerned to go ahead with the proximity talks—a point made clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who said that it was time to move on.
The Conservative, party has strongly supported Cyprus's membership of the EU, and we have also welcomed the decision of the Helsinki European Council in December 1999 to grant Turkey candidate status. More than ever, the EU can have an important role to play, and it would be most unfortunate for the Turkish part of the island if it were to be excluded, as that would not be advantageous to its residents.
The EU is a vessel through which mediation and eventual settlement can be sought between the two opposing sides in the debate. President Clerides has spoken optimistically of the role that the EU can play; he said that he believes that the European factor will play a great role in the achievement of a solution in Cyprus. A settlement will benefit both communities on the island. Everyone wants a resolution to the division, but however desirable that objective may be, it is important that it is not and should not be a condition for EU membership.
Given our close ties of kinship, history and friendship, Britain should continue to do all that it can to ease Cyprus's path into the EU. We welcome the work of President Clerides in this respect, not least his introduction of further market reforms as part of the accession process. The economic success of the Republic of Cyprus has been remarkable tribute to the entrepreneurial energies of its citizens. It is an extraordinary achievement to have developed the sixth largest merchant fleet in the world. We also welcome the Government's decision to renew Sir David Hannay's mandate as the United Kingdom's special representative in the region.
The British position on Cyprus has been clear for many years. Britain's role remains one of offering advice and providing support for the UN operations on the island and the international attempts to mediate between the two sides. Ultimately, only the two communities can decide what is acceptable and what is likely to last. We encourage all sides to participate actively in the negotiations. We believe that the UN's ideas for a bizonal, bicommunal federal Government provide the best possible basis of achieving a successful united Cyprus, with both communities co-operating freely together with confidence in their future and that of their shared island.
12.12 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): This has been an excellent and important debate, and I join the hon. Members for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) and for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) in congratulating all those who have taken part—but of course most congratulations must go to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) on securing the debate. This is the first time that Cyprus has been discussed in an Adjournment debate for roughly a year.
I was reminiscing about when I first met my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate. It was about 20 years ago, when I saw him at the first Labour party conference that he attended. I never believed that he

97WH
would be here and able to speak so passionately on such a subject. He gave a most eloquent speech: one of the best that I have ever heard on the subject. He should be congratulated on the work that he does on behalf of all his constituents—not only those of Cypriot origin—as should all the hon. Members who have spoken.
The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) sadly had to leave for another engagement; and my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) has always participated in debates on Cyprus. Only Rochford district council separates my hon. Friend's appearances in the Chamber today; he is back again in half an hour to talk about Wandsworth prison. He has a busy day, but he has been able to participate as he always does.
It was good to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) about the new group established in Bristol. She raised the issue of EU membership, to which I shall also refer.
The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who was with me for five years on the Home Affairs Committee, spoke passionately and reminded us of the human consequences of the events of 26 years ago. Sometimes when one reads debates and participates in the Chamber, one forgets that the real issue lies with people with real feelings who have suffered greatly, such as the hon. Gentleman's constituent He is right to chide the Government and previous Governments; we need him to remind us of the human tragedy underlying global diplomatic issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) mentioned European Union membership, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love). All hon. Members present have a wide knowledge of the subject. I only wish that I could take them all with me when I visit Cyprus in early March. The hon. Member for West Suffolk wished me well, but I cannot even take him with me, because the taxpayer would not understand. I promise hon. Members that I will report back to them on what I have seen, and that I will talk to them all before I go.
The week of my trip to Cyprus will be something of a Cyprus week for me. I will meet the Cypriot community in north London on 5 March, in a meeting organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), which I hope other hon. Members will attend. On 6 March, we will host a reception in the Foreign Office for members of the community to meet Ministers and Members of Parliament, along with communities from other EU applicant countries who are represented in the United Kingdom. During that week, we will give special attention to Cyprus.
I know that you will chide me if I refer to someone sitting in the Gallery, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the high commissioner for Cyprus is sitting somewhere in this building. She has made an enormous contribution to developing bilateral relationships between Britain and Cyprus. In fact, she is probably in the House of Commons more often than she is in the high commission, ensuring that her country's views are represented at the highest levels. I pay tribute, too, to Edward Clay, our excellent high commissioner in Nicosia, and to the Cypriot community in London.
Cyprus has been an important partner for the United Kingdom, and we have long-standing historical links and strong bilateral ties. The British people have a
98WH
special affection for Cyprus, as shown by the fact that almost 1 million British visitors regularly choose to go there. Some 50 per cent. of the total number of tourists visiting the island come from the United Kingdom. We have close cultural ties and many Cypriot organisations and individuals choose to study here. We have strong economic ties: this country is the number one trading partner for Cyprus, with approximately 11 per cent. of the market share.
It is an interesting and challenging time for Cyprus, which is engaged in two important processes that will determine its future: the United Nations settlement process and the European Union accession negotiations. All Cypriots have much to gain from a successful conclusion to those processes. I urge hon. Members not to assume that, because those processes are at a crucial stage, the Government can wave a magic wand to resolve a situation that, as the hon. Member for North Thanet said, has gone on for 26 years. That means not that we do not want to try but that there is no instant solution. Both processes depend on careful and patient negotiation. The wrong word in the wrong place could have the wrong effect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting asked me to outline our vision, which is clear and conclusive. We want to see Cyprus reunited—that is our vision. We continue to believe that the best basis is a bizonal, bicommunal federation. We also want to see Cyprus in the European Union. A just and lasting comprehensive settlement, which reunites the island, remains our central goal, but it is clear that reunification is not a precondition for EU accession, as was set out in the conclusions of the Helsinki European summit of December 1999. The Foreign Secretary reaffirmed that stance when he met Foreign Minister Kasoulides in London last October. When I visit the island in March, I will carry exactly the same message.
Last year, there were signs of real progress in the UN settlement process. The process, which started in December 1999, carried on throughout 2000. The UN Secretary-General has appealed to all concerned to avoid public comment about the delays and details of the negotiation. We shall ensure that the confidentiality of the process is respected. We welcomed remarks made last summer by the Secretary-General's special representative, Alvaro de Soto, that the change of gear for which we had been hoping had taken place, and that both parties had started to address the substantive issues at the heart of Cyprus's problems.
It is disappointing to consider the negative Turkish Cypriot reaction to Kofi Annan's statement at the end of the last session of talks in November, and the subsequent statements by the Turkish Government and Mr. Denktash that the proximity talks could not continue on the same basis. In our view, the Turkish Cypriots have much to gain from a settlement. We regret that they have not yet responded to Kofi Annan's invitation to the parties to meet him again in early 2001.
If there are misunderstandings, or if clarifications are required, those issues are best resolved through a continuation of the process. We have heard nothing that could justify a refusal to continue with those important talks. We have made it clear to all involved that the United Kingdom continues to give every support to the UN process and the efforts of the Secretary-General and his special representative. We hope for a continuation of

