Westminster Hall Sitting of 25 February 2004

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

Human Rights (Burma)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Paul Clark.]
9.30 am
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: In much of my speech this morning, I shall refer to the work of Amnesty International. It is perhaps proper that I first place it on record that I am a member of Amnesty International, and that in the next few days I shall forward to the Register of Members' Interests the fact that I benefited last week from financial assistance from Amnesty in respect of a visit that I made to a prisoner on death row in Ohio.
The matter before us today is rather different. My interest in the subject was first engaged by my local Amnesty group in Orkney, which has been vigorous for many years in its efforts to support the democracy movement in Burma and to raise the profile of the issues in this country. It is proper that we remind ourselves why there is so much concern in Britain and around the world about the situation in Burma, or if one prefers, Myanmar.
In 1990, the National League for Democracy, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, won the election with 82 per cent. of the vote. Even Liberals in Orkney and Shetland have never achieved that sort of result. The military leadership of the country, however, which has been in power since 1962, refused to recognise the democratic wishes of the people of Burma. That injustice continues to this day.
The brave struggle by the Burmese people for basic human rights and democracy, led by Suu Kyi, who, of course, is a Nobel peace prize winner, remains frustrated. Suu Kyi has been confined to her home on Inya lake in Rangoon for more than half the 13 years since her landslide election victory. She was last released in spring 2002 and began to rebuild her party and support base. Then, on 30 May 2003, a group of thugs backed by the military junta clashed with supporters of Suu Kyi. She and 35 members of the National League for Democracy were taken into custody.
The calm, rational and measured response of Suu Kyi has been remarkable. After the United Nations human rights envoy Paulo Sergio Pinheiro met her last November, he said:
"She wants accountability and justice, not revenge."
This is a lady who has campaigned all her life for human rights that we in this country all too often take for granted. That she has managed to remain so composed and dignified is remarkable.
During recent weeks, there have been mixed reports in the media regarding the current situation in Burma. The Burma Campaign believes that the regime's strategy is to delay further international pressure while it finds
68WH
ways of coping with new United States sanctions. What is particularly worrying is that it believes that this strategy is working.
Tin Oo, the vice-chairman of the National League for Democracy, was moved from custody to house arrest only 10 days ago. However, the NLD still does not have access to this 77-year-old man. Aung San Suu Kyi was offered release last autumn, but she told the UN human rights envoy that she would not accept her own liberty until all those arrested on 30 May had been released. Her telephone is cut off and visitors must get Government permission to see her. Last month, there were reports in the International Herald Tribune that the death penalty is still being used to silence critics of the Government. In November, the editor of a magazine was condemned to death by the regime, shortly after the publication of an article alleging the misuse of funds donated to the country.
Despite this, the perception in the region is that the situation in Burma is improving. Media reports on 20 February, for instance, said that the Thai Prime Minister had told his Vietnamese counterpart that he expected Suu Kyi to be released before October's Asia-Europe meeting.
Bob Spink: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this important subject. I apologise for the fact that I will not be able to stay until the end of the debate because I have another commitment.
In mentioning the Thai Government position, is the hon. Gentleman aware that if neighbouring countries were to do more to bring pressure on the Burmese authorities, particularly with regard to trade, land ownership and development, extractive industries and so on, the Burmese authorities might do more to improve their human rights record? Should not the Thai Government allow more aid to go across their country's border into Burma at this time?
Mr. Carmichael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. In broad terms, I agree with his comments. Later, I shall discuss the various different levels on which those of us in different parts of the world can hope to bring pressure to bear on the Burmese Government, and the importance of action within the region will be central to that process.
Minor steps in the right direction and vague promises of democratic reform must be set against the reality of the current situation in Myanmar. The Burma Campaign has summed up the present position as one in which there is
"disruption of democracy; the continued detention of Aung San Suu Kyi and her colleagues; the scorched earth policy against ethnic peoples; the use of rape as a weapon of war against women and children; the mass forced displacement of civilian populations; the widespread and systematic violation of human rights; the largest use of child soldiers in the world; the production and export of illegal narcotics; the spread of HIV/AIDS to neighbouring countries; and the looming humanitarian crisis resulting from the collapse of public services."
We in Britain must not have the wool pulled over our eyes. That will be critical in the run-up to the EU's review of Burmese policy in April and the Asia-Europe meeting in October. We should take the approach that

69WH
Amnesty International took during its recent visit. It was highly critical of the regime because it judged
"concrete actions on the ground"
and was not swayed by
"fine words, and vague promises for the future without any timetable for change".
After its visit to Burma, Amnesty outlined its serious concerns about arbitrary arrests, prolonged interrogation and incommunicado detention without judicial oversight carried out by military intelligence and other security personnel. It also believes that Burmese trials continue to fall short of international fair trial standards. According to Amnesty, those recently tried have been denied access to a lawyer or have been permitted to talk to a lawyer only minutes before their trial. In some cases, political detainees have not been able to speak in their own defence or to cross-examine prosecution witnesses. As a result, long sentences have been handed down solely on the basis of statements provided by police officers or military intelligence. Amnesty estimates that there are 1,300 political prisoners in Burma. Amnesty's lasting impression from the trip was that tolerance of criticism and dissent is shrinking while at the same time the regime talks of moving towards civilian government. We must not be fooled by a charade engineered in Rangoon.
Despite all this, the latest process initiated by the regime has already started to benefit the generals. The international community has stepped back from any concrete action against the regime even though Aung San Suu Kyi and the leadership of her party remain in detention. One of the first elements of the so-called "road map to democracy" produced by the regime is to reconvene a national convention that was first tried in 1993. The NLD boycotted the convention because of the authoritarian restrictions imposed on delegates, which included not being allowed to deviate from approved discussion papers; being allowed to express support only for constitutional principles proposed by the military; not being allowed to distribute any papers on the convention premises; and being subjected to intimidation by the military while the convention is out of session. One delegate was given a 20-year sentence for distributing a paper to other delegates.
When Burma was last debated in Westminster Hall on 2 July last year, the Minister said:
"We will also make sure that the deep worries that exist in the international community are not left as words but are followed up by actions, which means that clear messages must be sent. The way in which the economy of Burma has developed must be addressed, but the regime and its leaders will find that the international community will target them and their cronies for further sanctions."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 2 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 96WH.]
The Minister was right to take that position then., and the time for rhetorical pressure has surely now long passed. Since the July debate, the two largest UK investors in Burma—Premier Oil and British American Tobacco—have agreed to withdraw from the country. That is welcome, but the UK Government have still not introduced legislation giving them power to ban new investment in Burma. Will the Minister now give an undertaking to do so?
70WH
In response to parliamentary questions tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), the Department of Trade and Industry revealed in December 2003 that in 1998 the total value of UK imports of goods from Burma was just £17.3 million. By 2002, however, it had increased almost fourfold, to £64.3 million. Between January and September 2003, a further £44.3 million-worth of goods were imported from Burma. According to the Burma Campaign, the UK currently imports more goods from Burma than does any other European state.
In last year's debate, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), speaking on behalf of the Conservatives, said:
"Foreign investment has provided the regime with the money that it needs to cling on to power and has enabled it to double the size of its army."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 2 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 92WH.]
He went on to call for targeted sanctions and an EU investment ban. Will the Minister tell us what progress has been made in securing such measures and, indeed, whether they are the objectives of Government policy?
I can understand that some hon. Members may be reluctant to impose further sanctions on Burma. The Burmese people have suffered greatly under the current regime. I do not think, however, that targeted sanctions would hurt the poorest Burmese people, who tend to work in the informal economy, which is generally not dependent on foreign investment.
The Minister for Trade and investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing an important debate on a country about which many of us are deeply concerned.
Our approach to economic sanctions is to target the regime and those with economic interests in it, rather than to target the Burmese people with general sanctions. What does the hon. Gentleman think of that policy perspective?
Mr. Carmichael: That clarification is very helpful, but if the Minister reads what I said he will see that I spoke of targeted sanctions. If it is possible to minimise the effect on the ordinary Burmese person, who will certainly not benefit from foreign investment in the same way as those with power and influence, that will be extremely welcome and I will commend the Government on their approach.
According to the Burma Campaign, United States sanctions have hit some elements of the regime's support base in the export and banking sector, but those measures are now being undermined by the European Union. Burma is looking to the EU to replace lost US export markets, especially in textiles. The fact that the EU may be giving the regime assistance is reprehensible. Can the Minister confirm that when European Foreign Ministers meet in April to decide their position on Burma, our Government will press for tougher sanctions?
The impact of US sanctions has also been undermined by the actions of Swift bank, as was exposed in The Observer last month. Following the imposition of tough financial sanctions by the US in August, the regime has successfully converted its financial dealings into euros. The technology business Swift, via one of its regional

