Westminster Hall Sitting of 19 June 2002

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

School Examination System
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Woolas.]
9.30 am
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Today's cohort of sixth formers is made up of some of the most examined children in British educational history. Of course, regular testing gives teachers, parents and pupils useful information, but how many children will look back and say that their school days, far from being the happiest of their lives, were marred by over-examination?
Those of us with children in the state sector know that the process begins with standard assessment tests at the age of seven, and that children are then put on a conveyor belt of continual examination, which runs through to GCSEs, AS-levels and, finally, A-levels—and that is just within the school system.
SATs have a role to play in helping us carry out important checks on children's progress through the education system. However, the majority of teachers have serious reservations about the national system for testing young children. That may be connected with teachers' disenchantment with the increasing paperwork that the Government machinery churns out for them. Between April last year and March this year, the Government sent schools 4,500 pages of reading material. How are head teachers expected to find the time to read that amount of paperwork? I am sure that all hon. Members have heard that cry go up from teachers in their constituencies.
The national standards take little or no account of local differences, socio-economic variations or the number of children with special needs in a class, and that creates all sorts of perverse incentives. One head teacher described to me how a parent who had a child with special needs had told her, "I expect you won't want my child, because he will affect your SATs results." I am pleased to say that she was having none of that, and took the child on.
At best, SATs are a crude measure, but we all know how parents pore over the resultant league tables in a quest to find the best school for their children. However, education depends on so much else, such as the school's ethos, the head teacher's leadership and even the company that one's children keep.
I commend to the Secretary of State the performance indicators in primary schools—or PIPS—scheme, which measures the difference that a school makes to one's child. A bright seven-year-old may easily obtain level 2 in their SATs, but have they really been stretched to their full potential? One can find that out using PIPS, but not SATs. Conversely, a less bright seven-year-old might just miss out on level 2, but should they stand condemned at that stage for missing a national target, if they have made real progress since entering school at reception?
68WH
I am sure that I am not the only mother of boys who wonders what on earth happens to them around the age of seven. The terrible twos seem to make a bumpy reappearance for about 18 months until some maturity miraculously kicks in at the age of nine. However, seven is precisely the age at which children undergo their very important first test. Under a school-based PIPS evaluation scheme, one can take account of all such factors and keep a handle on how a child is learning and progressing. If there are difficulties, teachers can take a parent on one side and explain what progress the child is making. The information will be available, and it will be possible to see quite graphically what added value the school is giving the child and what the parent, the school and the child can do together to raise standards. There will not simply be a bald national statistic.
What about the Green Paper proposals to reduce the number of compulsory GCSE topics and to enable brighter pupils to take subjects early? As a language graduate, I am worried that that will be an excuse to drop some hated foreign language, which will push Britain even further behind in languages.
In my day—I loathe using that phrase, but there have been changes since I was at school, and as Members we tend to relate our experience to what is happening now—we had O-levels and CSEs. The introduction of GCSEs was designed to get over the two-tier approach to exams at 16. Taking nine or so subjects in one go was a test of one's capacity to carry a breadth of subjects and cope with sheer volume before the relative luxury of specialisation and streamlining.
In terms simply of load bearing, the O-level year was far and away the most difficult I faced in my schooling. I had to carry nine subjects, some of them not my best, all at the same time. In some ways, A-levels were easier. Allowing pupils to skip GCSEs altogether and go straight to AS-levels risks creating a two-tier effect all over again, so I would caution the Government over those proposals.
AS-levels were not around in my day and I am glad that I did not have to do them. The lower sixth was a chance to breathe after the heavy pressure of the GCSE year or its equivalent and before the seriousness of A-level exam pressures was upon us. That year saw a flowering of extra-curricular activity, including the production of a school musical, service to the community and gaining Queen's guide badges—all education, but not necessarily subject to examination. I am not surprised by the growth in popularity of the gap year, as children increasingly want time to live before they knuckle under to a university education.
One member of my family started his final exam season yesterday. He is one of a cohort of guinea pigs who have been relentlessly examined and re-examined since 1983 and his observations are worth listening to. He feels that his classmates have been tested so extensively that it almost contradicts the concept of comprehensive education. Testing stamped into kids where they stood in relation to their classmates at a very early stage. He experienced the revisions of the AS-level system and the new A2 levels, and he points out that the modular system of examining progressively throughout the two-year period does not suit all types of student, especially the last-minute merchants who need the focus of a deadline to put the work in.

69WH
The fact that AS-level students are first examined in January after a September start puts some people off pursuing those subjects, and a poor result after one term's study can deter people altogether. Some schools have had a drop-out rate of 50 per cent. between September 2000, when they embarked on the new revised sixth form scheme, and June 2002. My relation feels that some less academic pupils were casualties of being encouraged to pursue AS-levels and A2 levels rather than the more vocational courses to which they might have been better suited. He questions the need to reform the A-level system, along the lines of the famous dictum, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
It is right to listen to the pupils' concerns. They are sitting the exams, they will have to face the consequences and they are left with the memories of what it was really like. Interestingly, at the peak of the exam season we have had a rash of hits on the Conservative party website from pupils sitting exams who want to tell us about their problems. All the hits—there were over 40—involved one of three issues: exam quality, exam overload or the exam boards. Given the age of the correspondents, I shall refer to them by Christian name only to preserve their anonymity. For example, Mark said:
"The current exam system in primary and secondary schools is highly constricting. It seems that some primary school children are being taught how to pass their exams rather than being taught in the subjects that should matter."
Alex, a pupil from West Yorkshire, said of a history course:
"My teacher had managed to complete the course by November, just two months into the term. Since then the lesson time has been used for exam preparation. This is typical of British Education. Low on content and high on meeting targets. British children aren't educated properly at all."
Those examples are reactions in the raw from pupils who have to deal with the system.
Paul from West Yorkshire commented on his experience of moving from GCSE to AS-level:
"The AS levels are too big a jump from the GCSEs to have only a one year gap between the two exams. That means we have exams every year for three years. This means we have to have time out in the lower sixth form to be doing exams when we could be doing more of the A level syllabus."
Another comment on the AS-level system came from Peter from Surrey, who wrote that it promotes
"only anxiety concerning the burden of work and the inevitable exclusion of activities such as culture and sport. The system punishes the student who engages in either…and the stress that results in attempting to combine academic work and extracurricular activities can be crippling to exam success, as well as personal development."
It is also interesting that the website had a hit from a teacher, Sue from Suffolk, who wrote:
"The new AS exams are one set of exams too many."
Bob Spink: Teachers are forced to focus on the exam system against their wishes. They want to teach the syllabus and improve education, but the system and league tables force them to focus too much on exams. They are shell-shocked by the environment of change in which they have lived for many years. We need stability—an innovation holiday—in education.
70WH
The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has urged the Government to abandon their proposals to introduce the super-A-level, which it says presents substantial risks to the quality of examining in A-levels and the trustworthiness of the grading system. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Mrs. Spelman: That is a helpful and interesting observation from my hon. Friend. I never thought that I would catch myself saying that anyone would want an innovation holiday, but our sympathy goes to teachers, who have had to cope with an inordinate amount of change, much of which has involved grasping changes in exam technique.
I was tremendously struck by a distinction made by a teacher of one of my children. Commenting on an exam result—it might have been less than ideal—the teacher pointed out that exam technique could be learned, but that the education and intellect of the pupil need nurturing and time. Given that we have had robust exam systems in the past, I am deeply concerned that teachers feel that the balance has shifted towards getting their heads round specific techniques required for specific exams. My hon. Friend's intervention is well made.
Mr. David Rendel: Perhaps we do not need an innovation holiday altogether. I sympathise with the wish for less innovation imposed from central Government, but there is still room for teachers to experiment with new methods and perhaps even new subjects that they want to bring to the curriculum. Such experimentation has been driven out by so much centralisation of the education system over the past few years.
Mrs. Spelman: I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he acknowledges that the PIPS scheme provides examples of schools innovating a method. Others can use that method, but a school may develop its own initiative and measure for its own satisfaction the difference that it makes to pupils of every ability. For the schools involved, and the children and their parents, that will give a much finer feel of how individuals are developing.
Our concern is to give schools the space to make perhaps necessary interventions. That is based on the fact that every signal that we receive from teachers and our children, who deal with the syllabus, suggests that there is not much space in the system because of all the centrally-imposed requirements to deal with things precisely and in a particular way. I sympathise with the view that more flexibility in the requirements imposed on schools would allow more scope for helpful innovation from them.
Bob Spink: My hon. Friend may not be aware that the Science and Technology Committee is considering education in the sciences. Among the evidence that we have received is the strong message that teachers ought to be authorised to set their own questions, which could go towards the national examinations. That facility already exists in some subjects.
We are contemplating giving teachers flexibility in how they deliver the curriculum to make it more relevant for them and their pupils, which would be

71WH
innovative. I am not against innovation, but is my hon. Friend aware that where there is innovation, as in the advanced vocational certificate of education examination, which has been forced on colleges—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I say to the hon. Gentleman that interventions in Westminster Hall should still be interventions rather than speeches? He might like to catch my eye later if he wishes to develop his ideas into a speech.
Bob Spink: May I finish my point?
Mr. Deputy SpeakerBriefly.
Bob Spink: Thank you, I appreciate that. Where innovations are to be introduced, teachers should be properly prepared. For instance, there has not been proper preparation and it looks as though this year's AVCE engineering examinations will be a disaster.
Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend and look forward to the result of the Science and Technology Committee's inquiry, which will make good reading. In my experience, the Committee always produces highly informative reports and I hope that the Government take full account of its recommendations.
It would show common sense to pay more attention to what teachers say are appropriate questions for testing how much of the set syllabus pupils have absorbed. In the process, the teachers would gain an increased sense that Whitehall is listening to their accounts of their experiences in trying to deliver what they have been asked to do by the centre. More can be done in that domain.
The school examination system has not been helped by adverse press coverage of the examination boards, but I have read the reports carefully—they rose to a height over the weekend. We have learned over time to read between the lines of such coverage to find the source of the problem, and I have reached the conclusion that, in a rush to implement all the changes in Curriculum 2000, the boards have struggled to cope with the changes.
The number of papers marked by the Edexcel board, which is the butt of a lot of criticism, went from 4 million to 10 million in some six months. It requires no stretch of the imagination to understand that a board might struggle with such a sudden increase in volume. It was part of a noble aim for the new examinations to be more inclusive, but they were more complicated and the board did not cope with the inquiries that came in at the staggering rate of 100,000 calls—mostly from teachers—a month. It had to admit to a shortage of marking staff in April, and that has not done a great deal for morale. However, these are symptoms of a cause: the consequences of the changes were insufficiently thought through by the Government before they had to be introduced.
It is essential to have a good examination system in which teachers, pupils and their parents are confident. I invite the Minister to set out how confidence can be restored and how we can convince the next cohort of guinea pigs that it will all be worth while.
9.49 am
Mr. Andrew Turner: I start with an observation that may distress some of my hon. Friends, which is that the most recent disaster to overtake the examination system was started by us when Sir Keith Joseph was Secretary of State for Education and Science. He caved in to the constant pressure of the education profession—I should say the education establishment, ably supported by departmental officials—for the amalgamation of the O-level and CSE examinations, which were highly respected, for nothing better than political reasons.
I taught in comprehensive schools to both examination boards, and I submit that those examinations were carefully tailored and designed for the benefit of the different pupils who took them. Of course, the examinations overlapped—a CSE grade I was widely respected, and it was appreciated as the equivalent of a GCE O-level—but that did not mean that there had to be an examination big bang at the end of the summer term, which is now creeping back right through the term.
For what seemed good reasons at the time, I fear that we started a process of Government intervention and interference that has culminated in the undermining of respect for the whole examination system, the creation of further grade inflation—or a belief that it happens; which of us can tell?—and a feeling that the Government's attempts to control the examination system are like their attempts to control everything else. I am not making a party point, but it seems that their attempts are part of a political agenda rather than part of the education agenda.
I am concerned that the Government have carried through, and worsened significantly, the steps that we took in the 1980s. Our examination system was respected at the time, because it was based on the experience of teachers and on the highly demanding requirements of the major universities, and it was argued that some examination boards were harder and more rigorous than others.
I remember that the Oxford and Cambridge Schools Examination Board, of which I am an alumnus, was regarded as one of the more demanding and that others were regarded as less demanding, but teachers could choose examinations that were appropriate for their pupils, both in terms of their breadth and their curriculum content and level. The CSE was designed for less able pupils, and the O-level for at least some more able pupils—those whom my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) called the big bang merchants.
Mrs. Spelman: The last-minute merchants.
Mr. Turner: Yes; the big bang comes later.
We may have started the process, but it has become a great deal worse because, during the past 15 years or so, Governments of both parties have put more and more pressure on schools and the examination system—on the schools to deliver, and on the schools examination system to monitor delivery. There is nothing wrong with putting pressure on schools to deliver, nor is there anything wrong in measuring the attainment of schools.

73WH
I welcome the fact that we introduced SATs, but it might as well be admitted that they measure the performance of schools as much as the performance of pupils. They are a crude and not wholly satisfactory measure, but at least they moved in the right direction of giving parents and schools the necessary information on performance. Some schools were shown to be excellent and brilliantly performing in both crude and value-added terms. It is a matter of regret that we have not taken the value-added route in measuring the performance of schools.
Without SATs, however, we would not have been able to measure the performance of schools at all. Parents would have been left at the mercy of rumour and playground gossip about the quality of a school, whereas we can now see when some schools are creeping up the league table and others are creeping down. We can at least tell when schools are performing better than they used to in relation to their competitors, even without having value-added measures in place.
That is not an argument for not introducing such measures. I am simply saying that we have access to information that we did not have 10 or 15 years ago and, more importantly, that parents did not have. I welcome also the publication of SATs results, because it is no good the information being available to a small group of professionals alone.
I am not criticising every examinations measure taken by the Conservative Government, but we started by caving in to a demand that was driven more by social engineering than by educational aspiration. We have done so again more recently by amalgamating a range of examinations in new exams whose names employers do not recognise. Confidence in examinations depends on the ability of parents, students, employers and university admissions tutors to recognise their quality. Some have far more time to go into the detail than others.
One would expect a university admissions tutor to understand the difference between a vocational A-level and an ordinary A-level and to be abreast of the development of the AS-level and the A2-level, but I doubt that many others are. The constant changes to the system, nomenclature and content of examinations syllabuses is undermining confidence in the system.
Another problem is our utter failure to establish whether grade inflation is taking place, and the loss of A-level scripts from the early 1980s means that it is impossible to compare their quality with those from the early 1990s. That disastrous loss makes it impossible to establish whether an A-level today is worth what it was in 1980. The fact that so many more pupils are getting A-levels is to be welcomed, but it would be a great pity if they were receiving awards in a devalued currency.
The next step must be gently to withdraw Government intervention in the examination system. A-S levels are an examination too far. Some head teachers may say that they
"welcomed the increased choice and flexibility being signalled by Curriculum 2000",
but they also recognise several problems with implementation. Certainly, many sixth formers to whom I have spoken, in state and independent schools,
74WH
would agree more with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden. AS-levels impose too great a burden, too quickly, on pupils who have only just emerged from the GCSE system. They interfere with proper enjoyment of the lower sixth year and participation in out-of-school activities, and they produce a huge additional demand on teachers and an intolerable demand on examinations boards, which they were ill-equipped to face in the first year. If AS-levels had been only an option, they might have been introduced with more confidence. Many pupils who go through the lower sixth leave at the end of the year with nothing to show for it, which is a matter of great regret, but the greatest regret must be introducing a new system without the confidence of its participants.
We have a right to criticise the QCA and its predecessors, whose number over recent years signals the fact that there has been too much meddling, interference and intervention by the Government, and I do not blame this Government alone. The only power that Sir Keith Joseph had to drive through the introduction of the GCSE was the fact that the Secretary of State signed the examination certificates and could threaten to cease to sign the certificates of those boards that refused to introduce the GCSE.
Greatly to my regret, the Government took additional powers and prohibited the use of longstanding and highly respected examinations that are provided by examination boards in this country and which are lawful in West Africa and even in Scotland. That is an instance of wholly unnecessary interference and intervention, of a wholly un-Conservative sort, stemming from the Education Reform Act 1988.
The QCA claims to have a vital role—or at least a role that its chairman, in evidence to the Select Committee. claims is vital—in monitoring examinations and the content of the national curriculum. I am not convinced that its role is vital. When schools are not confident about the quality of an examination board, they can thankfully still shop around, although, regrettably, in a much reduced market. They have only three boards rather than the 10 or 12 that they used to have to choose from.
Schools are leaving Edexcel. Head teachers in my constituency have said that they will not use it again because they are not satisfied with the quality of service that they and their pupils receive, which is a much more effective power in holding examination boards to account than that of the Secretary of State working through an arms-length quango that seems more interested in managing than monitoring the examination system.
The QCA has also moved into setting examinations itself, which is a wholly inappropriate role for a body whose function is to monitor, referee and hold the ring between different examination boards. How can the QCA be poacher and gamekeeper and monitor quality effectively if it is setting SATs itself?
The Government are wrestling to overcome the problem of how to withdraw from an over-regulated examinations system and move to one in which schools can innovate and professional bodies can be involved in developing examinations. I am talking about a system that ceases to be nationalised and becomes once more decentralised.