99WH
the process in the near future. We also expect both parties to come to the table in a spirit of give and take, prepared to negotiate a just and lasting solution.
Meanwhile, we will continue to work closely with Greece and Turkey, which have important roles to play in the Cyprus settlement process. Relations between them can do much to create a positive climate. We warmly welcome the moves for closer relations between Greece and Turkey. I want to commend especially the efforts of the Greek Foreign Minister, George Papandreou. We hope that the process of dialogue will continue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton came to see me at short notice to discuss the case to which he drew attention. When I met Mrs. Tsiakourmas in London, in January, I left her in no doubt about our interest in this case, and our concern for her husband's welfare. Other hon. Members have also raised the issue with me. The Foreign Secretary sent a message to Mr. Denktash, and our high commissioner has made strong protests to him about the circumstances of the arrest. The Foreign Secretary also sent a message to Foreign Minister Cem, and we have raised our concerns with the Turkish authorities in Nicosia, Ankara and London. Our high commissioner in Nicosia remains in close contact with the family and the UN concerning the health and welfare of Mr. Tsiakourmas. I understand that the preliminary hearing into his case is currently under way. We will continue to do all that we can to ensure that the case is resolved in a just and satisfactory manner. We share my hon. Friend's concern at the way in which the issue arose, and we have not been silent. We have been very active and will continue to be so.
On the negotiations for Cyprus to join the European Union, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North referred with passion, I can assure her that they are progressing well. Cyprus has now closed 17 of the chapters of the acquis communautaire, and the United Kingdom, and the Prime Minister in particular, continue to champion enlargement. We want to see Cyprus in the European Union as soon as possible. The Prime Minister made it clear during his speech in Warsaw on 6 October last year that the process of accession should be speeded up, and we want to ensure that that happens.
100WH
We want new member states to participate in the 2004 European elections and to have a seat at the table at the next intergovernmental conference, but it is for the countries concerned to reach a conclusion in their negotiations with Commissioner Verheugen. Britain's role is to ensure that people understand that we want new applicants to join as soon as possible. That is why I cannot understand the Conservative party's policy. I do not want to make a partisan point, but those who believe that there should be a referendum on ratification of the Nice treaty would delay considerably Cyprus's accession to the European Union. I shall say no more about that, because I see the hon. Member for West Suffolk stirring in his seat.
In December, the Nice council agreed that we should have a road map for admission. The next 18 months are important, and enlargement will be a key issue under the Swedish presidency, which will want to examine progress at the Stockholm European Council in March. When I go to Stockholm next Thursday, I shall certainly raise the points that have been made today.
We all know that the Cyprus problem is one of the most difficult in the world to solve. That does not mean that the Government are not committed to ensuring a solution. I join the hon. Member for West Suffolk in commending the work of Sir David Hannay, who has a difficult task. I urge hon. Members to keep in close contact with Sir David, because he is keen to meet hon. Members to discuss confidentially what is happening, but they will understand that he cannot discuss the details of the process.
A just and lasting settlement would bring immense benefits to ordinary Cypriots and other countries in the area. Cyprus's continued division is a tragedy that must be overcome to secure a future offering lasting peace, security and prosperity for all. The Government remain firm in their commitment to finding a solution to the Cyprus question and to working with all those involved to achieve that. We must remember that, as we were reminded today by so many hon. Members, all of whom spoke with passion, behind the global negotiations and details are the men and women whom we have all met. They should tell their constituents that the Government really care. The pace may sometimes seem too slow, but officials in the Foreign Office and Ministers want to ensure a just and lasting solution. I hope that all hon. Members will encourage their constituents to meet me on 5 March when I meet members of the community. That will provide a unique opportunity to discuss their concerns with them and I hope that many hon. Members from all parties will participate in that meeting.

Rochford District Council
12.29 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: It is a pleasure and an honour—[Interruption.] I am surprised that hon. Members are leaving the Chamber, because this is an important and significant issue.
You will be aware, Mr. Winterton, that my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark), who shows great integrity in all his activities, has been a champion of Rochford over the years. Unfortunately, he cannot be here today because he is chairing a vital conference on science and the general election, which aims to ensure that science is given appropriate consideration. He greatly regrets his absence and has asked me to apologise on his behalf.
Adjournment debates are used for all sorts of purposes: to promote a cause, to identify insoluble problems and lay responsibility for them on Governments, and to play at politics and blame the Administration for the bad weather. On hearing my arguments, I hope that the Minister will accept that I am doing none of those things, and that the problems faced by Rochford district council are serious and on-going. There is a genuine need to review the matter and to deal with what is one of the greatest injustices that I have encountered since entering this place some 37 years ago.
When constituency boundaries were changed at the last election, four areas were added to my constituency: Rochford, Great Wakering, Barling and the island of Foulness, all of which fall within Rochford district council in the county of Essex. Southend, of course, is a unitary authority that is entirely divorced from Essex. Such is the strength and commitment of the people of Southend that I am sure that they would rejoice at the opportunity to leave not only the country of Essex but the European Union, particularly in the light of the previous debate.
Rochford, however, is a different kind of place. When Southend was negotiating its independence, informal approaches were made to discover whether neighbouring Rochford would like to come along with us. The response was unambiguous Rochford did not want to join any other authority, and if ever it had to do so, the last—the very last—place it would join was Southend-on-Sea. Such disputes have gone on for many years. A wonderful and stimulating reformed sinner established a group of churches in Rochford known as the peculiar people. After achieving so much in Rochford, the group embarked on a missionary venture to Southend, which is five miles a way. However, on arrival they were stoned by the people of Southend and advised that, if it was sinners that they were looking for, they should return speedily to Rochford.
Even today, there are problems such as disputed territories. I had the pleasure of attending a meeting in Rochford two weeks ago, at which the potential of Southend airport was discussed. I was advised that there was no such place and that I must have been referring to Rochford aerodrome. There is even a political difference between the two areas. In May last year, every seat in the Southend, East part of my constituency elected a Conservative councillor. However, after the constituency was extended I did not have a single Conservative councillor in Rochford, although I did
102WH
have one in Great Wakering and Foulness, and in a recent by-election we managed to win one seat in Rochford. You will therefore appreciate, Mr. Winterton, that the marriage was not the easiest of enterprises.
However, since the last election I have done my best to get to know the new areas and to assess their problems and the opportunities that they present. I have been glad to co-operate with borough officials and councillors who represent Rochford, Great Wakering, Foulness and Barling, regardless of political party. Happily, we have an excellent chief executive in Mr. Warren, and excellent officials. In fairness, some of the councillors are also excellent. There is the splendid Roy Pearson, who is a Conservative councillor in Great Wakering; Peter Stebbing, who is a Labour councillor and chairman of the parish council; and Mr. Fox, who is a Labour county councillor.
I found that Rochford had a frightening problem with financing. On studying the figures in detail, I was horrified to discover that it was by far the worst financed borough in Essex and one of the worst in the United Kingdom—11th worst by my calculation. Rochford is a large authority. It includes Rochford, the borough that I represent, as well as places such as Rayleigh, Canewdon, Paglesham, Ashingdon and many other areas, which are ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and others.
What are my grounds for complaint? I know that figures can often be stretched and misrepresented if one refers only to direct Government grants and not to the money that comes from the business rates, and if one fails to take account of population changes and talks up the standard spending assessment as though it were a grant. I have done my best to help the Minister obtain the fairest possible figures over eight years, covering Conservative and Labour Governments, to make it abundantly clear that I am not trying to play politics.
Essex consists of 12 local councils, including places such as Braintree, Uttlesford, Castle Point, Colchester, Tendring, Basildon and Harlow. This year, the standard spending assessment per head—the amount that councils are allowed to spend per head of population—is £75 for Rochford, and it is £78.85 next year. In every other part of Essex the figure is much higher. Our £75 this year compares with £124 in Harlow, £100.93 in Tendring, £93 in Colchester and £95 in Epping Forest. Next year, Rochford's £78 compares with £131 in Harlow, £114 in Basildon, £107 in Tendring and so on. Of course, circumstances vary, but why does it cost almost twice as much to provide the identical services in Harlow as in Rochford? It does not seem right or fair.
Let us forget about total spending and look at the grants that are provided—the external support coming to Rochford. That is even worse. The figure for rate support grant—the money that the Government hand out to local councils—is unbelievable. In 1994–95 Rochford received £21 a head. The Government sent a little cheque to Rochford and said, "That's your money". In 1997–98 that was cut to £15.70 a head, in 1998–99 it was £10 a head and next year it will be £6 a head—down from £21 to £6.
In fairness, it would be misleading to mention only those figures because the Government also hand out a share of the non-domestic rate, which used to be known