71WH
offices in Singapore, helped to supply software and other key data so that the regime could do that. Swift members include some of the biggest names in world banking: Citibank, JP Morgan, ABN AMRO and Credit Suisse. Can the Minister tell us what steps his Government are taking to prevent the euro from replacing the dollar as the currency used by the junta for international commercial activity?
It pains me to say that the mood music that will accompany April's talks does not sound promising. Earlier this month the Irish Government, who will hold the EU presidency when the talks take place, decided to recognise the military regime in Rangoon—a decision that will no doubt have angered one of Ireland's best-known sons, Bono of U2 fame. Writing in the Herald Tribune in January, he and US senator Mitch McConnell said:
"Without more pressure from trading partners and regional powers, the SPDC"
—the State Peace and Development Council—
"has little to fear."
They rightly concluded:
"Aung San Suu Kyi does not need the tributes or the unbridled admiration of a rock singer or a US senator. She needs unwavering, uncompromising international support—as tough and determined as she herself is. We can't wait for another atrocity appalling enough to hit the international headlines."
At the forthcoming EU review of the Burmese common position, our Government must argue forcefully for the agenda abdicated by the Burma Campaign. It has called for a ban on investment in Burma by all European countries and citizens; a ban on the import of goods and services from enterprises owned by the military, military personnel and their associates; a ban on the import of strategically important goods from sectors of the economy that are under state monopoly, such as gems and timber; and a ban on financial transfers and transactions denominated in euros. It has also called on member states to push for UN Security Council mandatory sanctions.
What is critical is that a time frame should be established by the EU. At present, the Burmese regime is busily trying to find new markets to replace those lost in the US. The EU and the Association of South East Asian Nations—ASEAN—are making no time demands on the regime, and thus its use of smoke and mirrors continues to be an effective way of maintaining power. That cannot be allowed to persist.
Last December, the EU adopted a resolution prohibiting the sale and export to Burma of equipment that might be used for internal repression or terrorism, and freezing the funds of certain people related to Government functions in the country. While that is welcome, there is a fear that at present Europe's position is simply not strong enough.
One important issue brought to my attention by Amnesty International involves visits to the EU by members of the SPDC. When Burma joined ASEAN a few years ago, its membership disrupted relations between the EU and ASEAN— the two organisations being known as ASEM, or the Asia-Europe Meeting, when they meet. ASEM could not meet in Europe because of the EU ban on visas for members of the SPDC, and it could not meet in ASEAN countries because EU members refused to sit at the same table as
72WH
members of the SPDC. However, it has been noted that several ASEM meetings are scheduled for this year in Europe and Asia. Can the Minister explain how it has suddenly been possible for the EU and ASEAN to meet, given the earlier problems?
At UN level, the Burma Campaign wants the imposition of targeted sanctions, including a mandatory arms embargo, an investment ban and a ban on Burmese exports of strategically important goods including oil, gas, gems and timber. The UN Secretary-General should take the lead in formulating a comprehensive road map with a specific time frame backed by a UN Security Council resolution and sanctions. Such tough measures are supported by the people on the ground, members of the National League for Democracy. At present, they have popular support but no power. Giving them power to control the level of international sanctions would give them a significant bargaining chip.
As the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) suggested, regional pressure on the regime is vital. Last year ASEAN members took the unprecedented step of criticising the detention of Suu Kyi, but they remain silent on human rights issues more generally. I think that we in this country are right to look to neighbouring countries in the region to take a much more robust and proactive approach to human rights abuses in that region. Pressure applied closer to home will always be more effective than that which comes from countries whose politics and culture are different from ours in the western developed world.
In September, Indonesia sent its former foreign Minister, Ali Alatas, on an attempt to bring about the release of Suu Kyi. That attempt was of course unsuccessful, but our Government must use their influence to pressurise ASEAN countries into being more robust in their dealings with Burma.
Finally, I want to impress on the Minister the necessity of recognising the contradiction between the fine words emanating from Rangoon and what is happening in practice. Amnesty International and the Burma Campaign UK both believe that, in many ways, the situation in Burma is deteriorating. I hope that if we return to this issue in another nine months' time, we might have a rather happier picture to outline, and that today's debate will have played a small part in the process of bringing about that happy situation.
9.50 am
Mr. Iain Luke: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on securing this debate. Some progress has been made since I secured the previous debate on this issue, which took place in Westminster Hall on 2 July. However, in recent times, the attempt to secure the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and to make the Burmese junta change course has been becalmed, so it is right that we should now reflect on what more we can do to make further progress.
I want to pay tribute to Amnesty International in Dundee, which got me involved in setting up the all-party group on Burma, along with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). In conjunction with our friends in the Burma Campaign UK, we have made progress in campaigning for changes