75WH
In my criticism of what happened under Sir Keith Joseph, I accepted that he implemented a demand that professionals made of him, but I regret that he did so and that he did not leave them alone to introduce the examination and see whether it was a marketable proposition.
Now we have a far more centralised system that we must decentralise to allow examination boards, schools, teachers, professional bodies and universities to innovate. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) has left the Chamber, but we need not so much an innovation holiday as innovation in a time and of a sort that those involved in the system demand and that can be coped with by those outside it who depend on the quality of information that it provides. The latter is the most essential element in the examinations systems, but we have a long way to go before we can regain it.
10.6 am
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) for his genuinely authoritative and well understood views, which derive not least from his own experience. I have certainly seen that on a number of occasions with regard to educational matters. I shall change the emphasis of the debate slightly, however, from the effects of the current position of the schools examination system as it relates to schools and pupils to the overall context and the outcomes that it produces.
I was elected to Parliament after a fairly long career in manufacturing industry, during which I was responsible for employing a vast number of people at all levels. That meant having to rate young people according to the inevitably limited information provided during the application and interview process. I had to judge what they had displayed of their potential, and the self-confidence and inner sense of achievement that had been instilled in them by the schools that they had been fortunate—or not, as the case might have been—to attend.
An employer looks not only for aptitude and application, but for a real sense of the student's, and therefore the young person's, sense of achievement. Examinations are the one test during a student's school career that puts his academic calibre, whatever it may be, on display for public assessment, particularly for future employers.
My deep anxiety is that today many students up and down the land are living through days and weeks of extreme tension—as it happens, the debate is taking place at that very time. However, we at Westminster must recognise that a broader tension is in play. We must consider the school examinations system with a view to ensuring that everything possible is being done to give every student the chance of personal measurement and a sense of achievement. However, we must also ensure that the system is used extensively not only by the Government and local authorities, but by schools, to assess their value in terms of the work that they do and wish to he measured by, in their own eyes and, above all, in the eyes of parents and local communities.
There is also a tension for young people in having to build up a passport of qualifications that will enable them, in the case of the manufacturing industry with
76WH
which I was involved, to join the roof tile line, to go into brick manufacturing, quarrying or building roads or to go into the office and manage the accounts.
I talked to the four high school head teachers in my constituency. They have markedly different catchment areas, which has affected the measurement of their performance in terms of examination passes achieved. We must recognise that the AS-level in particular has added to that tension by placing an unnecessary and unfair burden on pupils over 16 who have continued their education. That is backed up by the teachers' sense that they are teaching something that they do not, for the life of them, believe is part of the value that they can offer or that the children want to carry with them as a passport to the real world of further education or work.
Those of us who are concerned about the AS-level are not going through education and sitting the examination today, nor are we teaching it. Although we recognise that it came on the back of a Dearing recommendation, hon. Members on both sides of the House must ask the Government important questions through the debate secured and so ably introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman): is the AS-level approach primarily motivated by a desire to sign up to something that gives us confidence that we are producing a school system that delivers results and is it truly of value to students, teachers and employers, and to the benefit of the country over time?
Even though it is early days, AS-levels are not showing any signs that they are of any benefit. Many employers still recruit students straight from school, however much the debate moves ever towards further and higher education, and many schemes are in place to ensure that people have the chance of vocational training before they enter the world of work.
Many employers make assessments at the very time when pupils come out of school at 16 with a view to being in work. I have much anecdotal evidence that when students are considering whether to go on to higher education or vocational training, they hear about the appalling burden of the AS-level on their fellow students in the year above them. It is becoming a marked deterrent against encouraging children to stay on at school.
Although two schools in my constituency are in relatively prosperous areas of Cheshire, they have been seriously hit by the appalling blight on the rural economy, which was exacerbated by the foot and mouth crisis last year. Schools that usually manage to produce sparkling results in the national league tables have found it difficult to maintain that rate of progress, and we cannot expect every cohort to do as well as the next in measurable terms such as examinations. It is a major problem for schools each time that they do well, as they worry about losing funds next time they go down the league table.
One of the problems emerging from the examination system is that we are doing too much for our own purposes rather than focusing on those of the students. Winsford—the town that I represent—is a real challenge. It has many bright pupils and two excellent schools, but many children do not come from a family or have peers who value high achievement in education. It has become apparent that the AS-level is seen as one

77WH
of the deterrents, simply because it denies what I, and I hope everyone in the Chamber, benefited from—staying on at school from 16.
The lower sixth year was particularly aimed at those not able to enjoy a gap year. Fortunately, I was, but many families were unable to support their children in a gap year between school and university or further education. The lower sixth was far from a gap year in that sense, but it was a gap from examinations—a chance to breathe and to move on from the healthy breadth and wealth of subjects at O-level. That is not unreplicated by the GCSE framework, but I shall not estimate whether past grades and attainments are as good, better or worse than today's. Frankly, I am not in a position to make that judgment. I do know. however, that the lower sixth year gave students an opportunity to develop breadth and depth in their subject without having to mug up on particular issues.
To a degree, modular testing has circumvented the problem of a three-hour hit at the end of the summer term that, for life, measures achievement in that subject. Modular curriculums have some downsides, however, and from conversations with lower sixth formers I know that students often feel that they cannot develop their interests sufficiently broadly to serve them well in future. That applies not least at A2-level the following year because, partly through the modular process and partly based on projects, the exams test particular aspects of a subject, rather than considering it in the round and seeking to draw innovation and imagination from the pupil.
Having trained as a lawyer, I have some authority in saying this: if one acquires an arts degree, by and large one feels that one has acquired a depth of knowledge, an ability to commit things to memory and an ability to assimilate, analyse, use and communicate information. However, I like to think that one has a chance to develop one's imagination. When I first acquired my law degree, I said to my parents, "You have a qualified lawyer, but it has been the death of imagination." Most lawyers have to drill all the imagination out of their heads to ensure that they pass the exam and leave nothing to risk. It is all about precedent and case law. I am generalising, of course: the very best lawyers are the most imaginative, so I did not last long.
The development of the AS-level was well intentioned and its problems were exacerbated by the experiences of Edexcel, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight that we should be determined in pursuing a strategic reduction of Government intervention. We should follow the radical, welcome and educationally beneficial step of saying that AS-levels, though relatively well intentioned, are not proving their worth and should be dropped—for the benefit of children, teachers and future employers alike. In my experience, AS-levels do not add to the reputation or employability of students. I hope that the Minister will reflect seriously on that.
10.18 am
Mr. Peter Luff: I apologise for missing the opening speeches. I was attending another meeting, attempting to encourage the Government to
78WH
get us out of another hole—asylum accommodation centres. I particularly apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and promise to be present for her speech this afternoon. I declare an interest. I am anxious to contribute because my daughter has just finished her AS-levels, so I speak from bitter personal experience. I shall be brief.
AS-levels have enabled universities to make better grade predictions and to firm up the offers that they make to students. That is the one good thing that they have done. The rest is all bad, and the bad significantly outweighs the good. AS-levels are not broadening students' education in sixth form, even if that were, in itself, a good idea. Universities are asking for commitment. For example, my daughter, who wants to read English at university, was advised not to do a science, but to take drama studies as her AS-level to show commitment to the subject. She is not broadening her sixth-form education at all, but, rightly, showing commitment to it. The broadening is not working. The way to broaden education is through the old A-level curriculum by insisting that students taking, for example, English study within those subjects a broad range of other subjects to give them a fuller understanding of the texts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) made a powerful point about AS-levels reducing the fun of sixth form and killing extracurricular activities in the lower sixth. For example, the lower sixth always ran the school play. Pupils at my daughter's and son's schools are opting out of the Duke of Edinburgh's award scheme and do not want to take part in Young Enterprise. Those things, which sixth form is all about, are withering on the vine and dying. The curriculum may be broader, although that is arguable, but the experience of sixth form life is much narrower.
AS-levels are squeezing the life, the breath and the fun out of sixth form education and that is their central failing, but, equally importantly, they are reducing teaching time. Sixth form is not six terms but five, because the last is spent revising and taking exams. Most schools now give students study leave in their third term before the exams, although I appreciate that that is contrary to the advice of examining boards. My daughter's sixth form education is four teaching terms, which is not nearly enough. Not only is that education not broad, but there is less of it. We are turning sixth form students into people who just cram academic subjects. There is too little teaching and students are losing the fun and joy that should be the sixth form experience.
The Government need to rethink the matter with an entirely open mind. I am sure that they had the best intentions, but many Government decisions—the poll tax, for example, which was scrapped—are taken with the best intentions and are proved wrong. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) says that the poll tax was not introduced with the best of intentions, which we can debate another time.
Mr. Andrew Turner: I said that it was not proved wrong.
Mr. Luff: I shall not be drawn on that subject, after your indulgence in letting me contribute, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

79WH
I genuinely believe that the Government thought AS-levels to be a good thing and that pupils' experience of the two years of the system proves that introducing them was not the right thing to do. My daughter's friends at other schools in the area have pleaded with me to do what I can to get the Government to change their mind. I am aware of no pupil taking those exams who thinks them a good idea; all the students think that the exams are a bad thing. The Minister shakes his head, but he is welcome to come to Worcestershire with his parliamentary private secretary, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), and I shall introduce him to my daughter's friends, male and female, all of whom damn those exams. They say that they are a dreadful experiment, and they hate having to take part in it. The time has come to end AS-levels.
I urge the Minister by all means to consider ways to broaden the old A-level curriculum, but please scrap those exams now. Education policy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury said, should be pupil centred and focused on the children's needs, not ours. That is why those exams must go, and go quickly.
10.23 am
Mr. David Rendel: I am glad to have the chance to speak in the debate as, like other Members, I have personal, family experience of the matter.
This is the first time that I have attended a debate with the new Minister and I welcome him to his place. I look forward to his tenure of office in the Department for Education and Skills, however short it may be.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on securing the debate, as many of us have an interest in the subject for personal reasons or because it is important to the country. I very much agree with a large part of what she said. Much of what I shall say may mirror her remarks, but I hope that I shall not bore the Chamber by repeating them.
Like me, the hon. Lady has sons, one of whom is starting to take A-levels, so we have a shared experience in that respect. Anyone whose children have gone through exams knows that they are not only for children, but for the family. The whole family is inevitably involved. Indeed, it will probably be divorce for me if I do not get home tonight so that I can take my son to his exam tomorrow morning. No one else will, I am sure.
I am somewhat less in agreement with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) about league tables, and the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) is rather more in line with my views. He pointed out the difficulties that schools face when they do well one year, but drop down the tables the next. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight said that at least we have information that we did not have before, but league tables provide us with misinformation that we did not have before. As the hon. Member for Eddisbury pointed out, they mislead parents about which schools are good and which are not.
It is surely a basic requirement of any top-class education system that it should provide for the needs of every pupil, but that is where the examination is going wrong. Individual children count for little and they are treated as examination fodder—units from which we can calculate statistics and draw up league tables.
80WH
However, tests and league tables do not take account of the needs and problems faced by individual schools, nor are they interested in human detail. Despite that, they are the criteria by which the Government have decided that schools should be judged.
The Government have set an astonishing 4,500 targets for education, requiring no fewer than 306 million separate measures to be monitored. That is a staggering statistic. The Labour party's education policy seems to be examine, examine, examine—three years running, as others have said. Of course, tests can be a vital tool in the learning process, as they measure the retention of knowledge and skills and help teachers to chart the development of individual children, but we must not confuse a tool in the learning process with the learning process itself. That is what has happened.
The individual pupil taking eight GCSEs, perhaps five AS-levels and three A2 levels during his or her 17th, 18th and 19th years of life, will sit 68 exams. The more able pupils taking the advanced papers at the various key stages, world-class tests and the new advanced extension awards will sit a staggering 87. As the New Statesman rightly observes in its editorial this week:
"This is the most tested generation in history, its progress through childhood and adolescence punctuated by targets, key stages, attainment levels, qualifications."
Inevitably, teaching has become more tailored towards the requirements of passing tests as demanded by the league table culture. Meanwhile, education in the broader sense is suffering.
The testing regime has three damaging consequences. First, it places far too much pressure on the children. Instead of learning being an enjoyable experience tailored to the needs of individuals, pupils and teachers are expected to dance to the tune of the Secretary of State and her national targets. Secondly, it places far too much pressure on the teachers. The testing and targets regime sucks the life out of our education system, leaving too little room for teachers to exercise their professional judgment and creativity. That is in line with my intervention on the hon. Member for Meriden.
It is no surprise that a significant proportion of those who leave the teaching profession cite as their reason the lack of opportunities for exercising their professional judgment and creativity. It is no surprise either that, as a result, we face a teacher recruitment and retention crisis in our schools. In recent years, the maintained system has lost about 10 per cent. of its teachers each year. Over one in five newly qualified teachers leave the profession during their first three years of teaching, and the problem is particularly acute in key subjects such as mathematics and science.
A recent Ofsted report says that
"there are insufficient teachers to match the demands of the mathematics curriculum in one school in eight".
Because of those shortages, large numbers of children are taught by teachers who have no qualification in the subject that they are teaching. Ofsted found that only 77 per cent. of teachers who teach some mathematics in secondary school have a post-A-level qualification in the subject.
The third damaging consequence is the narrowing of the curriculum, which was taken up by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). When so much school time is taken up with preparation for tests and

81WH
exams, there is less time in the school day for other non-examination subjects such as current affairs and citizenship, or, sadly, for pastoral care, which is an important loss to our schools. Extra-curricular activities such as sports, school plays, visits to outdoor activity centres and community service, which are all part of the school learning experience, also suffer. My son's school play was cancelled last year—the first year of AS-levels—because the teachers simply did not have the time to put it on.
The problem has been exacerbated by the introduction of AS-levels, which are often taken at the start of the third lower sixth term. As other hon. Members have said, the lower sixth used to he a year of broadening into adult life by taking on new experiences and responsibilities. It is often the year in which a pupil becomes a prefect and perhaps starts to look after younger pupils, but first year sixth formers are now pressed into academic work for the whole time and not given the chance to take on and learn how to handle responsibilities. The lower sixth has become merely a year of cramming for exams.
We want a broadening of the subjects on offer to older secondary and sixth form pupils. That has always been our wish for society, and one of the troubles of the old A-level system was that it was so narrowing at such an early age, but with that broadening must go a simplification of the qualifications framework for the 14 to 19 age group, perhaps along the lines of the European baccalaureate. Our colleagues in the Welsh. Assembly persuaded our Labour partners in the Administration to do that, and I hope that the Government take some of those lessons on board.
The Liberal Democrats are committed to scrapping all national targets and replacing them with a statutory requirement for all schools to develop an individual learning plan for each child. Plans should be set by the school while being accountable to parents, the local education authority and Ofsted. Responsibility for children's learning would be put back where it belongs—in schools and the home, not the Department for Education and Skills in London.
Mr. Andrew Turner: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments on the international baccalaureate. Would it be right for the Government to make such a shift?
Mr. Rendel: No, I said not that it would be right for the Government to make such a shift, but that it would be right for schools to be able to take the responsibility to decide which examination system to use. There is much to be said for the European baccalaureate, but it should be for schools to decide whether to use it.
Recent experiences have underlined the need for reform of schools examination boards. Not much has been said about that, but it is important. I do not agree entirely with the hon. Member for Meriden, who seemed to excuse the boards for their failures because of the pressure that they have been put under. Although there is no question but that that is a large part of the problem, they have questions to answer. There has been a series of blunders, particularly with Edexcel, but with others too.
82WH
Stephen Carey, the Liberal Democrat leader on Hillingdon council, told me about one such blunder that has only recently hit the national media. Some 13 pupils at Haydon school in Pinner did not receive any results for their vocational A-level in information technology, which they sat in January this year. Edexcel has admitted that the papers were lost, but the first that the pupils knew about that was when they failed to receive results in March.
The solution suggested by Edexcel involves the pupils either accepting an average grade or resitting the exam with their main AS-levels. Needless to say, neither the pupils nor their parents are happy with that, and I imagine that organisations that take on such school leavers would not be happy if they were asked to recruit on the basis of grades that were awarded not following a marked exam, but merely as the average of the other grades achieved by other examinees that year. The quinquennial review of the QCA whitewashes the appalling debacle of examination board failures that have betrayed so many pupils and schools, and the QCA's failure to ensure adequate monitoring has made a mockery of Britain's examination system.
I hope that the Government come round to understanding that testing is not the same as educating. Our education system's objectives must be broader than a focus on whether pupils can pass 68 exams during their school career. Testing has its place, but only as one tool among many in building a broad-based curriculum. We should not narrow our young people's horizons to the walls of the examination hall. We should instead expand their horizons, widen their vision, broaden their minds and open up their opportunities. That is what education really means.
10.34 am
Mr. Graham Brady: First, I welcome the Minister to his new brief. We were expecting a different Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), but he seems to have been substituted at the last minute. However, we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
I heartily congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on introducing a debate on an issue of such pressing concern to the public, especially as this is the first of two for which she is responsible today. She deserves congratulations on her work rate, as well as on her dedication to these important issues. The matter comes before the House when the whole school examination system is highly topical. Given its topicality and importance, it is disappointing that no interest has been shown by Government Members.
My hon. Friend spoke of the damaging effect of having a conveyor belt of testing and examinations, which is caused by the burden that it places on students and the burden of paperwork and bureaucracy that it places on teachers. She also spoke of the dangerous possibility that modern languages will be downgraded in the curriculum, as proposed in the 14 to 19 Green Paper, and added that modular examinations do not necessarily suit last-minute merchants. At that point, a ripple of recognition passed around the Chamber, I suspect because many hon. Members fall into that category.

83WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), who had to leave to attend a constituency meeting, spoke about the need for a period of stability in education to allow schools, pupils and parents to see the recent changes bed down. He also referred to an innovations holiday in the education system, which will strike a chord with many pupils who feel that they have been part of a guinea pig generation that has experienced all the new examinations and tests in recent years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) has deep knowledge of the subject. Acknowledging that he would not be popular with his Conservative colleagues for saying so, he correctly pointed out that the process was started by a Conservative Government. That is absolutely true, and over-testing is an unintended consequence of it, but that scale of examination and testing was introduced for good reasons, such as the need to obtain proper information about pupil and school performance. Most people in education recognise that the process has gone too far, although, unfortunately, there seem to be signs that the Government are continuing to increase complexity and to create new burdens.
My hon. Friend mentioned his concern about grade inflation, or at least the perception that there might be grade inflation. He is right to draw attention to the findings of the international panel that considered the rigour and standing of A-level exams, and he said that it is impossible to be scientifically sure about what happened in past years. He also emphasised that we need to focus on maintaining what rigour we have in the A-level system, which must not be debased.
Concern extends to the rigour and independence of SATs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden suggested. More questions are being asked in the press about whether the SATs test are properly implemented and whether there is undue flexibility as to the testing system in some schools. In that context, she is right to ask whether the QCA should be poacher and gamekeeper in the SATs process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) spoke eloquently, drawing on his long experience as an employer. He and others raised one of the most important concerns about AS-levels: the effect of the examination process and Curriculum 2000 on the lower sixth. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) referred rather tellingly to moves to broaden the curriculum, which had the unwanted consequence of reducing the amount of sixth form teaching time from five to four terms. He also noted the irony that his daughter has been encouraged to take a drama AS-level as part of an effort to broaden the curriculum, but that such moves have been made at the expense of the school play, which lower sixth pupils would ordinarily organise. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) picked up on that, saying with feeling that examinations affect not only children, but their families.
The hon. Member for Newbury also attacked league tables in their current form. I trust that he endorsed last year's Conservative general election manifesto, which
84WH
called for the introduction of value-added league tables. We are grateful for his support, even if it has come a little later than might have been appropriate.
Mr. Bendel: My understanding is that league tables were introduced a long time ago. Even before that, however, the Liberal Democrats were talking about measuring schools in value-added terms. I can therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that our call for such measures is not new.
Mr. Brady: None the less, we are grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support.
Mr. Rendel: We are grateful for the hon. Gentleman's.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): It is a love-in.
Mr. Brady: The Minister need not worry about that.
I wonder why the Minister is replying to the debate, when the hon. Member for Bury, South, who is the Minister for young people and learning, was scheduled to do so. Perhaps it would have been embarrassing for him, given his response in the House a year ago to concerns about the introduction of the AS-level system and the crisis in schools at that time. Showing a wonderful talent for euphemism, he described the crisis in the introduction of Curriculum 2000 as
"some teething problems in the implementation of the new reforms."—[Official Report, 5 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 394.]
That is embarrassing, given that those teething problems appear largely to be with us a year later. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that and whether he takes any more seriously the scale of the problem affecting our schools and pupils.
The introduction of Curriculum 2000 was a shambles and the system is settling down into a state of more constant chaos, with problems not having truly been resolved. That chaos and confusion may be compounded by the Government's 14 to 19 proposals. The AS-level was intended to broaden the curriculum, so the suggestion that the Government want to slash the number of secondary pupils who study modern foreign languages is remarkable.
The Government say that they want to achieve parity of esteem for vocational subjects by offering GCSEs in them, but that brighter pupils should take AS-levels a year early and perhaps not take GCSEs. The Minister is nodding, but I hope that he understands that there is a clear contradiction between those two objectives. He cannot raise the esteem of vocational subjects that are examined at GCSE level while saying that GCSEs may not be appropriate for brighter pupils. He is moving towards enshrining, rather than removing, the difference in esteem between academic and vocational subjects.
That will be made still more damaging if, under the proposals, the brightest, most academically inclined children take AS-level a year early, as they will be the ones to retain the benefit of a sixth form year with a gap in the exam programme. The most academically gifted, who are probably most able to cope with the new pressures that are being piled on to young people, will get some relief from those pressures, whereas the less

85WH
able and academic will still face GCSEs, then AS-level and then A2 in quick succession. That is a serious concern.
Schools and pupils all over the country are still experiencing exam overload, and that is being felt in the examination boards, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden pointed out. It is also being felt in schools, where there are insufficient teachers available to mark exams, and such problems are becoming endemic throughout the education system. Curriculum 2000 was introduced too quickly—it was rushed by the Government—and at great expense, but the experience of all too many schools and sixth forms is that the funding that was notionally made available for it was not passed on to them.
We have heard a story of chaos and confusion, doubt over the integrity of exams and measures to broaden the curriculum that narrow pupils' experience. Last year, in response to the shambles of Curriculum 2000, Ministers held a review, but few think that this year shows that they have got it right. The Minister must consider ways to reduce the exam burden on pupils and on schools. He should also consider whether the number of exams in year 12 should be reduced or the timing changed and whether schools would do better by taking AS-levels alongside A2 in year 13.
The introduction of AS-levels has broadened the academic curriculum slightly, but it has done so at the expense of teaching time and of extra-curricular activities such as music and sport. It is clear that a full inquiry is needed into the school examination system to establish how we can restore balance and credibility to a public examinations system that has never faced so much criticism. Our schools, our children, those in universities and the employers who depend on the outcome of the exam system all deserve better.
10.47 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): I thank the two Front Benchers for their kind words in welcoming me to my new post. This is my first opportunity to take part in an education debate in the House and, to clear up the confusion, I should say that I am now the Minister for young people and learning, which is why I am making the winding-up speech. I am sorry if that was not made clear.
Last week, a party of 10 and 11-year-olds from my old primary school, Grange Park, which is in my constituency, visited the House. We were talking about school days and one asked me about SATs. I had to say, "Well, when I was at school, we did not have SATs." The little boy's eyes lit up at the idea that we did not have to go through what they were going through. I cannot pretend that, had I polled the 10 and 11-year-olds in year 6 at Grange Park school, there would have been an overwhelming vote of confidence in having to sit SATs.
It is a great pleasure to respond to this important debate, and I join Members of all parties in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)
86WH
for securing it. As several Members have said, it is timely, as the school examination period is going full steam ahead.
The hon. Lady focused on the nature of education and what we value in it, and she is right to say that a focus on league tables, testing and examinations is not sufficient. Members in all parts of the House should take a broader view of the value of education. We have all made mistakes—that has been acknowledged in today's speeches—and we all need constantly to review the best policy responses to the many challenges that we face.
Among those challenges is that of providing more young people with the opportunity to stay on in education. I sat my 0-levels in 1983, when the majority of my age group left school—only 47.8 per cent. stayed on. Last year, that figure was 71.6 per cent., but we are still near the bottom of the league of industrialised countries for the number of people who have the opportunity to continue in education and training beyond 16. The drop-out rate at 17 and 18 is even higher. I am passionate about education, which is why I am so delighted to have been given this portfolio. Education is important in itself and as a way to facilitate greater mobility in a country in which people's life chances are still, too often, determined by birth. Of course, it is also vital for our future economic success.
We must achieve the right balance between the extent to which we prescribe, set national targets and provide a national framework and that to which we allow innovation at local and school level. We have not always got that right. In the Labour Government's first term, we were centralist in setting targets, particularly in our strategy for the primary sector, although that has delivered literacy and numeracy improvements, which have been acknowledged even by those who were wary of the strategies. However, as we move on, we should address the concerns about the lack of opportunity for innovation at local and school level.
The hon. Member for Meriden said that the new AS system may be challenging for those who leave things until the last minute. As a terrible last-minute merchant, I realised that the old A-level system was great for people like me, who could mug up in the month before the examination and still get good grades. However, it did not provide an entirely fair or accurate assessment of how good I was at my subjects, compared with others who worked much more consistently through the two years of A-level study. The hon. Lady's example demonstrates the challenge that we face in progressing the curriculum for those aged 16 to 18 while covering all those between 14 and 19.
At the end of last month, we completed the consultation on the Green Paper proposals for the 14 to 19 curriculum. We are considering the responses. The consultation was extensive and it included substantial input from teachers, schools, governors and local education authorities. It also included an important innovation—a real input from young people.
We have been listening to young people, such as those whom hon. Members have mentioned today, who have been sitting the AS-levels. We want to get these things right—we shall not rush into changes in the 14 to 19 curriculum. We want maximum debate and maximum

87WH
consultation, but the contributions to the debate show the challenge that we face. We have been criticised for being prescriptive, but when we suggested that we could loosen the modern foreign languages curriculum, we were criticised for it.
There is no question of our downgrading modern foreign languages. As one who gave up French aged 16 and greatly regrets having done so, I do not want to see such downgrading. The Green Paper says that we want more opportunities for young people to study modern foreign languages in primary school. That would be a welcome development.
Mr. Brady: Will the Minister clarify that? If the modern foreign languages curriculum is loosened, will more or fewer people study foreign languages at secondary school?
Mr. Twigg: Obviously, I cannot answer that question, as it depends on the choices that are made by young people. One could argue that making 14 or 15-year-olds study a foreign language when they do not want to do so might not be in their interests, nor in those of others in their classes. We shall consider the responses that we received, which are mixed. I see some Opposition Members nodding at that.
I move on to the AS-level, which is the major focus of today's debate, although points have been raised about GCSEs and the SATs system. I fear that I may have to disappoint the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), as I do not feel that my first speech as an Education Minister will be one in which I can announce that the AS-level is to be dropped, but we shall consider all the evidence. The debate has provided an important opportunity for hon. Members to express views on behalf of their constituents.
Mr. Luff: And families.
Mr. Twigg: Yes, and families. We have heard distressing tales in the media of young people being overloaded, but concerns are inevitable when we move to a new system. Year 12 students may have needed to attend classes on only three days a week under the old system, and there may have been far more opportunities for other extra-curricular activities. It is understandable that many year 12 students feel hard done by, given the significant change.
Some institutions, however, have told us that augmented programmes have improved retention rates, although we have heard another point of view in the debate. It is too early to identify the result. If the rates have improved, the programmes must have enabled students to be powerfully motivated while broadening their areas of study and giving them opportunities to try subjects that they would not otherwise encounter. We have seen a broadening of the number of subjects that young people study, and 60 per cent. of lower sixth students, who are aged 16 and 17, now study four or even more AS-levels. Under the previous system, two or three was typical.
Mr. Luff: There will be a broadening only if the subjects are different. In my daughter's case, there is no broadening at all, and she is doing four subjects.
Mr. Twigg: I take the point. Clearly there will be different instances in different cases. It is inevitable in such debates that we all think back to our own school days. I recall people who did two A-levels, but these days such people would do three or four. There may be broadening in some cases and not in others, but there is broadening overall.
Several students who are studying have been quoted, and I concur that many say that they are not happy with the new set-up. For example, one student responded to us by asking
"how can students be expected to partake in extra curricular activities when they have to cover material that overworked teachers do not have sufficient time to teach?"
Another said:
"I can no longer pursue my out of school interests as fully as I should like to. I play the flute and piano and am a Young leader and ranger within Guiding. In fact, my commitment to both has had to drop considerably".
That bears out what has been said.
Other young people who have responded to our consultation or been in the media have made different comments. Sarah Tresman, the head girl at Guildford high school, sat the new exams last summer, and she told The Times in April that spreading the exam stress over two years was much better than leaving everything to the end of the upper sixth:
"They were hard work but I am reaping the benefits now".
Ee Lin Chiam, who calls herself
"a very annoyed 17-year-old A2 student in Croydon",
contacted BBC News Online last week to say:
"I'm completing my A2s in biology"—
and various other subjects—
"and I am not having any difficulty coping with the papers…It's not like I don't have extra-curricular activities either: this year, I was in Young Enterprise, was editor of the college newsletter and am still doing my Duke of Edinburgh award.
My results have not suffered because of those activities".
Perhaps she is an extraordinary young person, but she demonstrates that some young voices are not joining the general criticism of the new exams.
Clearly, we need to consider the issue, but there will be no headlong rush to change the system and we shall review it in the way that we did last year. Many legitimate concerns were raised by schools, pupils and hon. Members following last year's experience, and significant changes were made in response. We shall examine the experience of this year.
There is great danger of doom and gloom. Phrases such as "disastrous exam season" have been used, but we should be careful about using them. Large numbers of young people are getting the opportunity to study and to sit the exams. There is great benefit in the broadening of opportunities that is taking place, although it may not be on the scale that we expected. The more modular approach and greater emphasis on assessment benefit those young people who are not last-minute merchants.
I strongly disagree with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on GCSEs. The positives of the GCSE greatly outweigh the negatives, and that will feed through to the new curriculum.
I see that time is drawing to a close, and I want to finish with what I hope is a unifying point. We are in the middle of the exam season and I think that Members on

89WH
both sides of the House—the Chamber is rapidly filling up—will want to wish those young people who are sitting exams all the best. We hope that their results are again good, but we shall take the opportunity to review the system to achieve the best high-quality qualifications and curriculum arrangements for our young people.

Fair Trade
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. Right hon. and hon. Members will see that the debate is extraordinarily well attended, but it is limited to 90 minutes. I therefore appeal to all hon. Members to bear that in mind when making their contributions, and ask them to limit their interventions. I shall try to call as many hon. Members as possible.
11 am
Mr. Tom Clarke: I warmly welcome today's debate on trade justice. I am delighted at the response, which is an indication that the subject will dominate today's parliamentary agenda—and that is no bad thing. About 10,000 people are on their way to the Palace of Westminster; they expect to lobby the House, and it will be the biggest lobby on international development since the Brandt report more than 20 years ago. Those people. who have travelled from every part of the United Kingdom to ensure that their Members of Parliament are made aware of their views, will welcome the debate that we are about to undertake.
Not everyone can be in London today, and several hundreds of my constituents have written to me to express their full support for the objective of trade justice. I shall quote from one of those letters:
"Dear Mr. Clarke…The mass lobby is calling for fairer international trade rules. Current trade rules are limiting poor people's access to food, water and jobs. I am asking that the new rules be designed to reduce poverty and protect the environment. Please support this important issue. Yours sincerely, Mary and Joe Cosgrove."
Hon. Members will have seen from the Order Paper that after only two days, 32 of our colleagues have signed early-day motion 1457 on trade justice. I am pretty sure that by the end of the day that number will have increased substantially. I certainly urge that. We underestimate those deeply held feelings at our peril. I, for one, take those representations seriously, and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members share my view. Indeed, just before I entered the Chamber I met some constituents who told me that Government action on fair trade does influence whether people vote at elections.
It is with modest relish that I place on record my gratitude for the Government's achievements in international development. In particular, I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development, both of whom have been at the forefront of Government initiatives to help developing countries; we all acknowledge the outstanding role of the Department for International Development in dealing with the debt problem.
In that spirit, it is appropriate to welcome to the Department the new Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). I am sure that she will forge ahead with the high standards set by her Department and this Government.
Today's events, including this debate, the lobby and the debate in the Chamber this afternoon, were inspired by the success of Jubilee 2000, as was the Trade Justice Movement, which is growing fast and already includes

91WH
50 organisations that have a combined support of 4 million people. Trade Justice includes aid agencies, such as the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, Christian Aid, Action Aid, the World Development Movement, Oxfam, the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, the Women's Environmental Network and others, including students and consumers.
Those groups campaign on behalf of the developing world and their analyses of the problems should be taken more seriously, because they have first hand and day-by-day experience of them. Each of the non-governmental organisations has its own views, but today they are all united in agreeing that trade plays a vital part in reducing poverty and improving the quality of millions of lives.
Everyone in this field agrees that there are opportunities for fundamental change. A new set of international trade negotiations was launched in Doha in November 2001. Although that provided an opportunity to change the rules, it also posed the threat of the existing rules being extended to cover new areas of economic activity.
The lobby and the events in the House today could not be more timely because, this summer, trade rules will be high on the agenda for three international summits: the European Union heads of state summit in Spain on Friday and Saturday, the G8 summit in Canada on 26 and 27 June and the world summit on sustainable development, to be held in South Africa from 26 August to 4 September. South Africa is an appropriate location for that summit.
Fair trade is about the fight against poverty and sustaining the environment. There are many issues on which we can focus our attention. First, there should be a new approach to protect poor farmers' livelihoods and the environment. Secondly, vital concern has been expressed about the plans to liberalise essential services, including water. I have great reservations about those plans, and I do not believe that I am alone in that view. Thirdly, international corporations have had every opportunity to introduce meaningful self-regulation. As they have failed to do so, we should consider new global action to regulate activities.
Brian Cotter: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as part of the discussions on the common agricultural policy reforms, a timetable needs to be agreed by the EU leaders when they consider phasing out subsidies of agricultural products?
Mr. Clarke: Yes, I agree entirely. I hope to touch on that point later.
This is not an anti-trade debate, but one that asserts that our trading affairs can be organised so that the benefits go to the many and not the few, that social justice and enlightened self-interest could go hand in hand and that it is not beyond the wit of modern society to protect and even improve the environment that we inherited. As CAFOD said:
"Trade touches all our lives. It determines what we eat, earn and wear. It is the most direct link between the British people and the world's poor. For that reason trade has a huge potential for good or ill. The campaign for trade justice is the new Jubilee 2000."
It continued:
92WH
"Without trade that works for the poor, without an end to the grotesque subsidies and trade barriers that protect producers in the richest countries of the world, all that we have worked for in Jubilee 2000 will be put at risk. Developing countries are not asking for a handout. They want and deserve justice."
I agree entirely.
One of the most debilitating factors in the developing world is commodity prices. What are the problems of sub-Saharan Africa? Africa has 12 per cent. of the world's population, but only I per cent. of its exports—a quarter of the share that it enjoyed in the 1970s. In the 1990s, world trade in primary commodities was growing at less than a third of the rate for manufacturing goods. Worse still, the gap is widening.
The decline in the value of many commodities has caused large increases in poverty in many developing countries whose economies may depend on just a few commodities for the majority of their export earnings. For example, Ethiopia depends on coffee for nearly 60 per cent. of its export earnings and Burkina Faso depends on cotton for about half. The problem with declining commodity prices is that production can trap countries into a cycle of dwindling returns, further increasing the debt burden. Real prices of commodities have been on a steady downward trend for decades. Among the reasons for the decline are new technologies, barriers to entry and consumers' relative reluctance to buy more as prices fall. Cyclical periods of over-supply often result.
Over the past few years, the steady decline has turned into an absolute rout for several commodities whose prices have plunged. Coffee prices collapsed by 45 per cent. from 1999 to 2001—a mere couple of years—and are now well below the costs of production for an overwhelming majority of producers. Price falls at these levels have serious consequences. The livelihood of millions of farmers is compromised, children are pulled out of school and families can no longer afford basic medicines or enough food. Oxfam research in 2000 showed that the falling price of coffee in Kenya forced parents to take their children out of school because they could no longer afford the fees. The price fall meant parents' income more than halved in the space of two years.
It is not surprising that in South Africa—the subject of some criticism—European exports of chocolate confectionery at below production prices led to a 21 per cent. decline in the consumption of domestically produced sugar and chocolate confectionery. Meanwhile, rich country producers support market-distorting subsidies that exacerbate the problem of over-supply. The EU is the world's largest exporter of white sugar, but export prices are only a quarter of their production costs. Britain grinds more cocoa than Ghana, yet Ghana relies on cocoa exports for almost a quarter of its total export earnings.
For many years, adding value to a product that has attracted swingeing tariffs at the point of import into rich countries simply acts as a disincentive to developing countries. For example, fully processed food products are still subject in the EU and Japan to tariffs twice as high as food products in the first stage of processing. That is why people here today are calling for change. Today's events are a democratic challenge to this Parliament, the EU, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organisation.