103WH
as the business rate. In 1994, the figure was £32.24 a head. What is it now, following the massive cut in the rate support grant and the big increase in prices and inflation? I was shocked to discover that it was £32 in 1999 and that next year it will be £37.55.
If we add up all the money from the Government, the grant and the business rates, the total in 1994 was £53.30 a head. Next year it will be £43.67 a head. I calculate, therefore, that the cash coming to Rochford per head of population over the past eight years has been cut by 18 per cent.
What have been the consequences for Rochford? It has had to exercise the most astonishing caution in its spending. Over the eight years that I have mentioned, under both Conservative and Labour Governments, its budget increased by only 10 per cent., about 1 per cent. a year. During that time, prices have been soaring and the increase in demand for local government services has been astonishing. However, even with a penny-pinching policy on spending, the council has had to force up the rates massively because the money coming from Government has been cut so much. During those eight years, the increase in the rates has been 65 per cent., which is about 8 per cent. a year.
We know that Governments of both parties are never unhappy when local rates go up rather than national taxes, but in the case of Rochford, the ratepayers have been taken to the cleaners. How can the Minister justify an 8 per cent. rise in rates for an area which has had to slash its spending in real terms? Is there any reason why Rochford should be punished in this way? It is not a spendthrift council and it never has been. On looking through the records, I see that it was one of the first councils in Britain to privatise services such as refuse collection, street cleaning, grounds maintenance, leisure management, facilities management and buildings repair and maintenance. It has been so efficient that Lady Thatcher would be proud.
Is it because the residents are fed up with Rochford council? Strangely, despite the miserable treatment that they have had from Governments of both parties, a recent opinion poll showed that it is the highest regarded authority in Essex. In other words, local people think that it is doing a good job despite its difficulties.
Perhaps things have changed for the better with new Labour. I think that the Government will accept that until this year they have not—in fact, they have continued to get worse. In fairness, although this year's grant change is minimal, there has been a 5.1 per cent. increase in SSA, which is the amount that the council can spend.
That sounds good, but the population has increased, so the actual increase per head is only 3.7 per cent. What is most worrying is the extra spending that Government policy is forcing on the local council. Government funding has increased by £168,000, but that must be compared with the additional cost of the council's new responsibilities: £35,000 for the concessionary fares scheme; £30,000 for contaminated land investigations; £46,000 for the benefits verification framework; £69,000 for the external best value inspection and audit; £20,000 for homelessness; £96,000 for recycling, stage 1; and
104WH
£157,000 for additional staffing to meet those responsibilities. Therefore, we are not only back at square one, but a great deal behind.
The council has survived only by utilising balances, securing savings, forcing up the rates and cutting back services. That is not fair and there is a need for an urgent review. Rochford is in no sense an affluent area. Of course, there are some lovely houses and wealthy families, but there is also a fair amount of poverty, deprivation and social need.
I hope that the Minister will think about what I have said today. I hope that she will check the figures I have quoted and examine the total cost. I hope that she will accept that Rochford has been unfairly hammered and deserves a better deal. You will know from your considerable and splendid experience in the House, Mr. Winterton, that I try to explode only when something is very unfair. I have got into lots of trouble, but I hope that the Minister will accept that I am genuinely not trying to play politics. The problem has worsened under Governments of both parties. Rochford has had an unfair deal and I wonder if the Minister could think about a way of giving it a fairer deal. That would be reasonable and it is something that should happen quickly. I thank the hon. Lady for listening so patiently. I am only sorry that the hon. Members who were talking about the problems of Cyprus did not realise that Rochford has big problems that demand equal attention. I hope that the Minister will think about what I have said.
12.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) for giving us the opportunity to debate the local government settlement as it applies in Rochford in the coming year. I pay tribute to the way in which he is looking after the interests of his constituency, particularly those new areas that he has acquired since the general election. He has put a great deal of effort into getting to know them.
I accept the genuineness of the hon. Gentleman's position and the way in which he has tried to pursue the issue as he sees it. I cannot agree with all he said, but I accept that he is approaching the matter in a neutral, non-party political way and that he is concerned for the interests of the people of Rochford. Before I go into any detail—some matters are technical as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged—I must place the issue in the context of the local government revenue expenditure as it has panned out over the past few years.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that, in the context of the 2000 spending review, when considering the settlements for local authorities, we have genuinely tried—and succeeded—to reverse the position of local authorities generally in terms of the amount of cash going in. Our priority has obviously been education and social services. Shire districts, such as Rochford, depend principally on another section of the settlement—the environmental, protective and cultural services block. It does not receive funding for educational services because it does not provide any.
This year's settlement alone provides a real increase of just under 2 per cent. in the provision of services within that block. Local government as a whole—and