73WH
in that country and in bringing about greater recognition of the human rights abuses inflicted by the military junta, not only on minority groups but on the Burmese people themselves.
We should consider the economic progress being made in the countries surrounding Burma—I shall call that country by its old name—such as India. This week, we met the assistant high commissioner for Bangladesh, who told us about the economic progress that his country is making. Burma has natural resources that any developing country would give its eye-teeth for, and the poverty and trouble it is experiencing are a sad reflection on the state of that country.
We set up the all-party group not only to campaign for human rights but to bring about democratic change and to restore democratic government to Burma after some 15 years of junta control. Progress was made in last year's debate, and the Minister who was present then—he is also present today—painted a very active picture of what the Government were doing to bring about change; indeed, I paid tribute to them in that regard.
We should draw attention to the part that the Minister has played since then in persuading British American Tobacco, with which he had several meetings, to disinvest in Burma. Our all-party group also had many meetings with BAT, partly as a result of Government pressure, but what also became clear in our discussions with its Asian management was the extent of the economic chaos in Burma. BAT was not even sure that it could pay its workers, whether weekly or monthly, because the banking system had collapsed. That factor played a big role in forcing BAT out of Burma: at the end of the day, it was unable to operate properly. We had a long discussion with it about its operation, and I am glad that, thanks to the pressure applied by the Government and the Burma Campaign UK—and in the light of the economic chaos in Burma—BAT has disinvested in that country.
There is still a big job to be done, and we should not hide from what we need to do. It has rightly been pointed out that we need to consider a two-tier strategy. Our colleagues in the European Union still trade with Burma, and they are running scared from taking a more progressive and harder line on sanctions. There has been some £4 billion of investment in EU trade there in the past 14 years. The chair of the all-party group and I, along with MEP colleagues of all political persuasions, hope to visit those EU countries to put the case for stronger action against Burma. I hope to hear from the Minister that the Government will be making that case to colleagues on the European Council to ensure that there is a unified European voice.
We need also to consider the fact that trade continues with Asian countries. It has been rumoured that, in the wake of BAT's disinvestment, China has stepped into the breach and is investing considerable sums. We must discuss that issue with the Chinese Government when we get the chance, given their commitment to becoming a much more active player in the world economy. There are therefore many different countries and forums that we need to tackle to ensure that the pressure we hope to continue to apply is really felt.
74WH
The all-party group is actively seeking another meeting with the Burmese ambassador, whom we have met on several occasions. Following the 2 July debate, we met him at the embassy, on 15 July, and pointed out that it was now time for the Burmese Government, if they are honestly intending to move towards democracy, to issue their road map. Unfortunately, that road map has constituted something of a run-around—as much of the documentation has described it—in that it has been used as a ploy to stave off international pressure. At the last meeting of the all-party group, we agreed to speak again with the Burmese ambassador.
Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman is a recognised expert in this field and he has done much good work to draw international attention to these problems. Does he agree that one way to galvanise world opinion is to draw attention to the junta's links with the production of drugs and their trafficking across the Burmese border, which, of course, affects the entire world?
Mr. Luke: The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point. As I said during last July's debate, the drugs trade is an essential part of the black economy in Burma, and to an extent it keeps the military junta afloat. If we can do more to highlight that issue and to embarrass the junta, we can bring about change.
We must continue to put pressure on the Burmese Government, and we will meet the Burmese ambassador— soon, I hope— to make that case. We shall point out that last July he promised that his Government would change their ways. However, no significant change Inn occurred, and in many cases there has been a re-entrenchment of the junta's existing attitude towards change. The Burmese Government have promised to introduce a civilian face to government by 2006, but I am very sceptical about whether they will live up to it. If they are going to make such promises, we must ensure that we continue to apply pressure.
There is a lot to do, and we must continue to work with as many groups as possible, such as Amnesty International, throughout civil society in the UK. Many trade unions are involved— Unison, for example, attends our all-party group's meetings in the House— and we need also to work with Church groups and the Burma Campaign UK to keep this issue to the fore. We did a great deal of wok last year: for example, the early-day motions that we tabled on the issue were the most heavily subscribed of last year's quota, and we will continue to consider that option in the next few months.
The Government must continue to make a strong case for the Burmese Government's accepting the inevitable fact that, if they are to progress and to provide economic security for their citizens, they must embrace democratic change and bring about Burma's full membership of the economic community. That way, Burma can capitalise on its immense wealth as a producer.
I look forward to the Minister's reply. He has been very supportive in the past and I have no reason to doubt that he will be so in future, and that he will continue to make the case. The campaign goes on.
9.59 am
Mr. Michael Moore: This is an important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on securing it and on setting out the position in Burma in such a comprehensive manner. His remarks were complemented by those of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke).
The position in Burma seems to go through a repeating cycle in which the regime's abuses get worse, international pressure increases to match them, concessions are suggested and then, over a period of time— frustratingly for us and worryingly for people in Burma—little is delivered. Thus we return to the beginning of the cycle once again.
A couple of years ago, there was considerable optimism when Aung San Suu Kyi was released from house arrest in May 2002. That came with the easing of restrictions on the National League for Democracy and the release of many political prisoners. Within 12 months of those happy events, however, the situation was almost completely reversed, particularly in the events of 30 May last year. As the Foreign Office's human rights report of 2003 put it:
"The past year has proved to be another depressing period for the people of Burma during which tentative hopes for moves towards democracy and improved human rights adherence by the military regime were raised, eroded and then abruptly shattered."
As my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland highlighted, we have had recent promises of a road map—a fashionable diplomatic tool—to lead us to democracy. The convention idea of 12 or more years ago has been resuscitated and we should hope that some progress will be made, but the with spread domestic and international scepticism about the idea is understandable.
Events are set against the background of an economy in ruins. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East pointed out, the country has rich natural resources yet most of its citizens live in stark poverty. In response to the intervention of the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), he also drew attention to concerns about opium production and its clear links with the military regime. As we reflect on the dire state of the country, we should not lose sight of its dire HIV/AIDS problems.
Abuses are widespread and continue to horrify everyone of a decent disposition. The State Peace and Development Council, as the military Government of Burma style themselves, could teach us a few things about irony, but I doubt whether they could do much on human rights. The EU and the UN echo the British Government's strong criticisms. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Burma Campaign UK, among many others, have catalogued the level of abuses.
Those abuses start at basic levels with the lack of any freedom of speech, freedom of the press or freedom of association: all the basic tenets of a civilised society are ignored. Even at the convention, to my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland explained, where some discussion was supposed to take place, people were arrested for daring to bring other discussion papers to the process. People are detained on an arbitrary basis, and the most recent estimate of the Burma Campaign
76WH
UK is that as many as 1,400 people are prisoners of conscience. As we have heard, ethnic minorities throughout the country are targeted by the regime.
There is a strategy of abuse in the economy with widespread use of forced labour; in the army with the use of child soldiers; and across the country with the most disgusting and systematic use of rape as a means of repression. Burma's generals oversee a loathsome evil state, but in all that, they have happily not broken the spirit of Aung San Suu Kyi or the thousands of others in her movement and across the country. Their shining example gives the international community a special responsibility to act on their behalf.
Significant progress has been made since the issue was debated here last July. The Minister deserves considerable credit for the decision of British American Tobacco to withdraw, coming on the heels of Premier Oil's decision earlier last year to divest itself of its interests in Burma. More recently, PricewaterhouseCoopers, with which I was associated in my Edinburgh days, and others have agreed to cease their involvement with the country. I also pay tribute to the so-called "dirty list" which, thanks to the campaigning zeal of the Burma Campaign UK, has become part of this country's debate on Burma. It has proved highly effective in drawing attention to the companies that continue to invest in, and trade with, Burma.
Trading is a delicate issue and we recognise the need, as the Minister highlighted, to ensure that sanctions on economic activities are targeted on the regime rather than on the generality of the Burmese population. It is clear from the National League for Democracy and others that that sort of campaigning is important, and they fully support it.
The issue of Burma has been raised in many international bodies and forums of the world. It is regularly aired in the UN, having been the subject of debates and reports by the General Assembly and by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. One element missed from that list is the UN Security Council. When the Minister replies, will he touch on whether the Security Council could make more effort to bring further pressure to bear on the regime?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland pointed out, the countries that make up the Association of South East Asian Nations have a special responsibility because they have the closest links with the Burmese authorities. Those countries have a duty to reflect on their economic and political ties. Suggestions have been made—I put it no more strongly than that—that part of the current make up of the Burmese regime may lead to its having a civilian as the head of Government just in time to be able to take over the presidency of ASEAN in due course. I believe that the world will see through such a charade, but it is incumbent on ASEAN and others to ensure that it does not come to pass.
Closer to home, the EU, which has been criticised by some campaigners, has a list of targeted sanctions, but people are concerned that since the US took tougher direct action against the Burmese authorities, the EU will soak up the trade and investment lost to America. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that he and his colleagues in European capitals are aware of that