93WH
Above all, today's events are a challenge to the conscience of the international community. It cannot be right that over half the world's extremely poor people depend on farming for their livelihoods, but that our trading arrangements should be so blatantly distorted. Nor can it be right that developing countries are being prevented from protecting their poor producers against unfairly subsidised food from rich countries with whom they can never hope to compete. How can we justify the fact that international trade rules are limiting the ability of poor countries to protect their farmers from unfairly subsidised cheap imports?
Chris Grayling: Does the right hon. Gentleman share the many concerns expressed about the Commonwealth Development Corporation and its changes of policy since the establishment of the public-private partnership?
Mr. Clarke: I would love to go into the issues of the Commonwealth Development Corporation, but that might reduce the time that others have to speak. There may be other opportunities to consider them later, if not today.
During the 1980s and 1990s, the World Bank and the IMF imposed reforms that required many developing countries drastically to cut duties on imported food. Poor farmers lost their markets even at home. The same farmers who try to export their crops face prohibitive trade barriers imposed by the world's richest countries. That cannot be right. Developing countries are also denied the flexibility to support their farmers, as foreign programmes imposed by the World Bank and the IMF cut their subsidies. The World Trade Organisation now also cuts them.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate. He referred twice to the WTO, which many people regard as a problem in this area, rather than as part of the solution. I do not share that view, but does he agree that the richer countries could ensure that the workings of the WTO are much more open and transparent, which would remove much of the suspicion that surrounds it? Does he also agree that the richer countries could ensure that the poorer countries have proper access through legal representation and a proper secretariat?
Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and support his calls for such transparency from the WTO and others. The way in which developing countries have been treated is very much in contrast to the reductions in subsidies that rich countries should have made for their farmers under WTO rules. Because of the lack of transparency to which he refers, it is perhaps not widely known that those WTO decisions have been ignored. That is another entirely unacceptable situation.
My hon. Friend's intervention is timely. His views are confirmed this morning in press reports of a United Nations report that makes similar observations. Worse, it says that, if we continue as we are, 100 million more people will be having to survive on $1 dollar a day by
94WH
2015. That has a lot to do with my hon. Friend's point about the lack of transparency in debates on these matters, and the responsibilities of international bodies to respond to the problems.
When Harold Macmillan said that a "wind of change" was blowing throughout Africa, some said that he was ahead of his time. I think not. Forty years on, what is the vision for trade justice in developing countries? I hope that I speak for the thousands of people on today's lobby, those who cannot be here and the aid agencies when I call for people to have the vision to see that it is wholly repugnant that millions of smallholder farmers in the developing world struggle to survive on less than £260 a year in total income while, in contrast, American and European farmers receive on average £15,000 and £11,500 a year respectively in subsidies alone.
We need the vision to see that, whereas international trade rules are essential, they must allow sustainable trading, fairness and intervention where necessary, and to see that such rules can be based on the needs of poor people and environmental sustainability. We need the vision to see that employment need not be based on the exploitation of women or child labour, and to put in place a framework that promotes internationally the acceptance of national development objectives, such as food security, poverty reduction and higher environmental standards. Above all, we need the vision to acknowledge that, in the modern world, a level playing field is no guarantee of a fair game when players are not equally equipped to compete.
The last word should go to the campaign document from the Trade Justice Movement, which says:
"Trade should be the means by which poor people can lift themselves out of poverty—not the prison that steals their future."
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I re-emphasise the comments I made at the beginning of the debate. Perhaps I omitted to say then that the winding-up speeches from the three Front-Bench spokesmen will commence 30 minutes before the debate's conclusion. We now have 38 minutes until that time, and 11 hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. That will make my job difficult, and the jobs of some others impossible.
11.23 am
Mr. Francis Maude: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing the debate, which is timely. He rightly introduced the debate in a temperate and measured way, and I suspect that as it continues we shall find that there is broad agreement on this subject across the House, which is desirable. This is a hugely important matter, and it is good that the House, in two debates today—one in this Chamber and one on the Floor of the House—is taking it seriously and devoting time to it.
In deference to your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall make only a few points. First, there has been widespread suspicion for the best part of a century that when people use the phrase "fair trade", they mean restricted trade. In the past, that phrase has been code for protection, but the movement that we have heard from today has not referred to it in that way. I exonerate

95WH
it from that criticism. It is important that the Trade Justice Movement does not seem to be, and is not, a cover for protectionism.
I am a passionate believer in free trade. The enlargement of trade enriches everybody but the reality is that free trade is never unregulated or completely free, in the same way that a free market economy is never completely free, nor should it be. Free trade and free markets depend absolutely on a framework of law and rules. To anyone who doubts that, I highly recommend the lecture, which I was privileged to attend last night, given by Hernando de Soto, who made the most powerful case that the biggest friend to poor countries is the establishment of a rule of law, specifically property law. Once there is a system of property law and entitlement to property in the poorest countries, there is the ability for assets to be turned into capital to enable wealth to be created. That is fundamental and without it there will not be sufficient quantity of the right kind of development. The enlargement of good, free trade depends on rules that command respect and consensus, but they must have a fair framework.
It is incumbent on the developed world and rich countries to set an example. With the best will in the world, that is not happening at the moment. I am a strong supporter of the Bush Administration in the United States, but recent developments in trade have caused widespread concern and dismay. The United States should be a role model for the benefits of free trade, and the response to isolated domestic pressure—for example, the steel tariffs and the recent farm Bill—is profoundly disturbing. It has damaged US leadership in the trade negotiations, which is crucial. It is not particularly helpful that the European Union has reacted like an outraged maiden aunt, as if the idea of protectionism had never occurred to anyone in the EU. The European Union's record on the promotion of free trade has not been perfect, by a long way.
My main point is that the developed world, rich countries and the collections of rich countries such as the European Union must set an example and not wait for negotiations to open their markets. We should not be waiting for the pressure of world trade negotiations to make grudging concessions but looking for opportunities unilaterally to open markets and to be confident about it. We must understand that the point about open markets and free trade is that they benefit everybody, even if it is done unilaterally. Hong Kong, for example, was founded on the principle of being a free port and having the most open possible approach to trade. Hong Kong did not wait until there were multilateral negotiations, play its cards close to its chest and refuse to give anything up until there were reciprocal arrangements with others. It simply said, "This is what is going to be the key point about Hong Kong," with the result that it has become one of the most prosperous places in the world. The rich, developed world should have the confidence to believe that that is what free trade does. We should not think of it as giving up things in advance, but as a benefit to ourselves and others, because open economies prosper.
The European Union, like the United States, must get a grip on the matter and start to set a better example. There is a huge danger that US action on steel and the farm Bill will provoke retaliation from the EU and counter-retaliation by the United States, which has
96WH
horrible echoes of the 1930s, when a series of beggar-thy-neighbour action and reaction turned a downturn into a sustained global depression. We must be careful about that, and we hope that the Government and others can persuade President Bush and his Administration to change their ways, but we should not just wait for that. The European Union should change the way that it approaches the issue.
It is impossible to tackle the problem without addressing the common agricultural policy, because it is the most flagrant, offensive and damaging example of protectionism anywhere in the world. If the EU remains resolutely opposed to making not only tinkering reforms, but radical changes and devising a wholly different conception of today's needs, the EU's ability to lead globally in such matters will continue to be seriously impaired. There is a price to be paid, not just by the developing world that suffers through the CAP's distortions, but by us. We all suffer and live in a poorer country because of the CAP's deprivations. The European Union is poorer than it needs to be because of the CAP.
Norman Lamb: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the need for reform of the common agricultural policy, but does not the need for unanimity in changing that policy make reform impossible? As long as that remains, the policy will not change.
Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman has made a very tempting point, but if we go down that path, we will take up the rest of the debate and I do not think that we should do that.
My central point remains that rich countries must set an example and start acting unilaterally. There undoubtedly exists a sense of rich countries neurotically hanging on to their cherished protections, and it fuels the idea in developing countries that the World Trade Organisation's multilateral trade negotiations are basically a rich man's racket. They are not and must not be, and we must be careful not to allow them to be seen as such.
To counter that sense, developed countries must start to take the initiative to open markets, eradicate subsidies and remove protections. We must not wait for the pressure of negotiations. The central truth is that the enlargement of trade and open interchange of goods, services, information and people—which form the curious but not new phenomenon called globalization—will benefit everyone. It will benefit the environment. The director of the WTO powerfully made the case that poverty is the enemy of the environment. Rich cities are cleaner than poor cities, and economic growth is the friend, not the enemy, of the environment.
The Trade Justice Movement lobby made a point about the regulation of multinationals. We sometimes have the illusion that multinationals roam the world, completely unfettered, to lay waste and loot along the way. That is not true. Multinational companies do not exist in the ether above national jurisdictions. Every time a multinational company wants to do something, it does so within a national jurisdiction. The fact is that a multinational works in many different national jurisdictions, operating subject to laws and regulations.

97WH
The idea that we should have a supranational structure of law to regulate multinationals is simply absurd. National Governments all set a framework of rules to balance their interests as they see fit and encourage multinationals to do business there.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Maude: If hon. Members will forgive me, I am almost at the end.
Individual Governments will judge the balance between being liberal enough to encourage multinationals to invest and do business there, which they rightly think enriches them, and having proper protections according to the standards and demands of their people. That applies much more strongly in a democracy, where Governments are subject to popular pressure, and less strongly where democracy is less powerful. Alongside that I make the point that multinational companies need to understand their responsibilities. We are in the fortunate position today in the developed world that there is an establishment consensus in favour of free trade, enterprise and capitalism; but it is a fragile consensus. It depends on multinational companies understanding their responsibilities to the environment and to future generations. They must reinforce that consensus and do nothing to undermine it.
I support most of what the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston said in opening the debate. There will be a wide degree of agreement, but I urge the Government to use their undoubted influence within the European Union to continue to make the case for the EU to start to open markets unilaterally. rather than waiting for the pressure of negotiations to do it.
11.15 am
Mr. Hilton Dawson: I am grateful for the chance to speak, especially as I indicated that I have to leave the debate in about 10 minutes to attend some other House business. I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to other hon. Members. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on obtaining the debate and on his opening speech. I should also like to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), on her appointment to one of the best jobs in Government.
I shall be extremely brief. First, Garstang in my constituency is the world's first fair trade town. Since it took that successful initiative it has twinned with New Koforida, a town in the cocoa-producing area of Ghana. Many other towns and cities have followed its example and I hope that Lancaster will do so soon. It is part of the inspirational example that our constituents set us, such as with the campaigns over debt and the campaign today for trade justice.
The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) made a powerful case for the merits of international trade. Whatever one's perspective on that, no country has ever developed successfully by turning its back on
98WH
the benefits of international trade. However, if we are to address the 2015 international development targets of, for instance, halving international poverty, we must make trade work really well for the people of the poorest countries of the world, particularly Africa. We must strengthen the good intentions and progress that the Government have made to ensure that intentions are translated into international actions to address these issues.
The progress that was made at Doha was vital. I support all the concerns of the Trade Justice Movement campaign. I would like to see a development box within the WTO agreement on agriculture. I would like to see the Government supporting a ban on patents on plant genetic resources to protect farmers in developing countries. I would like to see an independent impact assessment of the general agreement on trade in services. I would especially like to see some legally binding regulation of international companies to ensure that they comply with internationally agreed standards on corporate responsibility.
I have an example of that. Other hon. Members will have witnessed, as I have, the grotesque poverty and despair of the people of Angola. It is a potentially wealthy country with enormous resources in oil and diamonds. It has a population of 12 million and is the size of western Europe. It is officially listed as the worst place in the world for children to grow up: a third of Angolan children die before the age of five. With the honourable exception of BP, international oil companies will not publish what they pay to the Angolan Government for that vital resource. We know from a recent global witness report that the year before last no less that $1 billion unaccountably disappeared from Angola. It was salted away and not used to the benefit of the people of Angola.
Ann McKechin: My hon. Friend has raised a crucial point, which was also made, in part, by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude). It concerns the way in which the poorest countries in the world regulate foreign trade and investment in their countries. Many of those countries have no competition laws, some have introduced them only recently, and few have the capacity and the resources to sufficiently enforce them against huge multinationals. Does he agree that it is implicit that future WTO negotiations should incorporate agreements about multinationals and how they conduct their business?
Mr. Dawson: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. I hope that at the G8 and in other forums in which the Government are to have a strong presence in coming weeks, that point and the one about the transparency of the involvement of multinationals—from whatever country—will be powerfully made.
11.41 am
Sue Doughty: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on having secured this important debate. I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak, because a large number of my constituents will be coming here, and because so many people in the country—not only in the run up to today's mass lobby, but over the years—have taken the trouble to keep Members of Parliament

99WH
informed. For example, St. Peter's school in my constituency regularly books time in my surgery to ensure that I am on message on the issue and organises peer group events at the school in order to spread the word. Poverty and inequality on the scale that we see today are unacceptable. Even more unacceptable is the fact that many of the trade problems could be solved: people and countries could be moved out of debt if the major Western economies were to take bold steps to end not only debt but the scandalous use of trade tariffs, about which we have heard so much today. We have to test every policy to ensure that, rather than continuing the flow of resources from developing to developed countries—a rather shameful legacy from colonial days—we start to reverse it. Instead of the top countries gaining the most, they should be lending assistance to the poorest countries. The present situation cannot be right.
Consider these things: it takes one month for a woman working in the textile industry to earn enough money to buy one of the shirts that she produces to be sold at Marks & Spencer. Of the 50 shirts that she produces, she can keep one. Five billion people live on incomes of less than $1 a day, while trade barriers cost the poorest countries $480 billion annually—that is 14 times what they receive in overseas development assistance. The major argument, especially in troubled times, concerns not only social justice, to which everybody in the Chamber subscribes, but also the need to recognise, in everything that we do, that trade does not cross borders, but armies will. That was a 19th century saying, but it has never been truer than it is today.
The NGOs have done a wonderful job, not only in drawing our attention to injustices but in doing their best in the field to set some of them right. We must go a lot further. Quakers have been working in central America. They run long-term rather than short-term projects in some of the neediest parts of the world. They have studied the agricultural sector, which is shrinking all the time. People working in what would be the natural agricultural economy are being driven into urban areas. They are facing a wall of tariffs from the United States and the European Union, which makes it difficult for small farmers to compete and make a living from agriculture.
The G7 Governments need to reduce tariffs and then eliminate them in the EU and the USA so that farmers in countries such as Honduras and Nicaragua have the chance to sell in the real world at competitive prices. In central America, too great a reliance is placed on a small number of vulnerable commodities. Problems with production or difficulties with market access result in poverty on a grand scale. We must therefore look at opening up new markets for those countries, in order to remove those risks.
We recently saw the Greenpeace demonstration on sustainable timber at the Cabinet Office. Another piece of good news in the run up to the world summit in Johannesburg is the fact that environmental bodies and aid organisations are working on a much more common agenda. We no longer need to think of rain forests as interesting museums with many plant species and biodiversity—full stop. We should be talking about them as places where people live—that is so much better.
100WH
Last week, the Environmental Audit Committee heard that DEFRA officials have still not got their act together on sustainability. The question that will keep arising is how much longer it will take the Government to put in place rules of the sort that firms such as B & Q were following 10 years ago. We should not need Greenpeace to audit our sustainability; the Government should have good policies and good practice in place. We want to do something, but we lack joined-up government.
I will be as brief as I can, but I have considerable concerns about the arms trade. In 2000, the Chancellor announced the end of export credit guarantees for arms sales to 63 of the poorest countries, yet the Government are still sending bodies to a defence exhibition in 2002 entitled, "Africa, Aerospace and Defence". We know that arms are still being sold to the poorest countries in Africa. Trade Partners UK will be at the exhibition, as will the Defence Manufacturers Association, which will be sponsoring the United Kingdom's arms companies.
When considering the problems of fair trade, we must look at the wider issues—about how the Government are backing today's aspirations, whether Government Departments are working cohesively, and whether we have joined-up government delivering on those aspirations.
11.48 am
Andy Burnham: I will be extremely brief. Lots of figures are cited in such debates, but one figure says it all. Yesterday's edition of The Guardian published a letter from Professor Keith Popple of Southampton institute, who said that the combined wealth of the world's three richest men is more than the combined wealth of the world's 48 poorest nations. That chilling fact alone is graphic evidence that free trade has failed to produce a more equal world, and that changes to world trade rules are needed if we want to see the world's wealth spread more fairly. We need to be clear that trade alone will never solve those differences, but will exacerbate them. It is natural for a market to punish the weak, not to help them.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) said, 10,000 people are en route to Westminster to lobby us on those issues. We see many lobbies at Westminster, but today's is different. People are taking the trouble to come here today not out of self-interest but because they want a fairer world, and for that reason alone it behoves us to listen carefully to their arguments. One such person was my constituent John Humphrey. He came to see me a few months ago to say that he was organising a lobby of Parliament. John was passionately committed to overseas development, and worked for much of his life giving practical assistance to developing countries and raising awareness of those important issues. He was the founder of the CAFOD group at St Catherine's Church in Lowton in my constituency. Sadly, John died a few weeks ago and will not be at the lobby today, but the fact that so many people are making the trip from my constituency will serve as a lasting tribute to him and his tireless work.
I hope that Ministers will give careful consideration to the calls that are being made. People are right to challenge policy in this area and to ask constantly for