105WH
Rochford, in particular—will know that provision in that area has stood still because of a lack of funding for many years. In real terms, since 1997, there has been a 14 per cent. increase in funding to local authorities compared with a 7 per cent. cut in the, four years before 1997–98. In the overall context, there can be little argument that we are providing greater levels of investment, and there is general agreement that the settlement provides welcome improvements in the money going to local authorities. It should mean that most local authorities can settle their council tax rise at a lower level this year, as they have done during the past two years.
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wants to know the details for Rochford. The current position for this year is that Rochford will receive £3.418 million in general grant, which is an increase of 3.9 per cent. The first point to note is that that is comparable with the average for shire districts. Indeed, it sits exactly at the average for shire districts, which is a 3.9 per cent. increase in general grant. The total SSA increase for the next financial year is just more than £6.1 million, an increase of 5.1 per cent. That is higher than the average increase in SSA for shire districts. The average SSA is 4.6 per cent. Rochford's SSA for the environmental, protective and cultural services block, its main source of funding, increased by 5 per cent. compared with the average for shire districts of 4.5 per cent.
In the context of shire districts as a whole, Rochford is not doing too badly for the next financial year. However, I understand that the hon. Gentleman is worried about Rochford's funding over a longer period. It is a fact, as he said, that, from 1995–96 to 1998–99, there was a pattern of decline in the total standard spending assessment received by the district. I will not deal with the pattern before the 1998–99 settlement as it was the province of the previous Government, although I understand that there were methodological changes affecting Rochford and that the decrease was not due to data.
The decrease in 1998–99 occurred because of a methodological change that was undertaken at the request of, and with the consent of, the local government community. In the first settlement that we introduced, we had to change the deprivation indices used in the district services environmental, protective and cultural services block methodology because they were not representative of the amount of deprivation in an area and were widely criticised throughout local government.
Before that year, that block had included two composite indices of deprivation, known as the economic and social indices, which were shown to be statistically correlated with the need for higher expenditure in deprived areas and had, therefore, been used as proxies, to skew SSA allocation towards those deprived areas. Concern was expressed about the validity of some of the variables contained in the indicators in measuring deprivation. Two of the indicators, in respect of homelessness and temporary and non-permanent accommodation, were heavily criticised as being too loosely defined, and more dependent on local authority spending decisions than on actual need in an area.
Extensive consultation was done on the issue, and we reviewed the indicators used in those two indices. As a result, with consensus and consultation, two new indices
106WH
were developed that were found to have a much better statistical correlation than the previous ones. They were introduced into the district services EPCS block in 1998–99. Because they were new, they produced a slightly different SSA distribution. Indeed, the change was intended to establish a better fit between the indices and deprivation.
It is true that Rochford was one of the authorities that lost rather than gained following the introduction of those new indices, which were largely responsible for the 4.3 per cent. SSA reduction that Rochford experienced that year. However, since then, Rochford's SSA has increased each year. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's claim that that has only happened this year, but I appreciate that the increase may not be as fast as he would like. The main reason for the increase is that the Government have been able to put more resources into local government generally.
We should consider the years subsequent to the methodological change that affected the area. During 1999–2000, in the next settlement, the SSA increase was 1.2 per cent., and would have been higher but for data changes—that is, Rochford lost some aspects of population. In 2000–01 and 2001–02, there were no SSA methodological changes that affected shire district councils because we had stated that, during the three-year review of revenue grant distribution, no methodological changes would be made. In 2000–01, Rochford's SSA increase fell slightly, by 0.6 per cent., due to data changes—there were changes in the population groups fed into the formula—and to larger than average decreases in measures of deprivation. This year, Rochford benefits substantially, due to a larger than average increase in population—1.3 per cent. compared to a national average of 0.5 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned two specific issues. He considered funding in terms of spending per head in Rochford compared to other parts of Essex and the country and spoke about what he said were extra spending requirements in Rochford. As I have explained to the hon. Gentleman in correspondence, many spending pressures and measures of social deprivation are used in the SSA formula. Rochford has a level lower than the Essex average on virtually all the indicators, such as housing benefit, morbidity, mortality, overcrowding and income support claimants. Rochford has fewer of those problems in its population than other parts of Essex, and that is why it receives a lower SSA than its Essex neighbours. Although Rochford has its share of less affluent areas, the borough as a whole has less deprivation than its neighbours as measured by those indicators. Harlow, for example, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, has three times the rate of housing benefit claimants of Rochford. Tendring has approximately twice the unemployment rate of Rochford. Those figures highlight the differences in cost pressures between the boroughs. That explains the differences in spending per head: other parts of Essex face higher cost pressures to meet the needs of the population.
The hon. Gentleman also contrasted the increase in Rochford's SSA for the next financial year with various items of what he calls extra spending that he argues are being forced on the council by Government policy. Although central Government may lay down standards or outcomes that we want to achieve, we rarely direct

107WH
local authorities to achieve those results in only one approved way with one specific level of expenditure. It follows that it is a central feature of the local govt funding system that most funding is not ring-fenced for a particular purpose, but paid in the form of general grant. Increases in funding for new responsibilities are usually included in the general grant and it is up to local authorities to decide how they will deliver the better services that we all want.
I acknowledge that the SSA formula can never match exactly the circumstances of each local authority; some will feel that they have done well and others that they have done not so well. The hon. Gentleman may think that Rochford falls into the second category, although I should tell him that during the long consultation period, Rochford made no representations to me about any aspect of the proposed settlement. Until we reached the final settlement, we did not hear from Rochford about any fears about the proposed level of funding.
I assume that the figures given by the hon. Gentleman for cost pressures facing Rochford are council estimates. It is for councils to assess individually how best to meet the pressures on them and the needs of their local residents. I have no way of knowing whether the estimates that he cited are reasonable, but in any case it is for the council to decide how to spend the money that it has been given. We are confident that nationally we have provided sufficient resources to meet the costs of any new responsibilities. Those sums are generally included in the block—for example, we have estimated the increased costs of the statutory minimum concessionary scheme that the hon. Gentleman mentioned as being £54 million, which has gone to local authorities as additional money in the block.
The settlement for Essex is also relevant, because Essex provides services directly to the people of Rochford. For the forthcoming year, the total grant for Essex—general grant and ring-fenced grant—will increase by 7.3 per cent., together with additional spending money.
Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
Ms Hughes: I am in my last minute, and although I do not like to say no to the hon. Gentleman, I must draw to a conclusion. I understand his points but I also believe that Rochford has had a fair settlement in the context of the general increase in funding for local authorities that we have tried to provide.
Sir Teddy Taylor: If the Minister has time, would it be possible for her to visit Rochford? The people of Rochford would be grateful, and I am sure that it would be of great benefit.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I am sure that the Minister has heard that. We must now move on to the next debate.

Wandsworth Prison
1 pm
Mr. Tom Cox: I welcome the opportunity to open this short debate on Wandsworth prison, which is in my constituency. I have visited the prison many times over the years, and have had debates in the House and asked many questions about it. It is an old building, and over the years there have been changes in the role that it plays in the prison system. At present, the prisoner roll at Wandsworth is 1,300 inmates.
Over the years, the prison has often been criticised, sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly. I have read several times the report on the prison by the chief inspector of prisons for England and Wales. I am talking not about the Wandsworth prison of yesteryear but about the prison that I have seen on my visits, and the prison that my right hon. Friend the Minister and I saw when we visited it in the latter part of last year.
Last week, the press and television gave great coverage to the speech made by the Director-General of the Prison Service, Martin Narey, at the Prison Service conference 2001. He was highly critical of many aspects that still exist in the prison system. He is right. I know it, and my right hon. Friend the Minister knows it. What did the director-general say about Wandsworth? He said that Stephen Rimmer, the governor,
"has empowered an alienated staff, producing striking attitudinal change and as a result has made massive improvements, symbolised for me by the transformation of the segregation unit. I must be the first Director General for some time to await a Wandsworth report with optimism."
I welcome those comments, as do the Prison Officers Association and the board of visitors. In Stephen Rimmer, a young man, the prison has a constructive, progressive and fair governor. Those qualities are reflected in everything that he does as governor and in his dealings with officers and inmates in the day-to-day life at the prison. I have seen him at work, using those skills, on visits to the prison.
I also warmly congratulate the prison officers at Wandsworth. Their work is difficult and sometimes dangerous, but they do an excellent job. They show good will and are totally committed to the changes taking place. The board of visitors and the chairman, Mr. Akerman, deserve great credit for their time and commitment, week by week, in the prison. As I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister would agree, the board of visitors spends many hours each week in the prison. That is work that no Home Office, under any Government, would be able to do, in terms of either time or cost. I am sure that that applies to prisons throughout the country.
I have commented on Martin Narey's remarks. When the chief inspector of prisons reported in December 1999, there were 88 recommendations, which were translated by the prison into a 147-point action plan. All those action points have been taken up and are either completed or in the process of being completed. That has been done with the full support of the governor, prison officers and the board of visitors.