77WH
danger, and that he will tell us what action is proposed. I personally believe that if sanctions are to be applied from Europe, it is best to do so at the EU level, but that does not remove responsibility from our own Government to keep up the pressure.
I repeat my earlier tribute to the Minister for his work on BAT and other companies. Regular and strong denunciations of the regime are made, including by the Prime Minister. As a full participant in the EU and the UN, the UK has an important role to play. I acknowledge the difficulties that the Government would face if they were to act in isolation, but I hope that the Minister will be able to update us on the Government's plans to ensure that the pressure continues to be felt by the Burmese regime.
There is consensus among the political parties represented in this Chamber about the situation in Burma, and by and large about the response that is required. We must recognise the progress that has been made, but we must not lose sight of the fact that further efforts are needed before we get rid of this evil regime.
10.10 am
Mr. Richard Spring: I add my warm congratulations to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on securing this debate. His introduction was comprehensive and powerful.
We can all agree that Burma has a brutal and oppressive military dictatorship that destroys the human rights of a people whose traditions are of peace and decency. I saw those traditions, and the landscape's mesmerising beauty, when I visited the country more than 20 years ago.
I applaud the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) for the consistent way in which he has raised the issue of Burma in the House. Burma is a country of considerable natural resources and wealth, and it is quite shameful that the benefits of that have not permeated down to the people.
The concept of human rights as a legitimate consideration in the formulation of foreign policy is becoming increasingly entrenched around the world, and that is understandable and right. It is no coincidence that countries ruled by some of the least democratic and representative regimes—countries such as Burma—also have some of the worst human rights records.
The 2003 human rights report issued by the Foreign Office points out that the period that it covers was a depressing one for Burma. It states:
"Human rights violations in Burma continue to be widespread and systematic and the Burmese ethnic minority groups suffer disproportionately."
Burma's human rights record is marked by consistent abuses and broken promises of reform. The ongoing conflict between the regime and various ethnic minority groups such as the Karen, until recent ceasefire talks, contributed substantially to an increase in the overall pattern of human rights abuses. Burma's regime has systematically detained large numbers of political prisoners, often elderly people, in appalling conditions. It has subjected them to torture and used rape and
78WH
murder as weapons against its own people. It has forced farmers off the land, burned villages and employed child soldiers and slave labour. Religious freedom is, in many respects, non-existent.
By any yardstick, that is an absolutely horrendous catalogue of unacceptable violence and abuse against our fellow human beings. It is coupled with the absence of any real form of democracy. Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy has been deprived of its rightful place as the Government of Burma. As we have heard already, with more than 80 per cent. of the vote in the 1990 elections, the NLD enjoys an unimpeachable mandate—one of which politicians in any democratic country can only dream.
The Burmese regime persists in making promises about moving forward to the so-called constitutional convention now that the ceasefires have occurred. The convention has been promised by the country's Prime Minister. In theory, all parties and groups will have a say, and the intention is to draw up a new constitution as part of the seven-point road map to democracy.
Talk however, is easy, and promises from the Burmese regime in the past have been of little value, serving merely to distract attention. There were some improvements in 2003, only for everything to be reversed with the ambush of Aung; San Suu Kyi and her supporters' convoy at the end of May. She has languished in detention, either in prison or at home, ever since. The "protective custody" explanation offered by the Burmese regime was a sick joke. I find it difficult to see how long-term progress can be made as long as Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters remain in detention and excluded from participation in a proper dialogue with Government and the convention.
Not only are democracy and basic human rights absent from Burma, but the country's people live in abject poverty due to chronic economic mismanagement. Total spending on health and education amounts to just 0.5 per cent. of gross domestic is product—a fraction of what is spent on the military forces of a country with no obvious external enemies. All that fosters a climate in which corruption and abuses of economic, civil and social rights are all too common.
The picture in Burma is indeed gloomy, but there have been some welcome developments. I freely pay tribute to the work that the Minister has done in that regard. We welcome BAT's decision last year, and Premier Oil's decision before that, to pull out of the country, thereby sending a very clear message to the regime. I pay tribute to the untiring efforts of the Burma Campaign UK, which does so much to keep the profile of this issue high and to persuade companies of the error of supporting such a brutal regime, however indirectly, by investing in the country.
The recent ceasefires that have been agreed and the ones that have been discussed by the Burmese military regime and the country's myriad rebel groups, most recently the Karen National Union and the Karenni National Progressive Party, are welcome. In addition, the transfer of Tin 0o, the NLD's vice-chairman, from prison to house arrest offers some basis for mild encouragement. Nevertheless, I see no valid reason why he should have been detained illegally in prison in the first place, and I deplore the fact that his "release" is