101WH
Governments to do more. The Doha declaration makes progress in calling for special and differential treatment for developing countries. We need tangible evidence of what that means and special exemptions for the agricultural industries of developing countries so that they can begin to make progress and compete only when they feel able to do so.
We are discussing issues today that affect the future of mankind and the world, but I am not sure how many column inches we or the lobby of Parliament will get in tomorrow's newspapers. When that is set against the frenzy of coverage about who in No. 10 said what to whom in Black Rod's Office, it shows that, sometimes, the cut and thrust of domestic politics gives a false impression of what is really important. Perhaps the most useful purpose of today's debate and lobby will be to help to put things into a proper perspective.
11.50 am
Chris Grayling: I, too, will keep my remarks brief. This is an extremely important occasion. As hon. Members have said, we ignore our constituencies at our peril and there is no doubt about the strength of feeling about this issue in our constituencies. I have received petitions from St Giles' and St George's churches in Ashtead, from Ruxley Lane church, St Mary's in Cuddington, St John's in Stoneleigh and from constituents across my area. They are all adamant that they want the issue to be addressed properly at an international level.
I shall pick two points from the petitions on which politicians from all sides can agree. First, poverty eradication must be a key objective for all of us. Secondly, trade can be a powerful driver for improvement around the world, but trade rules have to be enforced to ensure that rich as well as poor countries abide by them.
With that as a background, I should like to make four brief points. First, following on from the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), it is simply not acceptable for Europe and north America to pursue protectionist policies in key areas, particularly in agriculture, and then to expect other countries to adopt free trade practices without considering the implications for themselves. We have to set the example. The common agricultural policy is not sustainable in its current form. US policy to protect north American farmers is not sustainable in its current form. That practice will have to change. Free trade must mean free trade.
Ms Julia Drown: The hon. Gentleman says that free trade must mean free trade. However, does he appreciate the experience of the east Asian countries, which reduced poverty massively over a generation but did so partly through protectionism and closed markets? Would he support that sort of arrangement if it would relieve poverty in the poorest parts of the world?
Chris Grayling: I thank the hon. Lady for those comments. It is important to recognise that in some cases, WTO rules make illegal local practices, legislation
102WH
and support for economies in the developing world. To that extent I have some differences with those who advocate big international policies. National Governments know what is best for their own people. We risk centralising international trade issues to too great a degree.
My second point is about the Commonwealth Development Corporation, reflecting concerns raised with me by constituents who believe that the corporation no longer plays the role that it once did. I know that my hon. Friends on the Conservative Front Bench have made this point to the Government on several occasions. It is not right and proper for a development organisation in the third world to be seeking a specific return as a prime objective. Its job is to alleviate poverty and to encourage development in those countries, and that goal should not be lost.
Thirdly, we need to think small as well as big. If one lesson has been learned from generations of aid and encouragement to developing countries, it is that big projects that involve mass lending to Governments are not those that make the biggest difference. Policy should be as strongly focused on small projects, small-scale support and the encouragement of individual businesses, developments and producers as it is on big international issues.
My final point is about action. One of the most consistent messages that I have been receiving is that of dissatisfaction with high-sounding words about international trade and aspirations to engender free trade and remove barriers. There have been lots of summits and expensive meetings around the world, but there has there has been precious little action. If the Government take away one message from this debate, it must be that talking is not enough and that action is needed. I hope that our Government and other Governments around the world will ensure that action is taken to sort out a proper future for international trade in the developing world.
11.55 am
Ann McKechin: I will try to be brief. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing this debate. I also congratulate the members of this afternoon's mass lobby, which I hope will persuade the Government of the need to ensure that the forthcoming WTO negotiations are debated in Parliament so that the voice of civil society is properly heard.
The world's poor countries believed that the implementation of the agreements that they signed at the Uruguay round of talks—the precursor to the WTO—would bring them the benefits of increased access to the markets of the north, but, to date, those benefits have failed to materialise. The failure to tackle the needs of the south and, by implication, of the world's poorest citizens has led to a growing suspicion that the forthcoming negotiations will further fudge the issue of reforming the tariffs imposed by the north, particularly US agricultural subsidies and the EU's common agricultural policy. The effect of such policies has been exacerbated by the continued problem of the subsidised dumping of products on the markets of the south.
There is also a fear that the north, encouraged by the powerful and influential multinational corporation lobby, will use all its muscle to push the south into

103WH
binding agreements to liberalise many of its markets, including services, with little or no opportunity adequately to regulate foreign investment in a way that would benefit its citizens.
Given the history of manipulation, developing countries are understandably losing faith in the apparent good intentions of their wealthier WTO colleagues. The WTO's credibility in terms of achieving a fair balance between the south and the north is at stake. We must approach the talks in a spirit of openness and transparency, and with a strong and permanent commitment to new measures that will eradicate poverty.
Let us not forget that the WTO is a negotiating forum for legally binding commitments, and all members, not just the privileged few, must be able to participate effectively if they are to take advantage of it. By putting services on the negotiating table, however, the new Doha round has considerably increased the work load on all delegations. The WTO must immediately give the greatest priority to ensuring that appropriate resources are provided for the full and effective participation of developing countries. The funds that our Government provide for capacity building are welcome, but they should be made available as a matter of right, not of charity.
Urgent progress must be made on eliminating tariffs and escalators, and on substantially reducing subsidies in the north. However, the new negotiations must not take a one-size-fits-all approach. Speaking to the all-party group on overseas development, the Chancellor rightly said that a managed, staged approach was required to open up trade in the south. It is not simply a question of increasing foreign direct investment to less-developed countries, but, crucially, of putting in place national and transnational regulatory systems to encourage investment and provide sustainable and widely distributed benefits.
If we are truly committed to a negotiation round based on development and on poverty eradication, we must accept proper scrutiny of our proposals, and put in place adequate mechanisms to assess their impact. Such independent impact assessment has been promised, but the WTO is still to deliver it.
It is not enough to indulge in rhetoric about the benefits of trade liberalisation; we must demonstrate its benefits. If our agreements are shown not to provide real progress towards development, we in the north must show flexibility and the courage to act in the interests of those who need our help most. Millions of people still live in absolute poverty.
11.59 am
Mr. Steve Webb: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing this debate and, in particular, on bringing a moral dimension to it. I also welcome the Minister to her role. I hope that in six or 12 months' time, when she is in the midst of all the technical detail and jargon, she will remember that this is a fundamentally moral issue. It cannot be right for the rich west to subsidise food, sell it below local market prices and undermine local producers.
Free trade has a role, but there must be two fundamental limitations on it. First, we must protect those who face unfair competition, such as small local
104WH
farmers. I hope that the Minister will tell us the Government's thinking on the idea of a development box for agriculture in the current negotiations.
The second limitation on free trade is purely that many of the trading nations are not democracies. Therefore, although the benefits of trade may go to the nation, it finds itself in a small number of pockets. As part of the free trade agenda, I hope that the Government will pursue democracy in many such nations. Without it, free trade does not benefit the poor people about whom we are most concerned.
12 noon
Norman Lamb: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing the debate. It is important that the issues be discussed, especially when Parliament is being lobbied. I also want to pay tribute to the work of the charities and non-governmental organisations. They have done much to raise the profile of the issue, which is one of great urgency.
I want to refer to Oxfam's analysis of trade rules, especially in the report "Rigged Rules and Double Standards". In that report, Oxfam produces a double-standards index to test the performance of the developed world against the rhetoric that it often uses to talk about free trade. That test clearly shows that the European Union and America are the worst offenders when it comes to the gap between the rhetoric and reality of policies.
The case for freeing trade and for making fairer trade rules for the developing world within a clear legal framework is strong, as the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) rightly said. Ultimately, fair trade can be much more effective than aid alone, but there should not be only one or the other; the two should work in tandem. Aid especially should be directed at improving the competence of developing countries to trade effectively and fairly with the developed world.
Hand-in-hand with that, improvements in governance are needed in much of the developing world. My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) pointed that out, and I endorse his point. In our recent Oxfam-funded visit to India, we saw how important such improvements are. Corruption needs to be cut out, and the market within India needs to be freed up. The country has no single market, but 35 states with massive tariff barriers between them.
I especially want to pursue the importance of consistency between Government policy on trade in all its forms and the provision of development assistance to the developing world by the Department for International Development. The Department has a new test. Under the International Development Act 2002, development assistance must be designed to alleviate poverty and pursue the concept of sustainable development. However, it is no good the rich west salving its conscience by paying out aid if, at the same time, such work is undermined by our policies on trade and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) said, on arms sales to the developing world.
In stressing that point, I want to refer to the sale of the air traffic control system to Tanzania. That was a clear example of an unfair, unjust, unacceptable and almost certainly corrupt trade with one of the world's poorest

105WH
countries. I shall give some of the facts of the case. In 1997, the Ministry of Defence gave preliminary clearance under its F680 procedure to the export by BAE Systems of an air traffic control system to Tanzania. It was a military system; the Government knew that in 1997. They knew that because the application was made to the Ministry of Defence for the export of a military system.
On the basis of that preliminary clearance, BAE Systems entered a binding contract with the benefit of a soft loan from Barclays bank—it had to be given on concessional terms in order to meet IMF rules. The equipment was built and $15 million was paid to BAE Systems before the export licence was considered. Essentially, the MOD's preliminary clearance presented the Department of Trade and Industry with a fait accompli when it came to consider the application for an export licence. In considering export licence applications, it is supposed to apply what are called consolidated criteria. Those criteria take into account the need to look at the country's development needs. Those were totally ignored in that case.
Dr. Nick Palmer: How does the hon. Gentleman address the fact that we might have a qualified view of an arms deal or some other deal and that the Government in the developing country might have a different view? We give Governments the right to defend themselves. In what circumstances does he believe that we have the right to override the judgment of a developing country about its self-defence needs?
Norman Lamb: My point is that our Government's policy must be consistent. It is no use giving development assistance money to one of the poorest countries in the world if, at the same time, we give an export licence for a system that is of no use to that country. I shall expand on that in a moment.
The result of the contract is that one of the world's poorest countries has increased its debt, just after receiving debt relief from this country and others, to the tune of £28 million. It has purchased a system that, as we now know from the International Civil Aviation Organisation, is totally inappropriate to its needs. Tanzania does not have an air force, yet it has bought a scandalously expensive military air traffic control system. I am told that a civilian system would have cost about $5 million. Why was that deal completed? It does not make any sense for Tanzania and I understand that the President of Tanzania has now written to the Prime Minister making that point and asking for the Government's help in extricating itself from the deal. Why did Barclays subsidise the deal? Its involvement does not make sense and should be investigated. Why would a commercial organisation subsidise an inappropriate arms deal to a very poor country? The loan had to be on concessional terms to get past IMF rules, because the country had been in receipt of debt relief. I have been told that bungs were paid to facilitate the deal. There should be a full investigation into that scandal.
This country wastes masses of public money.
Mr. Maude: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Norman Lamb: I have little time, so I shall not.
106WH
We spend millions of pounds in development assistance and in debt relief for one of the poorest countries in the world, yet Tanzania has been left with a massive debt and the only one to profit from the deal is a British arms company. We are talking about fairer trade. The MOD cannot be allowed in future to effectively bind the DTI without the knowledge of DFID. DFID did not even know that the application had been made in 1997—contrary to the principles of sustainable development—to foist a military system on one of the world's poorest countries.
We are all calling today for fairer rules for international trade, in particular for the developing world. I am also calling for consistent Government policy so that one Government Department cannot totally undermine the work of another.
12.9 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on having secured the debate, and I welcome the Minister to her new responsibilities. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that, in addition to this debate, Conservative Members have chosen to allocate one of our Opposition days for a debate on this very important subject, especially to mark the fact that such a significant lobby of Parliament is taking place today. Such a debate seemed appropriate to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), the shadow Secretary of State for International Development. I am sure that many hon. Members who were unable to catch your eye in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will want to participate in the debate in the House.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) and my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) have said, we believe passionately in free trade. It is the greatest engine for poverty reduction. It is more effective than aid alone ever could be, and as the hon. Members for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) said, aid and trade need to work in tandem.
We congratulate all those who have written to their Members of Parliament and those who are attending Parliament today on bringing the issue, once again, to the attention of Parliament and the public at large. Happily, more people have been lifted out of poverty around the world in the previous 50 years than in the 100 years before that. It is good to know that, in spite of all the problems that remain in many parts of the world, since 1960, child death rates and malnutrition rates have halved in developing countries.
Much of the credit for that must go to the wealth that has been created by increased international trade. We should be aware, however, that many countries have not reaped the benefits. As several speakers have already said, corruption is one of the major problems. I think it was the hon. Member for Northavon who said that the lack of democracy in many countries is the problem. It is important for all those who care about these issues to focus on corruption and lack of democracy as much as on the obligations of the developed world and the importance of negotiations in organisations such as the World Trade Organisation. We can do a great deal to promote democracy and good governance around the world, and to try to reduce the extent to which the corruption of the rulers of so many developing countries is harming their citizens.

107WH
We recognise that, partly because of corruption, exports in many poor countries do not expand, so those countries do not reap the benefits of globalisation. Again, partly because of corruption, farming becomes unsustainable in many countries, for example, in Zimbabwe, where there is a deliberate attempt to hand over huge amounts of land to the leader's cronies, with the result that there is likely to be a substantial failure in the staple maize crop there. We were briefed recently by someone who has worked in Africa for the Commonwealth Development Corporation and Oxfam during the past 10 years, and who said that corruption and cronyism may well lead to famine.
We are aware that life expectancy throughout the world is increasing. but in many African countries, it is falling, not least because of the tragic spread of HIV. We are very much aware that Africa will not meet the international development target of halving the number of people living in poverty by 2015. There will be a need to reform trade rules to ensure that globalisation becomes a truly effective force worldwide. The reform should focus on ensuring truly free trade.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell pointed out, the common agricultural policy is unsustainable in its current form. Trade barriers in the form of tariffs are wrong. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham said, although we support President Bush on many issues, we do not want the United States to resort to protectionism, as it could only do damage. Tariff barriers deter foreign investment and raise prices. Lower trade barriers encourage trade and inward investment, and allow other poor countries to expand their exports and to benefit from their comparative advantages. That is shown by the number of poor countries that have already been able to expand their range of exports away from primary commodities to manufactured goods and services.
There are continuing concerns about the way in which high tariffs, even in the EU, Japan and Canada, block out poor countries. It is of particular concern that the imports on which poor countries want to focus are the very commodities that are blocked by high tariff barriers.
Hugh Bayley: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman repudiating so many of the policies that his party pursued when it was in government when the proportion of GDP spent on aid was halved from 0.5 per cent. to 0.25 per cent. Does he recognise that, if we reduce agricultural subsidies by reforming the CAP and make it more possible for African farmers to import their beef and cereals into Britain, there will be a consequence for British farmers as there will be less demand for British beef and cereals?
Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to ensure that all our national interests are taken into account. However, I regretted giving way to him when I heard him reducing what had been a helpful and constructive debate to cheap party-political point scoring.
Trade liberalisation has many dimensions. It must involve the reform of agricultural subsidies. We must bear in mind that total OECD subsidies represent two thirds of Africa's total GDP. Rich countries must keep
108WH
their side of the bargain. Trade liberalisation also means increasing the use of the private sector in the provision of services in poor countries, which the Government and the Conservatives support. We recognise that some members of the Trade Justice Movement oppose it, but we point out to those who lobby us on this matter that trade liberalisation has historically encouraged economic growth and investment. In a large number of developing countries, the provision of essential public services, especially clean water, has not been given a high enough priority by those who govern them. It must be welcome if private companies can provide such services, greater capital investment and expertise.
Studies show consistently that poor citizens suffer the most from corruption. Trade liberalisation is a good way to tackle corruption and encourage good governance, and is therefore in the best interests of the poor. We do not agree that it would be sensible to concentrate first on greater regulation of multinational companies, as that would deter the vital foreign investment that poor countries urgently require. Evidence suggests that the involvement of multinational companies brings higher wages, higher safety and environmental standards, and more rights for workers. The idea that globalisation is a race to the bottom in poor employment practices is wrong. On the Conservative Benches, we believe that poor countries need more trade and investment and that we should not put barriers in the way of greater investment.
These issues must be tackled by the Government in the forthcoming EU Heads of Government meeting in Seville later this week, in the G8 meeting in Canada later this month and in the world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg later this year. Conservatives are calling on the Government—in this debate and again later today—to show leadership. Rhetoric should be followed up with action.
12.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Ms Sally Keeble): I welcome this important debate. The high attendance in Westminster Hall this morning shows the high level of support among hon. Members and the public for tackling this issue. I thank hon. Members for their good wishes, and I agree with those who said that I have the best job in the Government. I also sincerely congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing the debate today. He has demonstrated a keen interest in this subject for a long time. As a former shadow Secretary of State for International Development, he should take much credit for the development of thinking about this important issue.
In the short time available, I shall set out some of the Government's basic principles, but I also want to respond to hon. Members' specific points. Several hon. Members will have another opportunity to explore the issues again this afternoon. I want to pay tribute to the work done by the Trade Justice Movement lobby. The existence of the campaign and the lobby has undoubtedly raised the profile and importance of the trade and development movement at a particularly important time for international discussions. Trade justice issues will be at the top of the agenda. The Government have been given a clear mandate on that by the public.