109WH
Those of us who take an interest in prisons know that the worst aspect for prison inmates is the time that they spend in their cells. To Wandsworth's credit, it has increased the number of hours per week that inmates are out of their cells, and that applies to all prisoners. More provision has been made for exercise, association and phone calls. As we all know from our daily lives, making a phone call to family or friends is crucial.
The role played by each of the prison wings and their inmates, be they short-term or long-term prisoners, has been enhanced. The induction system for inmates entering prison has been improved, and programmes are being developed for resettlement and advice on housing and employment opportunities on leaving prison.
Each month, the governor, Mr. Rimmer, meets prisoner representatives from each of the prison wings for a general discussion of prison issues, and he should be commended for that. The gym, which as we all know can be popular with men in prison, is now open at weekends, which is greatly appreciated. The governor and his staff have revised the prison's incentive and earnings schemes, which are, again, a matter of great importance to someone serving a prison sentence.
When the next inspection of the prison takes place, I am sure that striking comments will be made about the major changes that have taken place in the operation, care and structure of what was the segregation unit. Family visits have been introduced to keep families together during difficult times. As we all know, if a loved one is in prison, enormous stresses and strains can be placed on the family relationships.
I am also delighted to be able to say that Wandsworth has excellent prison officers, both men and women, some 11 per cent. of whom come from an ethnic minority background, although they were born here and this is their home. I warmly welcome that, as, I am sure, does my right hon. Friend the Minister. The prison has an excellent race relations organisation, and the officer responsible for it does a wonderful job. All those developments are supported not only by the governor, who, to his credit, initiated many of them, but by prison officers and the board of visitors.
Another important development has taken place at Wandsworth, as in other prisons. There are
"Sustained challenges to unacceptable behaviour—5 staff currently suspended, 2 sacked, everyone fully aware that any violence or threat of violence to prisoners (or colleagues) will not be tolerated under any circumstances".
That is the stated policy of the governor, and I am sure that we all welcome it warmly.
As we all know, circumstances can change if the commitment is made. That commitment for change has, as I briefly outlined, been made at Wandsworth prison, which looks to the future and the way forward. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister is also committed to that, but the future will not just happen: it must be planned and financed. The prison operates on a tight budget. What will the budget be this year, and will the staff and governor be asked to make any cuts in their budget for the coming year?
When I last visited the prison, I attended the monthly meeting of the board of visitors and we discussed various issues. Much has been done concerning education, but much more could be done. We all know that, sadly, men and women who are sent to prison often
110WH
have poor educational ability, but if that can be improved, their whole lives start to improve, not only while they are in prison but when they leave. I believe, as does the board of visitors, that education must be a top priority in prisons. It costs about £19,000 a year to keep someone in Wandsworth prison, and if education facilities are provided to help people to find employment, the chances are that they will not return to prison. Wandsworth wants to develop its education facilities. How does my right hon. Friend expect that aspect of Wandsworth's continuing development programme to progress?
Asylum seekers are now a major issue. Some 500 asylum seekers will be housed in prisons throughout the country because of immigration irregularities. I understand that there will be 60 at Wandsworth, which will cause pressure and strain on the system, as it already houses some 250 foreign nationals. Asylum seekers should not be put in prison without proper facilities, because they will have special needs. Asylum seekers may have broken immigration rules, but they are not convicted criminals and it is crucial to learn from my right hon. Friend what funding will be available for the extra stresses, strains and responsibilities that Wandsworth prison will be asked to take on.
Prisoners used to be housed in police cells, and successive Home Secretaries said that that was not a problem. However, there was indeed a problem, and in time the practice was stopped. I speak in friendship and with a desire for the progress to which my right hon. Friend is committed, but I do not believe that this aspect of policy has been properly thought through or properly funded.
Another matter that concerns us greatly in Wandsworth is category C prisoners. Wandsworth currently has about 480 such prisoners, many of whom are waiting to be moved to other prisons. The governor has told me that category C prisoners often have to wait 12 to 18 months before being moved. My right hon. Friend's Department must examine the matter and find out why there is a delay in moving them.
At present, some 210 inmates are working in Wandsworth. The hope is that during this year there will be opportunities for another 200 to work. That can only be welcomed. We have improved the safety of inmates and reduced self-harm through the national pilot scheme. That, too, can only be warmly welcomed and again is fully supported by all sections of the staff and the board of visitors.
As I have said, Wandsworth prison has changed greatly, and all the changes have been supported, but one issue remains: staffing levels. That may apply not only to Wandsworth but to many other prisons in London and this part of the country. As my right hon. Friend knows, there are serious problems of staff recruitment and retention. I should be interested to hear what he thinks can be done about that.
I am grateful for the opportunity to have this short debate, which outlines the changes that have taken place: changes that, as I have repeatedly said, have been supported by the governor, the POA and the board of visitors. I am glad to have been able to put on record the support for the efforts that the governor has made, and will continue to make, to make Wandsworth one of our model prisons.
1.16 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) brings to this subject a lifetime in the House of championing the cause of Wandsworth prison and, at the same time, of constantly challenging that institution to improve its game. His tribute to the governor, the staff and the work being done there is therefore all the more valuable, because he is a not uncritical friend of that institution or, quite properly, of the Prison Service.
We have had an opportunity to hear of the gains made in Wandsworth recently in improving regimes, conditions, management and industrial relations between the management and the staff, and all credit goes to those who have been responsible for bringing about those improvements. My hon. Friend rightly singles out the governor, Stephen Rimmer. I would add a word of recognition for the Prison Officers Association chairman, Richie Keller, who has demonstrated commendable qualities of leadership.
You will know, Mr. Winterton, that to bring about change in an institution is no easy matter. It requires determination and resolve as well as a willingness to face and speak some unpalatable truths. That has happened in Wandsworth, and we should reflect on the lessons that the Prison Service can learn about how best to bring about change. Although we have seen marked improvements at Wandsworth, there is no room for complacency in the Prison Service. That is why the director general made the speech that he did at the recent Prison Service conference.
On Wandsworth's immediate future, I assure my hon. Friend that it will have to make its fair contribution to the efficiency savings that the service as a whole must make. Discipline has led to improved management across the service. Wandsworth can expect to gain from the additional resources that the Government are putting into prison education. Today, the Minister for Education and Employment, Baroness Blackstone, and I launched a major joint initiative for Wormwood Scrubs—another improving institution that has had its problems—involving her Department and mine. New resources amounting to some £17 million over three years will be invested in prison education.
Prison education is linked specifically to addressing the numeracy and literacy deficits that affect inmates throughout the prison system. Some 60 per cent. of inmates have numeracy and literacy deficits that disqualify them from 94 per cent. of jobs. We are putting new resources at the disposal of prison education in order to improve basic numeracy and literacy skills. Those resources also form part of a custody-to-work initiative to help inmates make the transition from a custodial to a community context, so that on leaving prison they have a hope of finding gainful employment. Whether they have an actual job to go to or an appointment for one, former inmates will have the backup of the Employment Service and, where necessary, of the further education establishments in the area to which they are returning. Wandsworth will benefit from that concerted effort.
Wandsworth will also benefit from our additional investment in prison health care. Given that this issue is dear to your heart, Mr. Winterton, you will know that it has long been neglected. However, with the full support
112WH
and co-operation of colleagues in the Department of Health, we are tackling it in a manner that requires the national health service and the prison health service to work together for the first time in a coherent and focused way to ensure that prison health care receives the necessary investment in personnel and resources.
Importantly, there must be through-care from the prison health service into the wider mental health service. There are far too many in our jails whose main problem is one of mental health. Throughput from prison health care into mainstream NHS mental health facilities is particularly important. There will be new, additional moneys to enable Wandsworth to improve conditions, the quality of health care and the environment of its health care centre. Moreover, there will be additional resources for mental health care and psychiatric care, and for the introduction of community psychiatric workers who will work on the wings. That is good news for Wandsworth, and is in addition to the £16 million that it is due to receive.
The good work that Stephen Rimmer has started must continue and my hon. Friend and I had the opportunity to see that in action during our visits to the establishment. Central to that is the involvement of the wider community, including the board of visitors, to which my hon. friend rightly paid tribute, and voluntary sector organisations that introduce programmes into prisons. I saw one recently that dealt with the unresolved issues that many prisoners and others suffer in terms of their relationship with their parents and which may have contributed to their offending. Innovative and challenging approaches from the voluntary sector and the prison officers are important and contribute to protecting the public by reducing reoffending. We want to build on that with mentoring and with closer community links between local businesses and prisons to aid resettlement. There will be a continuing need to ensure that Wandsworth develops those links with the wider community.
I want to refer to two matters on which Wandsworth will continue to be challenged. It must bear its fair share of the increased number of immigration detainees in prison. The Government are determined to increase the number of immigration offenders and failed asylum seekers who are removed from the United Kingdom. That is our duty to the people we serve and to the maintenance of confidence in the integrity and reliability of the immigration and nationality system. That means that we must hold a number of immigration detainees in Wandsworth prison.
I assure my hon. Friend that, in the longer term, we intend to reduce the use of prisons for holding such detainees. In the meantime, higher levels of absconding make it necessary to detain people in prison and we are determined to maintain our capacity to do so. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office will ensure that the immigration and nationality directorate puts in place the services that are necessary to meet the special needs of that inmate population, including interpreters and immigration service surgeries.
I commend the work being done at Wandsworth, not least by Mr. Hindpal Singh Bhui who won the Butler trust award, to ensure the welfare of foreign national inmates. That work has been of enormous value and we want immigration detainees to benefit from it.