79WH
only a change to house arrest, rather than absolute freedom. However, such developments must be part of a far broader programme of change, reform and democratisation, and there must be genuine ceasefires involving a full withdrawal of SPDC troops from Karen areas. We must judge the changes' effectiveness by results, not rhetoric.
Too often, the lack of democracy in Burma and the plight of Aung San Suu Kyi is seen in isolation from the overall human rights situation and the suffering of particular ethnic groups. All these issues must be addressed in parallel, as they are facets of the same problem—the unwillingness of tie Burmese regime to respect its people and its peoples will. It is not good enough for other countries simply to wring their hands and to mutter platitudes about a vile regime, but to do precious little. The US has adopted a very tough line, and in June 2003 the EU's "common position" was apparently strengthened. It now includes "targeted sanctions", travel bans and asset freezes on regime figures and supporters. Also banned are defence links or arms sales, high-level visits, and non-humanitarian assistance from countries.
All that would be welcome if it were properly enforced, but in reality the situation appears somewhat different. In due course, I would value the Minister's perceptions on that point.
I am concerned that we have seen no evidence of positive results from the asset freezes and travel bans. The only official figure that we have, passed on to me by the Burma Campaign UK, is the freezing of €86 in Germany. Will the Minister take this opportunity to say whether that is accurate? What value of assets has been frozen EU-wide, and also specifically in the UK?
It appears that the Bank of England's list of assets to be frozen consists only of the assets of individuals, not of companies—even if, as in the case of companies such as the Myanmar Economic Corporation and the Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings, those companies are effectively adjuncts of the regime. Business activities by companies close to the regime, or even owned by it, fund its activities. The common position calls for the assets of entities to be frozen, yet the apparent failure to do that has given the military regime an opportunity to shift assets out of harm's way.
What steps are the Government taking to bring regional pressure, such as we have alluded to this morning, to bear on Burma from the surrounding countries, Bangladesh, India and China? India and China are regional powers of enormous and growing significance and of wealth and influence, and I am sure that they are concerned about what goes on in Burma. What conversations have our Government had with those countries about the situation in Burma?
To refer to a point that I made in our debate last year, what efforts are being made by the United Kingdom to secure a UN Security Council resolution to extend the common position to a larger number of countries and unequivocally to condemn the regime? What contacts have Her Majesty's Government had with officials and member states of the Association of South East Asian Nations to press them to take a tough regional stance?
Andrew Selous: Does my hon. Friend think that the UN could take
80WH
further steps to put pressure on Burma? Should the regime's obvious contempt for the people of Burma and its complete disdain for the democratic will of the people make Burma a candidate for expulsion from the UN?
Mr. Spring: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point and he correctly alludes to the abuses, although of course other countries commit human rights abuses but remain members of the UN. However, the UN is a forum for bringing such matters to international attention and the Security Council is the right place to do that. There is some evidence that, where that has happened in the past, the UN has had some influence. We need to approach the situation in a multi-faceted way.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: On the point raised by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) about membership of the UN, when the UN condemns a country that is a member of that organisation it sends a much more powerful message than if the country is not a member. The embarrassment factor is much greater because Burma is a member of the UN. There is more that the UN could do, but we have to remember that some members of the Security Council might not take entirely the same view as us.
Mr. Spring: I am grateful to the Minister for those comments. The British Government have, of course, had some experience over the past year of some members of the Security Council not taking an identical view, but I am sure that we can find a route through this problem.
Will the Minister enlarge on the steps that the Government are taking to promote a fully watertight and legal ban on British companies investing in Burma? The debate gives us an opportunity to send a further unequivocal message to the Burmese regime that its behaviour is unacceptable, that it must change and that it must democratise Burma.
I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore): there is no divide in the House on the issue and, again, I pay tribute to the Minister for his efforts in this regard. I hope that, in his remarks, he will be able to inform us further about the progress that has been made in dealing with this tragic problem, which is of such concern to all of us who cherish human rights and who are concerned about their abuse anywhere in the world.
10.24 am
The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I repeat my congratulations to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on initiating this debate. I also congratulate him on the constructive way in which he put his case. If I am unable to deal with all the points he raised, I shall be happy to meet him later to discuss some of the issues in detail. He raised a series of important questions, so it would be worth while going through the issues in a different context.
I share the real concern that is felt on both sides of the House about the appalling human rights situation in Burma. In recent years, there has been no significant

81WH
improvement. Indeed, in many ways, the situation has worsened and I doubt that we shall see any serious improvement as long as Burma is governed by an oppressive, unelected military dictatorship.
We have gone through cycles with the regime. There was a period of engagement and liberalisation, with an election, but the regime did not like the result, so reaction set in. Periodically, the regime's grip on the country is relaxed but then there is further reaction. My diagnosis is that the regime has enormous control over the country. Many of the generals engage in economic and business activity: they accept backhanders, are involved in various forms of corruption, and are reluctant to give up the largesse that they receive from those activities. However, they want to maintain their grip not simply for financial reasons; there is also fear in the regime. The generals are afraid that their position and that of their families will be endangered if they liberalise and allow the Burmese people to control their own country.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has made it clear throughout that her aim is not overthrow and revolution but reconciliation. Her aim is that the military should be under democratic control, but she does not seek retribution. She shows a willingness to come to terms with the past which we recognise in other great leaders such as Gandhi and Nelson Mandela who have said that, in the long term, the key thing for a country is not to seek retribution but to be reconciled with its past. I have nothing but the highest regard for Aung San Suu Kyi in her articulation of those views.
I join with colleagues who express high regard for the Burma Campaign UK, which has maintained a high political profile for this issue for a long time, through all the cycles of liberalisation and reaction. It must have been deeply frustrating for members of the campaign when it looked as though things were going right and progress was being made, but then the regime suddenly clamped down and re-imposed its dictatorship. I hope that they will continue their campaign; they have broad support from all parties in the House. There is consensus that change must come in Burma, and as long as the dictators continue to run the country we shall continue to press for change.
The British Government have been at the forefront of international efforts to press for improvements in human rights in Burma. We co-sponsored a highly critical resolution at the United Nations General Assembly in December and we are working with our European Union partners on an equally firm resolution at the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva in April.
One difficulty in respect of the United Nations is that some members of the Security Council have close relationships with the regime in Burma. China, in particular, maintains a close dialogue with it. However, I have no doubt that China is seeking to bring about changes in Burma. On several occasions, in Beijing and elsewhere, I have engaged with Chinese leaders who certainly recognise that a series of regimes in the whole south-east Asian region, including China itself, want to bring about economic reform and/or democratic change.
82WH
All those countries are seeking to change the historic image to encourage investment into their region and produce economic benefits for their countries. I am thinking of Malaysia and Indonesia—one can go through the list—but one country is letting down the whole region, damaging international investors' perceptions and raising questions about whether it is safe to invest there and create the jobs that the people of that region want. That country is Burma.
The regime in Burma—the dictatorship—is so incompetently handling the economy and so appallingly damaging the whole international perspective that it is damaging the whole region. Chinese and other leaders recognise that that country's dictatorship is damaging not only to the interests of the people of Burma, which it so clearly is, but to all the wider neighbours in the region, because of the way it stands out as one of the most reactionary dictatorships in the world, thus damaging the whole region's economic prospects.
The UN's approach partly involves supporting the nomination and mandate of Professor Pinheiro, the special rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights. He visited Burma in November and pressed for the immediate release; of 1,350 political prisoners. We strongly support him and the work that he is doing.
I also join in welcoming the release, such as it is—we must be grateful for small mercies—of U Tin Oo, the deputy leader of the National League for Democracy, from prison to house arrest on 14 February, as well as the earlier release of 26 NLD members. Those are small steps, but I call on the regime to release fully all the political prisoners. I welcome the fact that it has released some of the political prisoners, but I want it to release more. I welcome the fact that U Tin Oo is no longer lying on the floor of a prison cell and is in his home, but I want more to be done and for him to be fully released, as I wish Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to be fully released.
We have repeatedly condemned the violent regime-sponsored attack on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her convoy on 30 May 2003. Since then, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has been in detention or under house arrest. I had been in regular telephone contact with her until her arrest, but the regime has repeatedly rejected my attempts to speak to her on the telephone again. She is not even allowed to telephone her family. The regime has failed to respond to our ambassador's repeated requests to arrange to call on her. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has repeatedly made it clear that she wants the process of change to be brought forward by dialogue and discussion. We hope that the regime will find a way to enter into serious dialogue with her, as that will lead to long-term and serious change.
Amnesty International was able to visit Burma in December. It noted a grave deterioration in the human rights situation. Again, let me welcome the fact that the regime allowed Amnesty to visit Burma. That is a change, and we must be grateful for those small mercies; they are small but important steps. Amnesty pressed the State Peace and Development Council to allow an independent investigation into the events of 30 May. I am glad that the UN resolution called on the SPDC to hold an independent inquiry. We await the SPDC's response. We will not hold our breath, but we hope that there will be some kind of investigation.