109WH
The Government are committed to ensuring that poverty reduction is at the centre of their work in international aid. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) was right to point out that it is a moral imperative as much as a political problem. He was also right to draw a distinction between the simplicity of the moral position and the complexity of the rules that have to be negotiated. The Government have grasped that particular nettle. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) should realise that the Government have shown great leadership, not just at home, but abroad, in setting out clear markers about the goals themselves and how best to realise them.
We recognise that trade has an important role in helping to achieve the millennium development goals. In recent decades, countries that have taken the opportunity offered by more open world markets have taken the greatest strides in reducing poverty. The World Bank estimates that continuing to open markets to trade could lift an additional 300 million people—about a quarter of our target for the year 2015—out of poverty. By expanding access to ideas, technology, goods, services and capital, trade openness can create the conditions for faster economic growth and help to reduce poverty.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) spoke about the impact of the reduction of commodity prices on levels of poverty in the least developed countries. The Government are examining several issues in that respect, one being value change. It is important that countries that produce the commodities are also able to manufacture and process them. That comes back to the issue of the trade barriers and tariffs. It is one of the reasons why it is so important to dismantle them if we are not just to deal with poverty in the developing world, but to provide sustainable economic growth in those countries.
There is also the issue of the dependence, especially of rural communities, on a small number of basic commodities. Commodity prices have a completely disproportionate impact on rural poverty. Diversification is therefore important. The Government, and my Department in particular, have provided support for the Fair Trade movement and there is growing awareness of the need to ensure that the products that are procured by our major retailers come from sources that comply with fair trade requirements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) made an intervention about transparency. That was important because it is one of the issues that will be raised by today's lobby. Indeed, my colleagues and I had discussions about that this morning with some of the NGOs. We are sympathetic to
110WH
the representations of the developing nations and are working with them and the NGOs. We are also financing support for the pursuit of cases in trades disputes so that the developing nations have access to some of the levers of justice.
The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) made an interesting and thoughtful speech about the relationship between free trade and regulation and about the contradictions in the position of the US, which, while espousing free trade, protects its own industries in certain areas. The Government recognise that. We are pressing internationally and in Europe to ensure that we can end some of the protectionism that has so damaged the developing countries. We are also working on governance issues in the developing countries to ensure that they have the framework to provide the regulation for trade within their countries. Quite a number of hon. Members raised issues about corruption and the importance of ensuring that the benefits of trade reach the populations and do not remain with small numbers of the elite.
My hon. Friends the Members for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) made some important points about the suspicion that exists in many areas about the role of tariffs and trade barriers. One of the reasons why it is so important that we dismantle them and encourage trade is the enormous amount of finance that that can produce, including for the least developed countries. For example, the World Bank estimates that if we reduced by about half the current level of tariffs and barriers, we would produce around US $150 billion a year for the developing countries. That is roughly three times the international aid budget worldwide. It gives an idea of the scope of what can be achieved through trade, as compared with what will be available, even with the best will in the world, through aid.
The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) raised issues about the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Because of time constraints I will not deal with those points now, but I will ensure that he receives a written reply. Investment in developing countries is critical and being able to source financing for a whole range of projects has created pressure. My Department has been looking at ways to ensure that there is an opportunity for further investment in those countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill raised issues about the development box. We welcome the way that the discussion of that has focused attention on the need to address the special circumstances of developing countries.
In conclusion, this has been a brief dress rehearsal for the debate this afternoon. I reiterate that the Government have shown real leadership in ensuring that there is justice for developing countries, in trade as in other issues, and they will continue to do so.

Nepal
12.39 pm
Sir John Stanley: Although I am chairman of the Britain-Nepal parliamentary group, I would not presume to speak on behalf of the group. I initiated the debate in my individual capacity.
As the House knows, the relationship between Britain and Nepal is unique: no other country in the world has citizens who have served in the British armed forces and under the Crown for more than 150 years, with conspicuous gallantry. They have made conspicuous sacrifices in two world wars and since.
Britain's relationship with Nepal goes far beyond the Gurkha connection. Large numbers of British people travel to Nepal to enjoy the unrivalled mountains of that country, the richness and variety of Nepalese culture and the charm and resilience of the Nepalese people, with their remarkable gift of friendship. The links between our two countries also extend into the constitutional and parliamentary field. When the late King Birendra made his wise move in 1990 towards constitutional monarchy and genuinely free multiparty parliamentary democracy, it was supported by the Government of this country. Members of the British Parliament have been present among the international observer team in all the general elections by universal suffrage in Nepal, beginning with the election in 1991. Those of us who were fortunate enough to be part of the last Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Nepal in 1996, went to the Nepalese Parliament and saw the Speaker's Chair in each House, carved in British oak—gifts from the Parliament of the United Kingdom to the Parliament of the kingdom of Nepal.
That parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy is under the gravest threat from Maoist terrorists, whose clearly stated objectives are the overthrow of the constitutional monarchy in Nepal and the imposition of a one-party communist state.
The Maoist campaign has been going for some six years; thousands of people have already lost their lives and the campaign is both spreading and intensifying. The trademark, and principal weapon, of the Maoists is extreme brutality. At a briefing recently, senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials told the parliamentary group that the latest Maoist tactics before attacking a security forces post are to go to the surrounding villages and make house-to-house calls demanding that each family gives up one member of the household as a so-called civilian volunteer. If they do not do so, the Maoists will be back to murder at random one member of the household, which is a threat that they carry out. Those civilian so-called volunteers are then used as first-wave cannon-fodder in attacking the security forces post, to expend the maximum amount of the security forces' inevitably limited supplies of ammunition. When the first wave has gone in and most of the ammunition is expended, the hardened, seasoned Maoist terrorists finish off the job. Inevitably, the casualty rate among those press-ganged civilian so-called volunteers is fearfully high.
Those who have been unfortunate enough to be captured alive by the Maoists have been treated unspeakably. Prisoners have had their throats slit, have
112WH
been dismembered, disembowelled, burnt alive and tied to trees in order to have their limbs smashed so that they die in agony slowly. The Maoists understand totally the power of fear, as they have always done, and exploit it ruthlessly.
Not surprisingly, in a country with only limited road communications and where the ability to reinforce is extremely restricted, the Maoists have managed to take a greater or lesser degree of political control over approximately half of Nepal. They are cementing their control by isolating areas ever more completely from help from the elected Government. They destroy telephone links, electricity supplies, bridges and the remaining Government presence in villages, which principally consists of the offices of village development and forestry committees. They have extended their operations beyond the rural areas and into the capital, Kathmandu, where the terrorists have detonated bombs in buses and taxis and against Government buildings.
As we all know, the world has been engaged in a war against terrorism since 11 September, and the world's media have given massive attention to terrorist attacks and threats of further terrorism against the United States of America and its allies, and in Afghanistan, Kashmir and the middle east. However, comparatively speaking, precious little attention has been paid to the country that is facing the single greatest threat to its parliamentary democracy from internal terrorism—Nepal. If there is to be a truly worldwide campaign against terrorism, it is high time that the world community gave more attention and support to the needs of Nepal in its war against terrorism.
I want to raise three specific points. The first is the issue of military assistance to Nepal. As the Minister will know, during the past year a succession of senior members of the Royal Nepalese security forces and the Government, including most recently the Prime Minister, have visited this country and requested military assistance. Prime Minister Deuba was able to see the Britain-Nepal parliamentary group following his meeting with our Prime Minister during his recent visit.
The press have reported that the Nepalese have requested helicopters, so that they are better able to reinforce their security forces than they have been so far; night vision equipment, so that they can mount their own attacks to try to nullify the terrorists' ability to operate more or less with impunity at night; and military training and expertise in counter-terrorism, which this country has in plenty.
I hope that the Minister will set out in the fullest and most specific detail possible in this public forum how the British Government have responded to those requests from the Nepalese Government for military assistance. I am concerned about the apparent lack of speed and resolve in the British Government's response so far.
There seems to be a striking contrast with the way in which the Government responded—rightly—to the requests from President Kabbah of Sierra Leone for military help against the brutal and serious internal terrorism that he faced and the threat to parliamentary democracy in that country. I welcomed the British Government's response to Sierra Leone, but I want to record the fact that, although Nepal is not a member of the Commonwealth, Britain's ties with Nepal are of infinitely longer duration and our obligation to Nepal is greater.

113WH
My second point relates to development assistance. The war against terrorism in Nepal will not be won by military means alone, any more that it will elsewhere in the world. The people of Nepal, particularly in rural areas, must be persuaded that their prospects for prosperity are substantially better under the existing democratic Government than they would be in a Marxist one-party state. Unless the people of Nepal can be persuaded of that, there is a real risk that the Maoists might win, so development assistance results are urgently needed on the ground.
The Secretary of State for International Development wrote to me on 9 June. She said:
"Last year my Department spent over £20 million on development assistance to Nepal. This included a number of short-term initiatives to deliver development benefits to people in conflict affected areas. Increases in the programme are planned this year, and if there is progress with reform we are ready to further increase financial support."
I very much welcome the right hon. Lady's focus on providing development assistance to give short-term benefits to people in conflict-affected areas. That is crucial, but at the same time I am concerned by what she says about making increases in financial support dependent on progress with reform.
I completely understand the need for reform in Nepal, as do the Nepalese Government. I understand the need to root out corruption and remove what remains of the caste system, but it is an inescapable fact that those reforms will take time, and time is the one thing that Nepal does not have. The sands of time are running out in Nepal, and perhaps running out fast in terms of its parliamentary democracy, so I urge the British Government to increase development assistance now, to focus it on conflict-affected areas, and to increase development assistance without conditions.
Finally, I turn to the role that Britain can play in the international development community worldwide on behalf of Nepal. I do not begin to suggest that the British Government could or should single-handedly shoulder the burden of getting development assistance to Nepal on the scale and with the critical immediacy required. The entire international development community must be mobilised, including the United Nations development agencies, the European Union, individual donor countries with serious development programmes and the development organisations and agencies in Asia.
In the aftermath of 11 September, Britain played a crucial role in building the international military coalition against terrorism, not least through the Prime Minister. What is called for now is for Britain to take a similar lead, headed I hope by the Prime Minister, to build a similar international development assistance coalition for Nepal while there is still time. I cannot stress the urgent need for that too strongly.
I said at the outset that Britain had a unique relationship with Nepal. In my view, Britain also has unique obligations to that country. Twice in the past century, thousands of Nepalese citizens came to our country's aid as Gurkha soldiers in our hour of need. In Nepal's hour of need, it is incumbent on Britain to come to Nepal's aid with substance, determination and immediacy.
12.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) on raising the issue of Maoist terrorism in Nepal. He is right to say that the debate is timely. The crisis in India and Pakistan has taken parliamentary and media attention from other countries in the region, especially Nepal, that also need international attention and support.
This morning, I spoke to a friend from Nepal who runs a business here. He had spoken to members of his family who were subject to direct intimidation by Maoist terrorists in Nepal. He told me of the fear that pervades many communities in the areas controlled by the terrorists, and the extent to which the need for a Government response presents itself. The terrorism must be cracked down on, and it must be ensured that the terrorists negotiate a proper settlement on the issues.
Much of the conduct employed by the Maoists in their efforts to secure power has been nothing short of barbaric, in their acts against Nepalese security forces and against civilians. Threats such as those that the right hon. Gentleman outlined are an everyday occurrence in many parts of Nepal.
The United Kingdom fully supports the Nepalese Government's efforts to combat the Maoist terrorists. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reiterated our support during a meeting with Prime Minister Deuba of Nepal only last month. He came to this country and asked for support, and was assured that he would be given it.
As the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling suggested, the UK has strong ties with Nepal that stretch back over 200 years. One obvious link is our Gurkha relationship. The Gurkhas are an integrated part of our Army, and are held in deep affection throughout the United Kingdom. They have distinguished themselves in areas as diverse as Bosnia, East Timor and Sierra Leone. I place on the record the Government's thanks to them for all their efforts. Until the escalation of the conflict over the past few months, Nepal has been a popular destination for British tourists, who have travelled in large numbers to holiday and trek in a country of outstanding natural beauty. The tourists need to be aware of the circumstances and take account of the escalating terrorist campaign in Nepal if they plan to travel there. They should certainly not travel in areas controlled by the Maoists, and they should also be careful in other areas.
The Maoist military campaign remains focused on three targets. The first is the continuing destruction of the civilian infrastructure. The second is the monthly pattern of major assaults on district headquarters and security force garrisons. The third is the campaign of attacks against police posts, Government offices and public transport in Kathmandu. The pattern of violence has been accompanied by repeated Maoist-inspired national shutdowns and strikes. Those have exacerbated the impact on an economy already debilitated by the conflict.
It has been estimated that there are about 5,000 core Maoist members. The Maoists have used force to bolster their numbers in operations against the Nepalese

115WH
security forces. The right hon. Gentleman described some of the methods that they used. The Maoists currently control areas in the mid-west of Nepal through fear and intimidation, and there is evidence that they are present in all Nepal's 75 districts.
The security situation in Nepal has deteriorated alarmingly over the past few months. The Maoist threat continues to dominate life in the country. The scandal of destruction is enormous. Districts in the far west are now without piped water, telephones and electricity. Some districts have been losing contact with Kathmandu as the Maoists destroy repeater stations and radio masts throughout the country. Bridges have fallen to Maoist bombs, and postal services have been severely disrupted. Food stocks have been looted and local government officials are fleeing to Kathmandu as their offices are bombed and burnt.
The Maoists recently offered a unilateral ceasefire for one month. However, that proposal was rejected by Nepalese Prime Minister Deuba, who argued that the Maoists could not be trusted, especially in light of their previous ceasefire break in November 2001, when they abandoned the last round of negotiations. At the moment, the Maoists are not genuinely interested in a peaceful resolution of the situation but want to resolve it by a terrorist campaign. A ceasefire would merely provide them with the opportunity to regroup, retrain, rearm, and recruit new members to their cause.
The abandonment of peace talks by the Maoists and their return to violence last year forced the Nepalese Government to create a state of national emergency. One consequence of that was the introduction of the Royal Nepalese Army into the conflict. Previously, the role of combating the Maoists had been left to the police. The addition of the RNA to the conflict has contributed to some military successes against the Maoists. However, those achievements have been tempered by undeniable reports of human rights abuses by the police, the armed police and the RNA. Although a valued contributor to peacekeeping forces overseas, Nepal has no experience of fighting wars on its own territory. We have strongly urged the Nepalese Government to take action on human rights abuses, stressing the need properly to investigate the reports and punish the perpetrators.
The current political uncertainty in Nepal, culminating in the dissolution of the Nepalese Parliament and the expulsion of the Nepalese Prime Minister from his own party, comes at a time when the country is already undergoing a security and fiscal crisis. Prime Minister Deuba last month extended the state of emergency for a further three months. To do so, he required parliamentary support. A stand-off over the extension between Prime Minister Deuba and his party president, Mr. Koirala, resulted in the Prime Minister's dissolving Parliament in order to push ahead with the extension of the state of emergency. That was conducted within the Nepalese constitution and by the order of the Nepalese King. However, Mr. Koirala then ordered the expulsion of Prime Minister Deuba from the Nepali Congress party.
The internal conflict will not assist in reaching a solution and ending the conflict. We strongly urge Nepalese politicians to put aside their differences and to work together in the interests of the country at this difficult time. The dissolution of Parliament has resulted
116WH
in new elections being called in November. We stand ready to do what we can to support the Nepalese Government in the holding of free and fair elections so that the democratic process may prevail.
Our close relations with Nepal amplify our concern for the instability there. We support the democratically elected Government of Nepal, and recognise their right and obligation to provide security to their people. We have offered our full support to the Government of Nepal in their attempt to find a resolution to the insurgency. That message was reiterated recently by the Prime Minister to the Nepalese Prime Minister. The European Union has also condemned the Maoist attacks.
Mr. John Burnett: The Minister heard a compelling plea for immediate action—a plea for sufficient military assistance from the United Kingdom to support the Nepalese Government. Will he address that point?
Mr. O'Brien: I am certainly hoping to be able to deal with that. It is of course an important request. We are considering those requests and we hope that in the very short term—I am thinking of days rather than months—we will be able to give a response on some aspects. I do not wish to go into some of the detail of the military requests that have been made but I would be happy to brief hon. Members privately about that after the debate.
We are also working closely with our US colleagues and others in identifying ways to stop the insurgency. We consider our involvement to be part of the wider war against terrorism, whatever form it takes. We are committed to continuing our developmental, political and military assistance to the Nepalese Government and the United Kingdom is taking the leading role in coordinating support to Nepal in this time of significant crisis.
In that context the United Kingdom decided to host an international meeting in London, which started this morning and will conclude tomorrow. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing marred his otherwise excellent speech by claiming that we lacked resolve. The calling of that international meeting suggests otherwise. The situation is much too serious for that sort of party political knockabout and must be taken seriously. It concerns an international situation in which we have a deep vested interest and the Government intend to take it very seriously indeed.
We developed the initiative for the international conference in close consultation with our international colleagues and with the Nepalese Government. We have invited representatives from other countries who share our concerns over the worsening security situation there, those with substantial donor programmes, and, of course, representatives of the Nepalese Government. We have also invited multilateral organisations with interests in Nepal, including the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme, together with the United States, India and other countries.
The international meeting is an important initiative to bring together representatives from the international community to discuss how that community can best coordinate its efforts in supporting the people of Nepal.