113WH
Wandsworth is an improving jail and the commitment and dedication of staff and management alike and the active involvement of my hon. Friend and the local community will ensure that that continues. The service as a whole can learn lessons from Wandsworth, which continues to play its part in meeting the challenges that face the service. It is a good-news story and I hope that it receives the coverage that it deserves. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for enabling the debate to take place.

Flood Defences (South Devon)
1.29 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: I want to discuss sea defences and flooding in the west country because, in the past year, global warming and changes in the weather pattern have seriously affected the communication corridors linking the entire south-west with the rest of Britain.
The railway embankments between Exeter and Tiverton Parkway have collapsed, particularly at Cowley bridge and Stafford bridge, as a result of river flooding closing the main railway line from Exeter to the rest of the country. I have been one of the passengers who have been regularly bussed along what are already congested roads to reach my destinations. What is the point of spending two and a half hours on a train to be turfed out at Taunton railway station and put on a bus that travels along the M5? We may as well go by bus all the way from Victoria coach station, which is about a quarter of the price of the railway fare.
A few weeks ago, a landslip closed the main line at Teignmouth. An 80-tonne boulder and 10,000 tonnes of cliff rubble had to be removed from the railway track before the mainline track could be re-opened. As for Dawlish on the main railway line, for many years the sea defences have been under threat with spring high tides damaging the rail embankment and destroying the track. Over the past couple of months, the main line between Penzance, Plymouth, Bristol and London has been closed, either because of floods outside Exeter, cliff slip around Teignmouth or the constant battering of the sea at Dawlish Warren. That is a regular occurrence, not an isolated incident. The number of times that I have jumped on a bus, having started my journey on a train, is too many to recall.
More recently, storm damage at Slapton sands has closed the A379, a road that links the two communities of Kingsbridge and Dartmouth. That latest catastrophe drives home the long-term problems presented by global warming, particularly the predicted rise in sea levels. It is clear that any long-term solution to global warming will come too late to halt the dramatic change in weather patterns and the predicted rise in sea level. Expert opinion suggests that for every 3 ft rise in the sea levels, more than 500 ft of foreshore could be lost in areas such as Slapton. The consequences for south Devon of such a rise, coupled with a switch from the prevailing south westerly winds, the easterly gales and other changes, could sever the existing mainline rail link outside Exeter, at Teignmouth, Dawlish, Tiverton and places between. Some road networks could be severely disrupted, too.
For at least a decade, it has been my view that an alternative rail route between Exeter and Plymouth is long overdue. Those with a branch-line mentality—and they are numerous—are shortsighted in suggesting that all that is needed is a rail bypass of Dawlish and Teignmouth. A more radical and ambitious vision would see a new line running along the A38 with a tunnel through Haldon hill. Provided that the track is there and that First Great Western is allowed to operate at the speeds it would like, it would make a journey time of two and a half hours between London and Plymouth. We must link Plymouth to London by rail in that time.