83WH
The regime's explanation for the events of 30 May defies belief. Its claim that there was some sort of communist conspiracy to overthrow the military dictatorship really does beggar belief. The communist party, as we know it, appears to be in China, and I am perfectly sure that the Chinese authorities would not allow those Burmese communists who are resident in China to carry out any sort of destabilisation in Burma itself. The prospect that there was some of sort of communist conspiracy is not a sensible or in any way coherent explanation for the behaviour on 30 May. Indeed, the regime seems not to have much of a sensible explanation for what it did at all. After it happened, there were various expressions of regret, and it almost seems as though the regime was so dysfunctional that one hand did not know what the other was doing. It ended up detaining Aung San Suu Kyi, without being quite sure why it was doing so. It simply continued with that process, and it is still in a bit of a mess. It is a very dysfunctional regime.
I should like to draw attention to the nine death sentences passed in November. Details of the charges are not known, but the accused, who were not allowed access to lawyers, were sentenced for conspiring with exiled dissident groups to disrupt peace and stability in the country. No doubt that was related to the events of 30 May. One of the nine was editor of a popular sports magazine—the first time that a journalist in Burma has received a death sentence. We condemn those death sentences and seek explanations from the Burmese Government for them.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to the death penalty. The presidency pressed the EU's grave concern about the sentences in a demarche to the Burmese authorities in early December, and we will continue to press them.
In August, the generals put forward their seven-step road map to build what they call a
"modern, developed and democratic nation."
The first step is to reconvene the national convention to draft a new constitution. At a meeting in Bangkok in December, the Burmese Foreign Minister announced that a national convention would be held this year. The Thai Foreign Minister, Dr. Surakiart, briefed my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself on 18 December. We very strongly welcome—we wish to do so publicly—the Thai Government's engagement and their effort in trying to bring about change.
Mr. Luke: I hear what my hon. Friend says about the Thai Government's positive engagement, but does he share my concern about comments made in The Nation—a newspaper in Thailand—about a change in attitude by the Thai President and the Thai Government towards Burmese refugees who are now living in Thailand? There seems to be a hardening of policy. Indeed, some of the people who crossed the border to escape oppression have been returned to Burma. Has that been discussed with the Thai Government? Can we do any more to ensure that that hardening of policy is obviously softened?
Mr. O'Brien: We have indeed raised the issue of the Burmese refugees who have crossed he Thai border. We must recognise that the dysfunctional nature of the
84WH
regime in Burma has had a severe impact not only on the Burmese people but on a number of adjoining countries, including Thailand, because there is a serious refugee situation. The Thai Government have engaged closely with the Burmese regime to try to encourage it to carry out the sort of reform processes that might relieve the pressure not only on the Burmese people, but, frankly, on the Thai Government and their people as well.
We very much hope that the Thai Government will respond positively to the needs of those who are fleeing from the dictatorship in Burma. The Thai Government recognise that they must engage with the Burmese regime and seek to bring about changes to relieve the human rights problems in Burma. I welcome the steps that the Thai Government have taken to try to encourage the regime to bring about a process of reform.
Given the history of reform efforts in Burma, it is difficult to believe that the regime is genuine in its wish to change things, but each time an effort is made to bring about change, we need to encourage it, despite our scepticism. If I am right and we are dealing partly with a fearful, as well as a mendacious, regime, we need to encourage it to recognise that reconciliation is in the interests of all the Burmese people and, indeed, ultimately in the interests of the military.
As for the new road map, we welcome the fact that at least an effort is being made in terms of an announced plan. Despite our scepticism, we wait to see whether that can be delivered. If so, we shall give a positive welcome to a national convention and to an attempt to devise a new constitution.
Mr. Carmichael: I was perhaps remiss in not acknowledging the role that the Minister has played in this matter. Sometimes, when dealing with a situation in which there are so many negatives, one forgets to acknowledge the positives, and his role is a real positive. I say that more by way of explanation than excuse.
Does the Minister agree that a great deal of the scepticism could be allayed, and that reassurances would be much more warmly received, if a concrete timetable were to be attached to the regime's proposals, given the suspicion that we are facing a further delaying tactic that will ultimately allow it to continue to consolidate its position?
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is right. There are obvious deficiencies in the road map put forward by the regime., including its lack of a clear timetable. Indeed, there are even doubts about whether the national convention will be held this year—I very much hope that it will—and about the sort of convention that it will be, who will be able to attend, and the possible role of the NLD. All those aspects are unclear and require clarification from the regime, but we must welcome the fact that at least we have a road map and the beginning of a process.
One key issue is who will draft the new constitution. We believe that the representatives chosen by the Burmese people in 1990 are those best qualified. The welcome ceasefires in the border areas have brought peace to places where polling could not take place in 1990, adding a new dimension to the constitutional drafting process. There is no doubt, however, that elected representatives from 1990 are essential to the