117WH
The international meeting also provides an opportunity to reinforce the need for strategic action by the Nepalese Government and the international community to address the situation in Nepal.
But that is only the beginning. We believe that this meeting should become a process—one that will involve greater co-ordination between Nepal and other countries. The UK is helping Nepal bilaterally. Our already substantial £27 million bilateral development programme to Nepal will be increased in the short term to assist the Nepalese people. It focuses on short-term programmes to deliver development benefits to communities affected by conflict, sector reforms in health and infrastructure, governance reforms and targeted programmes to assist the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
It has to be acknowledged that the development record in Nepal is mixed. There have been some gains in reducing poverty and improving the human development of the people. However, much more must be done to reduce inequalities and corruption. That is why the Department for International Development has also worked with other agencies and the Government to improve the latter's implementation of poverty reduction programmes.
We have also approved a package of measures for Nepal totalling £6.7 million as part of our strategy concerning south Asia for this financial year. That is an increase of approximately 1,000 per cent. in Nepal's allocation from the last financial year under the global conflict prevention pool. The projects will be aimed at short-term development and at reinforcing Nepal's development, military and police capacity. They are, therefore, directly related to the current crisis.
A substantial amount has been allocated for training and equipment support for the Royal Nepalese Army. Training support will include assisting the RNA in human rights awareness, while approximately £500,000 from the fund will be spent on providing equipment, including bomb disposal protection goods.
We are committed to helping Nepal, and we are determined to do so. We are providing military and financial support, and we are determined to continue our efforts on human rights.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. Time is up.

Health Inequalities (Easington)
1 pm
Mr. John Cummings: First, I want to put the health of the local population in context. In socioeconomic terms, Easington is classed as one of the most deprived communities outside London, and it is sixth from bottom in the multiple index of deprivation. One in four deaths is due to coronary heart disease, which is 40 per cent. above the national average. Deaths from the complications of diabetes are 73 per cent. higher than the national average for men, and 62 per cent higher for women. There has been a 62 per cent. increase in deaths among men from cirrhosis of the liver. Life expectancy figures are among the worst in the country, at 72.42 years for males and 77.4 years for females.
Despite those appalling statistics, health care in the Easington district remains chronically underfunded. Easington currently receives only 89 per cent. of its target allocation, while Darlington receives 105 per cent. It is one of the most deprived and disadvantaged communities in the country in health terms, but primary health care is underfunded to the tune of almost £10.5 million, according to Department of Health and County Durham health authority figures. The Easington district includes part of the Prime Minister's Sedgefield constituency, and its population suffers some of the worst health in the country. It is ironic that it is one of the areas that are furthest from receiving their target allocation.
One might ask what happened to Government initiatives on areas with the worst health records. Easington has a population of almost 98,600, but it was not successful in securing health action zone status in the last round of bids.
Additional assistance to reduce death and illness due to smoking is also not available to residents in the Easington district, even though it is available to communities in neighbouring Sunderland and in Tees Valley; yet 28 per cent. of men and 24 per cent. of women in the district are smokers.
The problem is compounded by the fact that there is considerable pressure in the district on local authority budgets for disabled facilities grants to adapt people's homes, for disabled people in local authority accommodation and for elderly people who live independently in their own homes.
Mr. Denis Murphy: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cummings: I am always pleased to give way to a good comrade.
Mr. Murphy: The picture that my hon. Friend paints is almost identical to that in my constituency. He mentioned the disabled facilities grant, and there are major problems in our constituencies because the level of disability is well above average. Does he agree that it would be sensible for central Government to recognise that fact and to increase grants to enable local authorities in our constituencies to catch up with the huge backlog of work that needs to be done in that respect?
Mr. Cummings: My hon. Friend makes valuable points, and he speaks from first-hand experience. He

119WH
represents an area much like mine, which relied on coal mining, with all the consequences that that hazardous occupation had.
Easington district's total financial commitment for adaptations and medical aids, including access ramps, showers and heating, is almost £1 million for the current year, and there is an estimated backlog of more than £500,000 of work for local authority properties alone. Without additional resources, that backlog is likely to increase further, as occupational therapists and social services make more referrals.
National policies for modernising services for older people place much greater emphasis on giving older people the support that they need to live independently in their own home. That is likely to have significant cost implications in terms of disabled adaptations, medical equipment, domiciliary care, personal medical and community care, home helps and meals on wheels. It is apparent that there are insufficient resources in the existing organisations and agencies to cope with the considerable growing demand for those services.
There needs to be an understanding of the resource implications of any change in the pattern of service delivery for older people, for all agencies involved in health and social care, including the primary health care sector, especially in Easington where resources are already stretched to the limit. Despite a record settlement for the national health service, with an increase of 9 per cent. in revenue budgets and a 9.9 per cent. increase in the allocation to the County Durham health authority, in this financial year Easington is moving further away from its target resource allocation.
A significant problem from Easington's perspective is that the substantial additional resources allocated to it in recent years have been for badged projects, such as modernising accident and emergency facilities and improvements in hospital-based cancer services. Without a dedicated hospital serving east Durham, the allocations that would otherwise have gone to Easington have been directed to the major population centres. It is the view of many Members of Parliament representing disadvantaged areas like my own that the index of multiple deprivation should be included as a basis for the allocation of resources for health.
The ill health of the local population can be addressed only by means of a protected increase in baseline resources with a bias in future allocations to areas in greatest need, such as Easington, where health inequalities are greatest. Although I welcome initiatives such as the national primary care collaborative, community healthworks, the warmer homes initiative, sure start, on track and the healthy schools award scheme, they need to be refined and streamlined so that there is better co-ordination between health, education, social care and community economic regeneration, which are vital to improve the life chances of the local population.
There is an argument that Easington and other similarly deprived areas identified by the multiple index of deprivation should receive an allocation above capitation target due to exceptional need. For 2002–03, Easington primary care trust receives £84.7 million as against a target allocation of £95.176 million, a shortfall of £10.47 million. In other words, Easington is funded in the current year at 89 per cent. of target. Nevertheless,
120WH
in spite of the funding gap, Easington can take pride in some excellent examples of partnership working in overcoming health inequalities in the district of Easington.
Easington primary care group was chosen as one of the twenty PCGs in England to take part in the first wave of the national primary care collaborative, which is now a part of the NHS Modernisation Agency. In the first year, 2000–01, five local GP practices concentrated on reducing the time that patients wait to see a doctor or nurse and establishing effective planned care for people with heart disease. In only the second year of operation, 17 of the total of 18 GP practices are working together on these targets. In January, every patient in the participating practices was able to see their family doctor within 48 hours of their request. In most practices, 90 per cent. of patients could see their doctor on the day of their choice. At the same time, all patients who needed aspirin as a protective measure were identified and receiving that treatment, which is known to reduce the risk of heart attacks by 50 per cent. One hundred percent of people who needed treatment with beta-blockers after heart attacks were receiving them. The number of people benefiting from statin therapy to reduce high cholesterol had reached at least 70 per cent. of the eligible group in all practices and as much as 90 per cent. in some.
A handyman scheme has been supported, an example of partnership working between the local NHS, Easington council and Age Concern. It provides two handymen to undertake odd jobs for older people in the community, helping them to live independently by reducing the risk of accidents in the home. Where time allows, the handymen also deliver small aids to independent living and help to maintain gardens, improving the environment and reducing the hiding places for thieves.
A home safety scheme—a partnership between the local NHS specialist health promotion service, Easington district council and the fire service—provides new home safety equipment for families with special needs or those who have children aged under five, such as a fireguard, two safety gates, two smoke alarms and socket covers. Every ward in Easington is in the bottom 10 per cent. of communities in England for investment in home safety. There is a clear correlation between lack of local investment and every parameter of poor health—including accidents.
The project has been possible only because funding has been provided by a charitable source. A community healthworks partnership—a training programme—has promoted joint working between the local NHS specialist health promotion service and people from the local community. It aims to raise awareness of the many factors that affect health. Local trainers are used to support participants in developing locally relevant health-related research projects. Participants, through their interest in health issues, often become interested in the local community health forum. Unexpected benefits of the scheme have included participants gaining the confidence to return to full-time working.
A smoking cessation partnership has been established between local GP practices, the specialist health promotion service and local people. The primary care trust has invested heavily from its baseline allocation to support local services for people who want to give up

121WH
smoking. A network of 35 intermediate smoking cessation advisers work in GP practices throughout the district. The specialist health promotion service provides them with training and support. It has a success rate of 66 per cent. of people quitting at four weeks, compared with the national average of 45 per cent. Preliminary data suggest that the percentage of people still not smoking after one year is 35 per cent.
Funding for that work went to health action zone areas in the first year of national support. In the second and third years, Easington primary care group received £25,000 to set up and run the smoking cessation service—a share of the £192,000 received by County Durham and Darlington health authority. As I said earlier, that was much less than the funding for health action zone areas.
The currant bun project is a partnership between the specialist health promotion service and the local community. It is a healthy eating programme that targets groups such as older people, people with mental health problems and single parents and covers healthy eating messages, food hygiene, budget meals and basic cookery skills. Links are made with local community workers to facilitate community involvement in other local projects. The significance of that work is that many people who suffer disadvantage find it difficult to link what they know about good nutrition with the need to manage both their time and their financial resources.
An important area of work, given the levels of deprivation in Easington, is the warmer homes partnership between the local NHS and Easington district council. The primary care trust has worked closely with Easington district council to improve local resident access to fuel conservation initiatives. Primary care staff working in GP practices refer patients who are at high risk because of health problems to the local medical officer. After assessment, adaptations are undertaken to improve the heating systems and insulation measures.
Sure start is an important area of work for primary care, which will pay dividends in improved health and lifestyle in future generations. There are three sure start areas in the Easington district. The primary care trust is the lead partner and is doing superb work.
A successful bid to the New Opportunities Fund under the healthy living centre initiative has provided funding for four interlocking community health promotion programmes: healthy food, healthy exercise, StressBusters and information for health and wellbeing. Since the primary care group was formed in 1999—it is now a trust—there has been a modest increase in the amount of consultant psychiatric services. A counselling service now works hand in hand with every GP practice in Easington, and funding has now been secured to strengthen the clinical psychology service. Bases for two community mental health teams and an out-of-hours helpline have been established.
As I have said, it is a matter of public record that levels of health need in Easington are the highest of any community outside London. National imperatives are also local priorities. Proportionately, local people have more heart disease, more mental health problems and more cancer than people in the rest of the country. In
122WH
tackling those issues, the primary care trust must work closely with other agencies and organisations in the community, as well as with agencies in Sunderland, Durham, Hartlepool and North Tees. Easington primary care group is addressing the problem on two levels; first, by providing services for those people who are affected by disease and, secondly, by providing information and support for people at risk of serious disease to enable them to make informed choices about their lives. The NHS needs to make as much effort to prevent ill health and disease as it makes in treating disease. That is a real challenge when there is a funding shortfall, in excess of £10 million.
The real deficit in the district is evidenced by a lack of community service infrastructure. We can identify the levels of demand and the lack of resources in Easington. The area requires another 10 GPs to reach the national average. In some practices in Easington, there is one GP for every 2,600 patients, and the district average is one GP for 2,100 patients. Although it would be useful to establish specialist GP clinics and extended-role nursing provision to support people with chronic disorders, in reality Easington needs to increase its staffing establishment as well as develop leading-edge services.
There are, of course, physical limits to how much change a system under pressure can cope with, but the primary care trust's response has been to support and work with the practices to find a way through the uncertainty. What, practically, does Easington need? I have already said that we need more GPs and more community nurses. More palliative care beds and intermediate care beds are also needed. There is a clear remit for the PCT to work even more closely with the local authority to ensure that local people are not disadvantaged when funds are distributed throughout the county. We need more specialist diabetes nurses, dieticians and podiatrists. The national service framework will set out a requirement to build integrated services for people with diabetes. Complications of diabetes account for a 73 per cent. increase in deaths in men and a 62 per cent. increase in deaths in women in Easington. That situation cannot be allowed to continue.
Children and young people require access to a robust child and adolescent mental health service. Adult mental health services are poorly developed in the district and need more resources to enable them to carry out their most useful function.
There are good services for people with heart disease, which causes one in four deaths in adults in Easington. Lack of access to echocardiography means that effective care for people with congestive heart failure is not available. New funding would allow that deficiency to be tackled immediately. The development of community-based rehabilitation services could significantly reduce pressure on hospital out-patients and doctors' surgeries. Those matters could be tackled immediately if the resources were made available.
It would be extremely useful if, when he responds, the Minister would identify possible funding initiatives that the PCT could tap into in order to address those problems. There is considerable pressure from members of the public and local health care professionals to redress the historic and recurrent £10.5 million annual shortfall. That shortfall is based on population alone, and does not take need and deprivation into account. I

123WH
urge the Minister to take the opportunity to make an unequivocal commitment to address that anomaly through a needs-based funding allocation at the start of next year's financial settlement.
More than six generations of miners and their families in the Easington district have produced the coal to fuel the engines of industry that powered the industrial revolution, made the steel and fired the ships that made the nation great. Unfortunately, the coal mines are no longer with us. Many miners suffer from chronic ill health as a result of their long service in terrible conditions underground. The nation owes a debt of honour to those miners, their families and descendents, and to areas such as Easington.
In the grand order of things, we are talking about a modest commitment in each district of about £100 per resident. That modest sum could make a significant difference to the health of the local population. My colleagues and I look to the Government to address inequalities and injustice, and to repay a debt owed to mining communities, such as Easington, that are struggling to overcome disadvantage and deprivation, and want to look forward to a healthier, happier future under this Labour Government.
1.20 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) for raising such important issues in this Chamber. I share many of his concerns and I hope that, in the time that I have left, I can at least reassure him about the future direction of policy and resources as they will affect his constituency. I also pay tribute to him for the balanced way in which he presented his arguments. He carefully and effectively raised the issue of the lack of resources for the national health service in his constituency. He also drew attention to those areas where progress is undoubtedly being made, thanks to the efforts of the Labour party to tackle some of the deep-rooted problems of health inequality that have scarred our society in the past 500, not five, years. As a fair-minded man, he will understand that what is important is that the Government recognise the priorities and commit the resources to tackle them. Dealing with those deep-rooted health inequalities is a long-term project. However, I can at least reassure my hon. Friend that the Government are determined to bear down on the problems that he vividly and candidly described, which are still of concern in his constituency.
My hon. Friend was right to make prevention, not treatment, the focus of his remarks. We all know that that is the right way to tackle some of those inequalities. He also rightly referred to the progress that has been made, and to the widely available anti-cholesterol treatments that are now available, thanks to the coronary heart disease national service framework that we published two years ago. The treatments are now widely available throughout the NHS, and will undoubtedly yield a long-term dividend in all our constituencies. My hon. Friend also mentioned the programmes to support people who want to give up smoking—that terrible habit, which we know is the cause of unnecessary deaths through cancer and coronary heart disease. He rightly paid tribute to the effective smoking cessation service in his constituency.
124WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) made an important point in an intervention about the role of social services. Although the NHS undoubtedly has a special contribution to make as the expert provider of health care, the Government recognise clearly that we must look beyond it to tackle health inequalities. We must consider the contribution that social services and other vital public services can make. We must also look critically at the economy, wages, jobs, housing and education, which are all fundamental to tackling health inequalities, to give people some of the life chances that many others have taken for granted for many years.
The Easington constituency is not unlike mine in many key respects. If my hon. Friend the Member for Easington came to Barrow-in-Furness he would see many similarities and parallels. I know that the same would be true of Wansbeck. In all those areas—on the economy, jobs, housing and social services—the Government are trying to get in the extra investment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck referred to the need to support additional investment in grants for disabled facilities. Thanks to the prudent way that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is running the economy, we announced in the Budget that we are doubling the trend rate of growth going into social services spending. It is important that we do that as we are increasing spending in the NHS. If those two vital pillars of the welfare state get out of kilter, we shall not make the progress that we want. Investing in social services must be done in parallel with investment in the NHS.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington will allow me in the remaining five minutes to say a few words about the national picture. I will then address the issues in Easington. I know that part of the world very well and I have a great deal of affection for it. I hope that I also have some affinity with it. From the very beginning, when we took office, we recognised the importance of tackling health inequalities. It is one of the issues that characterises the difference between us and our predecessors, who would not even mention the term "health inequalities". We accept that it is a problem and we are trying to put the measures in place to deal with it.
A stark challenge faces us. At the beginning of the 21st century the opportunity for a healthy life is linked to social circumstances and childhood poverty, just as it was in the 19th and 20th centuries. To all of us who are privileged to serve in this House as Labour Members and who describe ourselves as socialist, that is unacceptable. We are determined to challenge that state of affairs. There have been considerable overall improvements over the past 50 years, but there is still a great deal more to do.
My hon. Friend referred to some of those changes. He rightly mentioned sure start, which is making an investment in the early years of a child's life. That will bear dividends. We have a range of other policies. We are improving home insulation and energy efficiency schemes as well as tackling some of the deep-rooted economic problems that are still apparent in County Durham. I am glad to see that unemployment rates in my hon. Friend's constituency have fallen dramatically since Labour came to power. That will bear dividends too.