115WH
An alternative would be to rebuild the Okehampton line to Plymouth, which was removed during the Beeching cuts. I am not hung up about where the new railway line goes, but it must go somewhere other than along such a wonderful tourist track that was built many years ago, when Brunel had the vision to lay a track to Penzance. Small-minded people whinge about making Newton Abbot and Totnes stations less important, because they will be bypassed by the new line. They are incapable of seeing the bigger picture. There is no other option if the west country is to survive as a major player. Bristol to Plymouth should be an important business corridor, as London is to Bristol, and that could be the case if it were not for the lack of vision and the branch-line mentality. Communities could be built along the road and the rail infrastructure with employment opportunities close by. In the meantime, planners persist in building doughnut rings of executive homes around what are already poorly served communities and small market towns.
On 11 and 12 January this year, something significant happened. Easterly storms coincided with spring tides to devastate a section of the A379 at Slapton sands near Strete Gate, undermining the foundations of some of the two-mile stretch known as the Slapton line and cutting off communities in my constituency as well as connections between Kingsbridge and Dartmouth. Local historian, Anne Born, explained that the shingle barrier is about 1,800 years old. The road or "the line", as it is called, was probably so named when the turnpike was created in 1856 and was originally a walkway across the sand ridge. The first artificial road surface was based on faggots or reeds and was metalled in about 1920, at first with a dry bound macadam road and later a bitumen road.
The beach was used as a practice ground for the Normandy landings. Three thousand people in the area were evacuated at the end of 1943 to make way for 15,000 troops arriving for battle exercises. A 20 ft obelisk was erected by the American Government beside Slapton beach as a tribute to those who gave up their homes for the war effort and to commemorate those who sadly died during those exercises. The monument has had to be dismantled following the storm as a temporary measure as the sea had undermined its foundations.
To the landward side of the line is Slapton Ley. It is the largest fresh water lagoon in south England. The ley is an important wildfowl habitat in winter in which rare flowers and lichens flourish. Slapton Ley and the ridge were designated as a site of special scientific interest, reflecting both their biological and geological characteristics. It is also a nature reserve. Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the district council, the county council and the Whitley Trust—the owner of the site—have a duty to protect that habitat and English Nature is a consultee.
Not only is the site of historical and ecological significance, but it is important economically and socially for the region and that cannot be underestimated. As the Coleridge Association of Parish Councils said:
"We didn't realise how important the road was until we lost it!"
116WH
Those sentiments have been echoed by Dartmouth town council and the parishes of Slapton, Stokenham, Stoke Fleming and Strete. In spite of all the representations that have been made, all the talk of partnerships, the Liberal Democrats' lovey-dovey approach that we should get together and sort out the problem, the steering groups and the advisory forums that have been set up, the road is still closed. At a time when rural communities are being encouraged to diversify away from traditional ways of earning a living, people and goods cannot get about. When we consider that the holiday season is looming, the problem could not have come about at a more difficult time for the tourist industry.
The situation cannot be permitted to go on any longer, but what has happened so far is like a farce. I recognise, however, that everyone is well intentioned and that all the public authorities are doing their best. We have had parish meetings, district meetings, county meetings and public meetings. Because of the SSSI status of Slapton Ley, English Nature is involved, as is the Environment Agency.
The Slapton Ley field centre then threw a spanner in the works when it suggested a policy of managed retreat, on the basis that King Canute found that there was no stopping the sea. The centre is highly regarded for its work, but its initial studies suggest substituting for the road cycle tracks, picnic areas and other green tourist features that the Liberal Democrats consider to be "simply splendid". That will result in fewer, more discerning visitors—but not the hoi polloi who are preferred by the Tories and the Labour party. It has not gone down well with local businesses or the tourist centre.
What is worse is that the leader of the county council has been wheeled in. Poor Mr. Greenslade's feet have not touched the ground; he is being wheeled round by all the Liberal Democrat prospective parliamentary candidates to see floods, sea defences and coastal retreats. My impression was that initially he was well disposed towards the managed retreat—they could have picnic areas, cycle tracks, and so on—but he has now turned round and said, "No, we've got to reopen the road"; but the road remains closed. If the sea had destroyed the two mile road between Torcross and Strete Gate on other occasions, perhaps a policy of managed retreat would have been a more serious candidate for discussion, but as the last storms to create such havoc were more than 20 years ago, there is an overwhelming desire for two-way traffic to be reinstated as soon as possible.
Thankfully, the Devon county council officer injected some sense into the debate when he acknowledged that we need to get our priorities straight. He rightly pointed out that
"sending an endless pot of money to defend every inch of coastline whatever the cost was not an option"
but he added
"keeping coastal settlements that are fundamental to our local economy is where we ought to put our efforts in, and if our pot of money isn't big enough we have to go to Central Government to get more".
To make matters worse, the Liberal Democrats are doing their level best to exploit the situation politically, showing special concern ahead of the elections: popping

117WH
up in every picture; chucking out press releases at a rate of knots; and suggesting, of all things, that Europe could save the A379—as if Europe has anything to do with it. As the Liberal Democrats are the party of the single currency and a federal Europe, one can understand why they dragged the only Liberal Democrat MEP for the area down to view the place. He has come down, as has the leader of the Liberal Democrats in the county; everybody is down there. The only snag is that the road is still closed.
Heaven knows why Europe has been involved. Giles Chichester, the MEP, told me that he looked at the matter years ago and that no European money is available. He explained that Slapton is unlike Venice—we probably understand that—because it is not a city sinking into the mire. The road at Slapton is the responsibility of the county council, not Europe: the council must find the solution, which is surely not beyond the wit of man today.
We have some strange goings on involving the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey)—I do not blame him for not being in his place, because he did not know that I intended to mention him. According to a Liberal Democrat press release, he intends to call on the Government for coastal funding. Surprise, surprise, questions appeared on the Order Paper asking for money for coastal funding. I wonder whether those questions were drafted by the hon. Gentleman or by the Liberal Democrat prospective parliamentary candidate for my area. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman sent the questions to the Table Office or whether she sent them there. The Minister probably does not know the answer to that, because I do not. However, some strange things are going on.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. If the Table Office accepted those questions, they must have been in order, and they must have been submitted by a Member of the House. It is important to put that on the record.
Mr. Steen: Of course they have been correctly submitted, Mr. Winterton. The point is that once the written question is signed by the Member of Parliament, anyone can send it in.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I must also tell the hon. Gentleman that if he makes an allegation against another hon. Member, as I perceive him to have done, he is obliged to give him notice. I hope that he understands that.
Mr. Steen: Enough public money has already been wasted on achieving nothing—everyone involved is publicly funded. The Coast and Countryside Service is publicly funded; the Slapton Ley field centre receives public funds; English Nature is publicly funded; Devon county council is publicly funded; South Hams district council; the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Environment Agency are publicly funded. An enormous number of people are involved, all funded by the taxpayer.
The communities do not want a massive granite structure—a sea defence-to try to deflect the sea at Start bay. If they did, the district council would of course
118WH
approach MAFF, but no one to whom I have spoken wants that unique, beautiful bay spoilt in such a way. Meanwhile, the county council has put up limestone boulders along the seaward side of the stricken road that are interacting chemically with the sea water, attracting some criticism. I wonder why they bothered to shore up the track when that is not what is needed. They said that they could not open the single track to heavy road vehicles because it would sink—but what about opening it to light vehicles?
It is common knowledge that the road has been reduced to half its width and seriously undermined. It is worth noting that, despite all the meetings between county engineers and other interested parties, no further progress appears to have been made to reopen the road from a month ago. Although Rome was not built in a day, I cannot believe that the Italians or the French would not have found a speedier solution.
The electorate want their road back. I have received endless letters from people at Slapton, Torcross, Dartmouth, Chillington and Strete, and from businesses such as the Torcross Gallery, the Park West holiday bungalows, Roxborough house hotel and the proprietors of the esteemed watering hole called the Start bay inn, which does a good plate of fish and chips. The new owners of the Tradesmans arms, which is also doing well, wrote to me as well. All my correspondents despair about what is happening—or, rather, what is not happening.
On 26 January, I asked the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he would assess the impact on tourism of the Slapton-Start bay road remaining closed during the summer of 2001. He replied that no decision had been taken on whether the closed section of the road between the monument and Strete Gate would remain closed for the summer. Is that still the case on 14 February? Will the Minister give the House some idea as to the timetable for reopening the road, and what the cost of stabilising measures might be?
The parliamentary answer provided on 6 February referred to joint meetings with relevant agencies discussing draft shoreline management plans. What has come of those discussions, and will they make any difference? What are the serious long-terms options if a new road is built next to the old one? I am told that no planning permission is needed for that option. However, the snag is that the road will fall into the sea at the next spring high tide, so the option is, sensibly, not being canvassed. The best idea so far is to build a 150 ft loop back from the present line, but planners, English Nature and the landowners must give approval.
Meanwhile, as Richard Kennell of Chillington said in a letter to the Dartmouth Chronicle on 9 February,
"The loss of the coast road will cut trade in half and has serious implications, not only for travel and emergency services, but all businesses along the route."
The A379 is a vital link between Kingsbridge and Dartmouth. It is a recognised route of great scenic beauty, attracting much-needed tourist trade to an area hard pressed by the decline of agriculture and fishing. Local businesses rely heavily on passing trade to survive. The closure of the A379 above Blackpool sands a few years ago started the decline of local businesses, several of which have closed. The closure of that stretch of road forces motorists to use inadequate back lanes with few