85WH
process of drafting a constitution. My reading of the SPDC road map suggests that that is not ruled out:. If the road map is to lead to reconciliation, the NLD and other representative bodies, including ethnic groups, must be given the opportunity freely to contribute to the debate in the national convention. On 23 February, the Burmese ambassador told me that the NLD was likely to be allowed to participate. We shall have to see how that is facilitated. Certainly, it cannot happen while Aung San Suu Kyi is under house arrest. Steps will have to be taken in the coming months to enable such a national convention to take place. Gagging orders of the sort seen in the 1993–96 national convention would not help. A constitution that has no popular support and is pushed through by whatever means, against the will of the people, will not contribute to national reconciliation or improve the human rights situation.
Several of the draft 104 principles that the SPDC says it wants a national convention to rubber-stamp seek to enshrine a constitutional military dictatorship. Nobody—least of all Daw Aung San Suu Kyi—would deny that the military has an important role in Burma's future, but its primary role should be to ensure the security and defence of Burma, not to run the economy or to enact and vote on legislation.
Mr. Luke: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. O'Brien: Yes, although I am conscious of the time.
Mr. Luke: The Minister will be aware that there is a Government in exile, who are based, I believe, in America. Has he had any discussions with them?
Mr. O'Brien: There is a Government in exile. Our primary links are with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD, who are based in Burma, but we are aware of the other claims that exist. Let me put it on that basis for now, and perhaps I will discuss it with my hon. Friend at a later stage.
What is needed now is dialogue and compromise. That is why we continue to press for the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all her NLD colleagues, the release of all political prisoners, and freedom of speech and political activity. We want a genuine and meaningful dialogue between the SPDC, the NLD and other political parties and ethnic minority groups that will lead to national reconciliation. We want ultimately to see a Government who have the support of the majority of the Burmese people and promote and protect their human rights.
As the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) said, the EU common position expires in April. We are discussing its renewal with our EU partners. We believe that in light of the regime's road map, it would be wrong to send a signal that strengthened sanctions at a time when it is saying that it will undertake change. It would also be wrong to send a signal of a lack of resolve. We therefore support the rollover of existing measures of the common position in April and believe that that will maintain pressure on the regime. At the same time, we are saying that if it pursues
86WH
its road map, that is fine, but if it does not, there are opportunities for a further strengthening of the common position at a future date. We shall await the outcome of events and hope that changes will take place.
On sanctions, I welcome the steps taken by BAT and, before that, Premier Oil, to disinvest. We must be clear that the EU common position is directed at the regime and its links with various parts of the economy. One sector that I am considering is tourism. Several UK travel agencies still promote tourism to Burma. We are encouraging them to cease to do so, because many hotels and other tourism-related activities in Burma are linked to the military regime. Because there are kickbacks and investments by generals in hotels and other parts of the tourism industry, people who go on tourist trips to Burn a are in a sense actively supporting the regime and enabling those generals to receive financial advantage from it. I very much hope that anyone considering much a trip will decide against it.
The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) asked about asset freezes. As far as we are aware, the Burmese have very few holdings in the UK, so we have not frozen any. They do not invest here partly because we would impose a freeze on any assets as soon as they arrived. The Bank of England actively monitors the freeze list, and we do not believe that there are significant investments here. However, if the Burma Campaign or others wished us to examine any assets, we would be happy to pass that information to the Bank of England to ensure that that happens.
I was asked about conversations with other countries in the region. We have had discussions through ASEM—the Asia-Europe Meeting—and bilaterally with several countries, including Thailand and China, which are important in this context. I have also talked to the Malaysians, the Indonesians and others, including the Indians, about their relationships with Burma. The perception of most of those countries is that the regime's activities are damaging the whole region.
We fully support the tireless efforts of the UN special envoy to Burma, Tan Sri Razali Ismail, and urge the regime to allow him to return to Burma soon. We believe that his work is enormously important, and we very much support it. We hope that he can play a crucial role in the reconciliation process.
Andrew Selous: Given the fact that Britain is a member of the UN Security Council and that the Government believe in the justice of the cause, will the Minister explain what would be lost if the United Kingdom tabled a Security Council resolution requiring the UN to take stronger action on Burma?
Mr. O'Brien: Gestures may look good, but it does not look good when they fail, because the other side then claim it as a victory. 'Be regime would no doubt say that the UN had refused to pass a resolution condemning Burma, and would regard that as a victory. As for the way we play this, we need to maximise the pressure on the regime, rather than seek to make gestures that could prove to be counter-productive. We supported and promoted a strong resolution only a few months ago, which was subsequently passed. We were able to discuss it with other members of the Security Council and received their support or acquiescence. Some countries

87WH
have relationships with Burma, and may not wish to say particular things at certain times, so the timing of any steps at the UN is important. We also need to ensure that when we propose a resolution it is passed.
Andrew Selous: The Minister has been extremely generous in taking interventions, and I shall try to be brief. I accept that it would be unfortunate if the UN resolution were not passed, but I disagree with his argument. The pressure would the I be on the countries that defeated the resolution, and the international community would ask questions or countries that were not prepared to put pressure on the UN through their Security Council membership. The Minister did not deal with that point.
Mr. O'Brien: As for the British Government's dealings with the UN and other countries in the region, we have engaged very actively indeed for more than a year with a number of countries to see whether we can maximise the pressure on the regime to get it to move. Our aim is to get results, not to take gestures for the sake of it. If, by encouragement, cajoling and pressure, we can get the regime to move in a particular direction, liberalise, provide more opportunities for dialogue, and respect human rights more, we shall obviously seek to do so. The timing can be difficult to judge—each step must be made at the right time and calculated to encourage a process, rather than discourage it. If I may be critical of the UK, I should say that in the early part of last year we could have been more encouraging of the process of reform undertaken before 30 May. We could have said that we welcomed that reform and been more positive. However, I have no idea whether that would have made a difference to events on 30 May.
We need to measure our responses carefully and see whether we can get the road map to deliver something positive for the Burmese people, get Aung San Suu Kyi released, and get a process of dialogue and reconciliation started. That is the objective of our policy, which is why we are working with UN Security Council members and other bodies
Mr. Carmichael: I am grateful to the Minister for his generosity in giving way. I agree broadly with his analysis of the point made by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). However, in relation to the overall scheme of pressure, is there a role for a ban by this country on new investment in Burma? That would be a more substantial gesture that would not be subject to the vagaries of international opinion in the Security Council.
Mr. O'Brien: There is no particular need for a legal ban on investment in Burma because there is little or no investment there at the moment. That is not because there is a ban, but because any sensible company director, seeing the economic incompetence with which Burma is run, would say that it is not a country in which they want to invest. There is hardly any investment going into Burma at the moment. Businesses in one or two neighbouring countries are making a small investment, particularly in the tourism industry, but by and large there is little or no western investment. The investment by BAT and Premier Oil, as we have seen, has been withdrawn. Total is still there, but few other
88WH
companies are. We do not foresee a need for such legislation, because we would be banning something that is not happening anyway. If that changed, the argument for a ban may well be made, but at the moment, we do not need a ban. It would be a gesture, but it would not have a positive result.
The SPDC repeatedly cites its commitment to national reconciliation, which is good. However, as long as we continue to receive reports that Opposition politicians and NLD supporters are being systematically harassed by the local authorities and the Union Solidarity and Development Association, I doubt whether that is achievable. In addition to facing physical violence, NLD activists are being singled out for other forms of harassment. A record of Opposition politics makes it difficult to get a passport or a train ticket from Mandalay to Rangoon, let alone run businesses or lease buildings. In May, a distinguished medical professor was sacked just because Aung San Suu Kyi visited her house while on release to see the professor's sick mother, who was staying there at the time. Two students have just been jailed for 17 years for distributing leaflets critical of the road map.