125WH
My hon. Friend was particularly concerned about dealing with the underfunding, as he saw it, of the health service in his constituency. I do not take issue with him about that. We want to close that gap. We are currently reviewing the basis on which funds are allocated to primary care trusts. The purpose of the review is to develop a solution that will link health needs and service provision much more closely. That new allocation funding mechanism is due to come on stream next year. I hope that in the course of that review we can make further progress in dealing with the current inequality of funding.
For the moment, and over the past two years, we have included an interim health inequalities adjustment as part of the resource allocation system. It is worth £148 million this year and it will help to compensate those parts of the NHS whose residents suffer the worst health in the country. That is certainly true in Easington. It is a scandal that a young boy born today in Easington has a life expectancy several years shorter than that of a similar boy born in Kensington, Chelsea or Westminster. The extra resources that we are trying to put in, of which County Durham received an extra £2.5m this year, will help us start to redraw that balance.
On general finance, Easington has edged closer to its target funding allocation over the past four years. It was 13.3 per cent. below target; it is now 11.4 per cent. below target. It has benefited from £4.3 million in additional funds between 2000–01 and 2002–03. Overall, County Durham has benefited from new hospital facilities and substantial additional investment in its mental health services, which will benefit my hon. Friend's constituents. He is right that the centres that provide that care are not based in Easington, but they are services for his constituents.
I hope that building health inequalities into the NHS performance assessment framework will also help focus the attention of NHS managers on these issues. We are reworking the NHS funding formula, specifically with a view to tackling some of the problems raised by my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend rightly mentioned the importance of primary care and the shortage of general practitioners in his constituency. He will be aware that in April, two new GPs were appointed to cover the Easington area; we are hoping that a further two will be appointed in August. I hope that that will make a significant contribution to solving the problem that my hon. Friend identified.
There is much more that I would like to say about the problems of health inequalities, and about how much more the Labour Government still have to do. However, I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend that Ministers share his view about the importance of the issues that he raised in the debate. Ministers in the Department of Health and in other Departments look forward to working with him and my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck to find new solutions to the problems—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. Time is up.

Hospices
1.30 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: May I express my appreciation for the opportunity to raise an issue of great importance and sensitivity?
The Minister knows from Question Time yesterday that the issue of hospices in general and children's hospices in particular concerns people on both sides of the House; it is not a partisan issue. The Government are rapidly developing policy on the matter but I want to pursue certain aspects of it.
Before I turn to some of the more general policy matters, I want to place the subject in a personal and local context. As a society, we have become more honest about issues of life and death and there is now an open debate about a problem that families face: there comes a point at which medicine can no longer deal with disease, when people wish to live out the last few weeks or months of their life in dignity, surrounded by people who care for them and love them. In many cases, that will take place at home. I went through that experience a year ago, when my wife died of cancer at home. However, for many people that is not possible as work arrangements cannot be made and caring support is not available, so a hospice is the best solution. There is a growing acknowledgment of the crucial role that hospices play within the health service.
At a local level, certainly within the last few years, there has been an upsurge in my part of London of the Shooting Star Trust, an enormously successful and popular charity, which has won people's hearts. It is a children's hospice charity, which was started by a person in my constituency called Kate Turner. The charity has been brilliantly successful in raising about £3 million so far. It has obtained land from the local council and the hope is to embark on building the hospice towards the end of the year. With the dedication of its supporters and the head of steam that has built up, I have no doubt that the project will happen and that it will be successful. However, it would happen more quickly, on a bigger scale, and on a more sustainable basis if the hospice could be sure that there was some financial back-up from the national health service because, as with many hospices, most of the children who go there will be on referral from the NHS.
I acknowledge from the outset that we are faced with a change in the policy environment. The NHS cancer plan is explicit. It states that
"all patients should have access to the specialist palliative care advice and services that they need."
It worries some charitable hospices that at a time when the Government formally acknowledge that they are an important part of the NHS, the Charity Commissioners say that if that is the case, the traditional basis of charitable funding comes into question. The Charity Commission advises charities—I am sure that the Minister is familiar with this—that trustees cannot normally use a charity's funds to pay for services that a public body is legally required to provide at public expense. However, trustees may use a charity's resources to supplement what the public body provides. That seems to me to change slightly the balance within which hospices have normally arranged their funding.

127WH
Therefore we are moving to an environment in which the NHS does accept responsibility for hospices, but we start from a position where it is overwhelmingly a private charitable activity. I shall rehearse some of the figures to place them on the record, although the Minister will be familiar with them.
In January this year, 3,029 hospice beds were available in England and Wales, of which 595 were based in the NHS and the rest were all charitable—mainly local charities rather than the big national ones. Currently, 28 per cent. of funding for adult hospices comes from the state—the NHS—a figure that has unfortunately declined in recent years. Back in 1997 it was 33 per cent.
At Question Time yesterday, the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) highlighted the particular problem of children's hospices. They are a relatively new development in the hospice movement, but public funding in that sector is significantly less—only about 5 per cent., an extremely low figure—than in adult hospices.
Dr. Evan Harris: Helen house is a children's hospice in Oxford, in my constituency. It has led the way in the development of children's hospices, yet it receives no statutory funding whatever and finds it hard to maintain existing services, let alone set up new ones. It has just started the development of Douglas house, a hospice for young adults who do not fit into either the adult or children categories. Given the Charity Commission's advice and the fact that public funding for children's hospices is already at a low level and falling, there is concern about how Douglas house will meet its running costs.
Dr. Cable: That helpful intervention reinforces my point. If the average is 5 per cent., in several cases public funding might well be at or close to 0 per cent. I certainly hope that the hospice that I am looking forward to seeing in my constituency will avoid that problem. As my hon. Friend suggests, it is not just that the funding of hospices, particularly children's hospices, is making no advance; it is a struggle to avoid going backwards. The last financial year saw an increase of about £14.5 million, much originating with staff costs, which are linked to NHS salaries. Only about 22 per cent. of that amount was covered by NHS funding. Additionally, many hospices quite properly have regulatory obligations: care standards inspections, checks for criminal records, and national insurance surcharges costing about £2 million, all of which have to be catered for. Many hospices are now fund-raising not in order to develop, but to stand still.
That is the context in which I want to pursue Government funding—directly or indirectly through the lottery—with the Minister. First, it would be helpful to establish what sums of money we are talking about. In yesterday's answer the Minister referred to about £50 million a year of additional Government funding and it would be useful to have that figure confirmed. I understand that that figure comprises the ring-fenced £50 million over three years as part of the cancer plan; £70 million from the lottery—is that covered in the Government total?—and various other bits and pieces such as the welcome £3.5 million a year for drug costs, imaging and ambulance services and the recent
128WH
announcement that specialised consultants, registrars, will also be funded. Is that right or have I misunderstood how the extra £50 million was arrived at?

The Government funding is welcome, but people at the sharp end have various questions about how it works, so I shall put specific points to the Minister. The £50 million ring-fenced money does not appear, at least so far, to be getting through to many hospices. The Minister will be familiar with the survey by the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care. It covered each of the 34 cancer regions and found that few have identified money that has come through to the hospice movement. In the area covered by the Shooting Star Trust, which contains approximately three cancer regions, I could identify only £60,000 that had been located in the first financial year of the programme. The money is clearly not getting through, and it would be helpful to discuss that problem.
In the Minister's reply yesterday, she helpfully said that access to funding may be gained under the programme with the quality protects exercise and carers' grants. Will she explain how hospices such as the one that I represent can access that stream? On primary care trusts, the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) made the point yesterday, with which most of us would identify, that people do not often get far when they go to their local primary care trust. That is simply because PCTs view such work as an optional extra. They receive no Government funding for it, so they are not very co-operative.
What plans do the Government have to create a framework for hospices and palliative care, through perhaps the formal structure of the national service framework, to determine a minimum standard of provision from PCTs with funding streams attached so that they can respond in the same way as they would to other aspects of NHS funding? On Government funding, are there any plans to enlarge the categories of items for which the NHS takes responsibility? In the past few months, the Minister has said that there will be funding for drugs and specialist registrars. Will that be extended to other staff? That is what the hospice movement is primarily concerned about.
In my last few minutes, I should like to pose some specific questions on lottery funding. For my local hospice, it has become the key topic as well as the most difficult and impenetrable one. The £70 million is a lot of money, and I understand that £48 million of that is available for children's hospices through the New Opportunities Fund. That gave rise to considerable expectations, but when the hospices approached the New Opportunities Fund, they found out that only a small part of that total is available for hospices as opposed to more general palliative care. Palliative care is valuable but, given the demands of the hospice movement, it means that the sum available to hospices—about £15 million—is not large enough.
A more serious aspect for my local hospice is that none of the money appears to be available for capital spending. It is all for revenue. If one is trying to get a new hospice off the ground to meet local demand—about 1,000 families are completely uncovered in my constituency—from where does the capital come? Will it all have to come from charity, or is there some way in which hospices can access a combination of lottery and Government funding?

129WH
One lottery stream is the New Opportunities Fund, which has those problems; the other is the community foundation. When hospices have approached the community foundation, they have found it even harder to penetrate. It does not give priority to hospices or children, but operates on a crude Robin Hood principle that only the most deprived areas of the country can get access to it. That means that my part of London cannot. The foundation deals with averages, but there are many pockets of poverty in my constituency and south-west London generally. Rich people with a terminally ill child will go to the private sector, but for people on middle or low incomes, the needs are acute, and the community foundation's redistributive approach to funding is not helpful.
Will the Minister say something about the discussions that she and her colleague at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are having with the lottery about how the funding can be used effectively? I should also like a response to the broader question of how Government funding can be used, particularly in the case that I have mentioned of a new children's hospice.
1.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing the debate. The subject is topical and of concern to all hon. Members, as was evidenced at Question Time yesterday.
First, I want to place on the record the tremendous contribution made by the hospice movement in caring for people at the most vulnerable time of their life. Both the adult and children's hospice movements do a fantastic job wherever they operate. and they have made the United Kingdom a world leader in that field. When the hospice movement was founded, there was a great deal of scepticism that it might not be an appropriate way to care for people, but in the 1960s tireless lobbying, a lot of research and excellent clinical practice ensured that that type of specialist palliative care was recognised internationally.
As the hon. Gentleman said, hospice care for children is an even newer development than that for adults. In fact, it is only over the past 20 years that establishments providing such care have begun to spring up, which is probably why the funding base for children's hospices in particular is not well embedded in our normal funding structures. It is right to say that both movements have been based largely on public contributions and charitable fund-raising. Only in recent times has the proportion of statutory funding begun to rise.
The hon. Gentleman made the point that the proportion of statutory funding has in fact decreased over the past couple of years from 33 to 28 per cent., but the actual funding from the statutory sector has increased by 14 per cent. over the past two years. The reason for the apparent discrepancy is that charitable fund-raising has been even more successful, increasing by 22 per cent. In the past couple of years, the
130WH
proportion of money funded from the statutory sector has decreased, but the actual money has increased quite considerably, and we should view the situation in that context. I am delighted that charitable fund-raising activities have been so successful, because it means that more services can be provided, but we are keen to ensure that the statutory contribution continues to rise, too.
Provision has been made for children's hospices to be supported within the national health service. It is for primary care trusts to negotiate locally what kind of services are needed in their communities and to have a genuine relationship with the voluntary sector to see how those services can be provided. That is why there must be a proper discussion through the health improvement programme, which is the main mechanism at local level in relation to funding decisions.
The way in which the hospice movement has evolved means that the bricks and mortar are quite often in place before discussions are held about how the services will be supported. Sometimes the capital expenditure is the easiest part to find, through public subscriptions and the many excellent and laudable ideas that many of us have seen in our own communities, such as buy-a-brick schemes. The building and the fabric are sometimes created before the revenue support is obtained and put in place, which can cause particular difficulties for local health services when they find that demands have not been anticipated or planned for through their processes.
Therefore it is important that the hospice movement as a whole has an ongoing relationship with the primary care trusts, which in future will have 75 per cent. of the NHS budget devolved to them and will be able to take the funding decisions. I say that not to undermine the fund-raising that hospices do, but to show that we must ensure that there is some synergy between capital funding and revenue funding. Otherwise the capital provision could be in place but we would not have the revenue funding, and the service could not be provided. That is not in the best interests of patients and other people who need to use the services.
About 28 per cent. of the running costs of adult hospices are met by the NHS. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is about 5 per cent. for children's hospices. However, there are marked variations even within those figures. It must be recognised that there are some recent arrivals in the children's hospice sector. The Shooting Star Trust, for example, is still being planned, although people in that community have done an excellent job in raising funds.
We must also ensure that we have proper standards. For the first time, the care standards regulations have set out the sort of standards towards which people should work.
On finance, and in response to some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, the New Opportunities Fund has committed £70 million to provide palliative care projects in England. Some £48 million of that funding is for children's palliative care, and will support several programmes for direct services in the community: £30.7 million will be spent on 24-hour care for children with life-threatening or life-limiting illnesses, £15.3 million on residential hospice care services, and £2 million on bereavement services based at home, in a hospice, or in the community.

131WH
The new opportunities funding is therefore balanced. Its guidelines and framework were debated in the House and drawn up as a result of close co-operation between the Department of Health and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. We must recognise that although hospice services are greatly appreciated by the people who use them, there is also a demand for care at home and in the community. There is a case, especially for children, for various options to help to meet the needs of people locally.
It must also be said that hospices are sometimes established in places where people have higher incomes. Successful fund-raising is perhaps more inevitable in more affluent communities where people can contribute more money. That is not always the case, but there are huge inequalities in hospice distribution and access to hospice care. The hon. Gentleman made the important point that social deprivation greatly affects a child with a life-threatening illness. The problems of such an illness are compounded if a community is poor and lacks transport and access to income. It is therefore right that we should consider deprivation as well as access for as many people in the community as possible. I do not say that that should be the overriding, or only, factor under consideration, but the problems are undoubtedly compounded for those who are socially excluded and who find it more difficult to access services.
The £50 million that the Government have committed is part of the money announced as part of the cancer plan to spend an extra £50 million a year by 2004. In my answer to questions yesterday, I recognised the concern in the hospice sector about how much of that money was getting through to the frontline of hospices. That £50 million is not only for hospice provision but for palliative care, including community and home-based provision. As I said, we shall examine the mechanisms for ensuring that that money is spent on the areas that we said should be a priority. We shall consider the outturns of the expenditure for this year and see where the money has been spent, to see whether we can strengthen the mechanisms for next year to ensure that more of that allocation goes through.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the extra funding for specialist registrars for pathology and imaging, and to meet ambulance costs. We announced that all those things should be available to NHS patients in hospices in the same way in which they are available to NHS patients of other services; that is in addition to the £50 million for the strategy. We sent out guidance to the trusts throughout the country, emphasising that people are NHS patients, and therefore that the costs should be borne in that way.
I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the lottery money not being available for capital funding. A small amount is available for capital, but that is primarily for equipment. The hon. Gentleman is right that the lottery money is designed to support revenue funding; that is the point that I made earlier. In many cases, capital funding is easier to raise through public subscription and charity fund-raising than revenue funding is. That is why it was decided to put the majority of funding into supporting the day-to-day services that people need.
132WH
It is important that we try to get hospices on a firmer footing so that they are more a part of everyday services. As we said in the NHS plan, everyone should have access to good, high quality palliative care services. That is why we commissioned the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to undertake an evidence-based review of palliative care services as part of the palliative care guidance. We want to identify services that are most likely to result in high quality care. The NICE review will benefit the voluntary sector. It will help decision making about service delivery in local areas and it will provide primary care commissioners with a much more robust framework and better information when they are taking their spending decisions. We expect that the initial findings will be available from this autumn. They will be fed into the strategy that we are developing as part of the cancer plan. That will enable us to develop good and robust standards for palliative care.
We have also required all the cancer networks to develop costed strategic plans for palliative care. For the first time we now have a palliative care strategy in each cancer network, based on provision and local population needs. Also for the first time, comprehensive data on the current provision of palliative care at a network level in England are available. Those data will enable people to plan more strategically where services should be. Because the sector has grown up in an ad hoc fashion, we have not had a handle on where the provision is, its quality and how it fits in to ensure that people have access to services right across the field.
It is important that voluntary sector providers are fully played into the decision-making process. That is why we funded them with £54,000 to organise themselves to ensure that their voice was heard in the planning process. A joint conference in May brought together key commissioners and key providers in the statutory and voluntary sectors. We are moving on apace with this whole agenda. The current expenditure on palliative care is about £300 million, of which about £170 million is provided by the voluntary sector and £130 million by the NHS. As I have said, by 2004 there will be an additional £50 million from the statutory sector, which will mean that for the first time we shall make an equal contribution.
I think that I have made it clear that we intend to take action to try to ensure that this money gets further down the line. I also want to place it on the record that many people prefer to die at home. We must achieve the right balance between hospices, community provisions and home. We recently established the Diana community support nurses, who have helped with community care for children with life-threatening diseases. We have a wonderful provision through the Macmillan nurses, who can provide tremendous support for people at home at a distressing time for them and their families. Marie Curie Cancer Care also plays an important role at this difficult time.
It is important that we also invest in training for support for district and community nurses. We put an extra £6 million into cancer networks to train district and community nurses in the principles and practice of palliative care. They are working closely with the hospices in developing their own skills, to extend the

133WH
range of all skills that all district nurses will have in future to enable them to deal with these issues sensitively.
This is an important debate. It clearly engages many of our constituents. Caring for people in the last days of their life, whether they are adults or children, has to be
134WH
an increasing priority. I hope that in future we shall develop a much more robust framework so that everyone in our community may expect to get the best possible care in the last months and weeks of their life. We are determined to see that that happens.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.