119WH
passing places. The lanes were an attractive feature of the area, but the erosion of the high banks after prolonged rain and increased traffic has turned it into a mud bath. There is a real danger to life and limb, as Mr. and Mrs. Green told me with regard to Gara Mill, which is on that backwater route.
The emergency services cannot get to places within the proper response time. Those sharing the services of neighbouring communities, such as schools and doctors' surgeries, are under tremendous pressure. The closure creates a long and complex journey of an extra 20 miles. The notion that the road should not be reopened beggars belief. If we do not have a serviceable two-track road by Easter, how will charabancs get across the bay in the summer? It is imperative that transport should flow again as soon as possible between Torcross and Strete.
There is a simple solution: call in the Army. They should cease live firing on Dartmoor for a few weeks and throw their engineering expertise into creating a lifeline for the communities of south Devon. They could build a Bailey bridge overnight; if they did that in Bosnia, why not in Slapton? That would provide access for traffic in both directions which could be open by Easter. The permanent solution may take years to materialise, but the military solution could alleviate the problem.
I cannot impress on the House how important the road is to the communities involved. Any further prevarication, however well intentioned, verges on a dereliction of duty towards rural communities that are fighting for survival.
1.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Robert Ainsworth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing this debate about an issue that concerns his constituency. I recognise that he is worried about transportation problems in south Devon caused by the damage to the A379. On the night of 11–12 January, exceptional weather conditions in the form of an easterly gale, coinciding with high tides, caused severe damage to the A379 Slapton line. About 250 m of the road were reduced to a single lane. It is appropriate to pay tribute to those who carried out the emergency work in difficult and dangerous conditions. If it had not been carried out, it is highly probable that the shingle ridge would have been breached and the road completely lost. I understand that the work, including the provision of rock armouring, cost Devon county council close to £150,000. However, in spite of those efforts, the road remains closed while the conditions remain unsafe and until an appropriate solution can be found to allow it to reopen.
The context in which any decision can be taken on the future of the Slapton line is complicated. The shingle ridge and Slapton Ley, which it retains, lie within the South Devon area of outstanding natural beauty and heritage coast. The area is also a designated site of special scientific interest, as the hon. Gentleman said, and a national nature reserve, in recognition of its biological and geological importance. The site is owned by the Whitley Wildlife Conservation Trust, which in
120WH
turn leases it to a field studies centre that operates the Slapton Ley field centre and manages the national nature reserve. The site is extensively used for educational courses and research, and is probably one of the best documented in Great Britain. Schedule 9 to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 sets out a formal procedure that requires statutory undertakers, including local highway authorities, to obtain English Nature's approval before undertaking work affecting an SSSI.
I understand that some conservation interests criticised the emergency actions to protect the Slapton line, considering that they interfered unacceptably with the prevailing coastal processes. They remain concerned that measures to reinstate or replace the A379 should not adversely affect the SSSI or the NNR. However, following a meeting between the county council, the district council, the conservation bodies, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Environment Agency, those initial criticisms have diminished, with the greater awareness of the road's importance to the community's social and economic well-being.

The Slapton line provides a vital communication link between the settlements east of Kingsbridge and west of Dartmouth and is a popular route for tourists and visitors throughout the year. It is identified as the emergency alternative route to the A3122/A381 between Kingsbridge and Dartmouth, should that be blocked. I know that business and community interests in the severed communities have expressed considerable concern about the disruption and loss of trade, as well as the inconvenience and damage caused by increased use of the surrounding minor road network.
Clearly the county council's immediate concern is to reopen the road for safe use by traffic as quickly as possible but in a way that causes as little damage as possible to the special features of Slapton Ley. It is also apparent that a permanent solution is an ambition that can be achieved only in the long term. Given the complexity of the issues involved, considerable research will be needed to inform the design and the decision-making process, including assessments of present and projected coastal processes, the impact on the natural environment and economic considerations. Such research could take between two and three years, and it is unlikely that a new permanent road would be in place within less than five years.
Devon county council is therefore urgently seeking a long-term solution and, in the interim, a temporary scheme that will serve the local community's needs and have the least damaging affect on the SSSI and the nature reserve.
Mr. Steen: Will the Minister give way on that point, or is he pushed for time?
Mr. Ainsworth: I am pushed for time, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
Although a distinction is drawn between the maintenance of coastal defence works and the maintenance of the highway—particularly in terms of the responsibilities of public bodies and funding sources—in the determination of a long-term solution, they are closely interrelated. South Hams district council has discretionary powers to undertake coastal

121WH
protection work and apply for coast protection funding from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, while the county council takes responsibility as the highway authority.
There are advantages to both authorities working in partnership to secure an appropriate long-term solution. To that end, a meeting between the two was held on Friday 2 February, where it was recognised that considerable research would be required, which would probably entail the employment of consultants at significant cost. There is a need to identify possible funding sources, both national and European. It was agreed to establish three groups to develop a long-term solution. I welcome the decision of both authorities to work closely to develop a long-term solution and to engage the local community.
On the issue of an interim solution—the hon. Gentleman majored on that—Devon county council has examined various options. Reopening the existing road as a single lane stretch with passing bays and temporary traffic lights has been ruled out because of the storm damage to the ridge on the seaward side. At its meeting on 12 February, Devon county council resolved to seek the necessary approvals, which include planning consent and/or assent under schedule 9 of the 2000 Act, for the construction of one of three options for a short-term solution to reopen the road.
The first option is a scheme that allows for realigning the road by moving the carriageway up to 25 m from the edge of the existing carriageway That would be sufficient distance from the area subject to erosion to give a reasonable expectation of at least five years' use, but without the need for extensive and expensive coastal protection works, which would be strongly resisted by English Nature and the landowners. The county council will continue to pursue an application for planning permission for that scheme, which will be accompanied
122WH
by an environmental impact assessment, in the hope that the consent of English Nature and the landowner will be forthcoming.
The second option is a lateral extension of the existing carriageway to provide a two-lane carriageway, including rock armouring or equivalent coastal protection works. The county council considers that those works would be a permitted development and would not require planning permission.
The third option is a lateral extension of the existing carriageway, but without the rock armouring or other coastal protection works. The views of English Nature and the landowners are awaited on all three options.
It seems clear that the county council's immediate concern is to reopen the road as quickly as possible because of its importance to the local community and economy, and its role as an emergency route.
Mr. Steen: Will the Minister investigate whether the Army can help? Nobody has yet considered bringing it in, it is located on Dartmoor and it would enjoy a real-life challenge.
Mr. Ainsworth: I am certain that if a solution can be agreed, the county council will look for help wherever it is available. The agreement of the landowners and English Nature will be needed, so I cannot see there being an immediate solution. In my view, the county council should be commended for the speed of its emergency action and for its partnership working to develop a long-term solution that takes account of the area's biological and geological importance.
I am aware of the meetings with Railtrack and I shall try to get back to the hon. Gentleman at a later date on the rail issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.