Hon. Members may have seen the recent television coverage of Aung San Suu Kyi's upcountry tour before 30 May, which showed the orchestrated violence and harassment that the NLD faced—organised, we believe, by military intelligence, even as thousands of people bravely turned out to show their support.
The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale raised the issue of ethnic minority rights and the abuses suffered by the ethnic groups in Burma. As a consequence of civil war and a heavy military presence, those groups have suffered disproportionately, whether through forced labour, extra-judicial killing, rape, forced relocation or the destruction of their villages. About 140,000 refugees live in camps on the Thai-Burmese border. There are some 20,000 refugees in Bangladesh and about 630,000 internally displaced people within Burma, which is why we welcome reports of the recent verbal ceasefire agreement between the SPDC and the Karen National Union, and reports of talks with other insurgent groups. We hope that those talks will lead to a peaceful settlement in which the worst abuses become a thing of the past. The Government stand ready to consider what support we can give to a genuine peace agreement and how we can help to protect refugees and internally displaced people hoping to return home. However, the conditions are not yet in place for that to happen.
The Government are committed to enhancing the human rights of the Burmese people, the primary responsibility for safeguarding which lies with the SPDC. Major improvements could be achieved if less money were spent on the military and more on medicine and education, on which the regime spends less than ․2 per person per year.
The international community, too, has a role. Within the EU, we are the largest donor of assistance to alleviate poverty and address basic human needs and health care in Burma, particularly on preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS. We do so mainly through local and international non-governmental organisations and UN agencies, and we monitor their programmes carefully to ensure that the regime does not benefit from

89WH
them. We do our best to ensure, and we firmly believe, that our assistance enhances the prospects for a successful transition to democracy in Burma.
The situation in Burma is dire for the Burmese people, and damaging for neighbouring countries in the region. The rest of the world sees outrages and unacceptable attacks on human rights. The regime has, to some extent, recognised that the current situation cannot continue. A regime that lives on fear and seeks to maintain power in such a way must be pressured, encouraged and directed towards a transition to democracy and reform. As a Government, we will do all that we can to encourage that process.

D-Day Normandy Landings
10.59 am
Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise this issue. The D-day landings on 6 June 1944 were one of the defining events of the second world war. If the declaration of war on 3 September 1939 was my earliest memory—I think that it was—I remember D-day vividly. I remember because, preceding it, literally thousands of American soldiers were stationed not far from where I lived in Cheshire.
Operation Overlord was one of the greatest, if not the greatest, military assaults of the 20th century. It opened up a second front against the enemy and was an extraordinarily dangerous mission, demanding courage and commitment. The landings were, by and large, a huge success, but getting a foothold behind the beaches turned out to be much more difficult. Indeed, after a month, the allies had not advanced more than a few miles from the channel. The fighting was bitter. I am told that there are no fewer than 38,000 allied graves in Normandy, which surely stands as testament to the bravery and sacrifice of our armed services.
The 60th anniversary commemorations will be the last—let us make no mistake about that. Age has taken its toll on the veterans, and many now have problems of disability or immobility. I am sure that the country, like me, wants the 60th anniversary commemorations in June this year to befit the debt that we owe to those who fought for our freedom 60 years ago.
It is estimated that about 10,000 British veterans survive. Some 8,000 are members of the Normandy Veterans Association, and I imagine that all are members of the Royal British Legion. No fewer than 97 branches of the association remain in Britain, and there are seven overseas. I am proud that one branch is in my constituency of Chipping Barnet, and its chairman, Councillor Terry Burton, tells me that it has 40 members. Two years ago, half of them applied to go to celebrate the 60th anniversary. Some will be going with their spouses or caret s at a cost of £330 for the coach and bed and breakfast over five days. I am further informed that, throughout Britain, 3,000 of the 8,000 originally planned to go—those who could afford and desperately wanted to do so.
I applied for this Adjournment debate on 9 February, and a few hours later I was told that the Government had announced the heroes return initiative, backed up by £10 million from the New Opportunities Fund, for the 60th anniversary of events from D-day to the conclusion of the second world war. I would like to think that my initiative triggered that statement, but that would be grossly unfair on the Government; it was just a happy conjunction of events.
More seriously, I received a letter in January last year from the then Minister for veterans, which in effect said that the Government's view was that the 50th anniversary celebrations were to have been the last. However, I am glad to say that the present Minister wrote to MPs on 7 July last year saying that the main details of events to be held in Normandy next June are still being discussed with the French authorities, and confirming that two military bands would be provided,

91WH
that there would be a ministerial and senior armed forces presence and that a one-year free passport would be available for veterans who wanted to attend.
Since the heroes return announcement on 9 February, a large number of the remaining 7,000 veterans who had not been able to declare that they wanted to go, have now expressed an interest. Mr. Sidney Greenberg, who is on the executive of the Normandy Veterans Association, tells me that his organisation has been inundated with requests for information. Obviously, many veterans could not afford to pay for themselves and for their spouses or carers to accompany them on what must be the most emotional remembrance of their lives.
It would be churlish of me not to thank the Government for the heroes return scheme, and I do so most sincerely. However, I hope that the Minister will accept that severe problems remain. In the spirit of genuinely wanting to see the 60th anniversary commemoration succeed, I would like to put a number of concerns to the Minister, whom I know and respect on a personal basis. I will not go into the parochial detail of the concerns, but concentrate MI a few particular themes.
First, the Ministry of Defence must immediately, because time is short, get involved with the French Government and authorities to ensure that the veterans get to the memorials, the services or the parades that they wish to attend. There are mobility issues to be taken into account; for example, anyone who is familiar with Normandy will know that the lanes leading to the beaches in question are extremely narrow. There will be logistical problems in addition to the understandable security problems. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the pace of his Department's liaison with the French authorities has increased, and that those matters are being tackled.
Secondly, the Department must, as a matter of urgency, liaise directly with the Normandy Veterans Association and the Royal British Legion. There has been a huge increase in inquiries and there is great uncertainty. I understand that only two officials are dealing with all those matters. I have been informed that the chairman of the Normandy Veterans Association, Mr. Leslie Frost, was sent a letter by an MOD official last autumn saying that there was no point in having a meeting. I find that inexcusable, and I hope that the Minister will reassure us that there will be direct, meaningful and continuing contact with those relevant organisations.
Thirdly, I believe that there is a need for a statement of clarification on the passes or identity cards that are needed for certain of the eve Its, such as the Arromanches ceremonies, which I understand will be attended by the President of France and Her Majesty the Queen. The need for security is understandable, but it is essential to plan now to ensure that no veterans are disappointed.
Fourthly, I should like to say that, thanks to the Government's 9 February initiative, veterans from other branches can now afford to attend, because they will be reimbursed at least part of their expenses. However, they must receive their funding in time to be able to go. It is essential that the arrangements are made as soon as possible. After all, we are talking about a
92WH
week in June that is only 14 weeks away. I might add that coaches and hotels in mid-summer are in high demand.
Finally, the Minister will know that the Normandy Veterans Association has arranged a service in St. Paul's cathedral in October, which must be the centrepiece of the commemoration in our country. I am informed that it will cost £10,500. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the heroes return funding will cover that expense. Cathedral services will also be held in other places, such as York minster and Portsmouth cathedral. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Syd Rapson) in his place. I know that he will agree that we need to ensure that these commemoration events are successful.
I am delighted also to see my good Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). If my information is correct, his father was killed in Normandy, 60 years ago. I willingly admit in this short debate that I speak with a certain amount of emotion. But I believe that I speak not only for my generation, but for many younger generations when I say that, quite simply, our freedom today, which we perhaps all too readily take for granted, is due to the commitment, loyalty, patriotism and courage of those who fought for our ideals from 1939 to 1945. Let us not quibble about a few pounds here or even £1,000 there to deny the veterans of the Normandy beaches the gratitude and honour that they fully deserve.
11.12 am
Mr. William Cash: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) not only on securing the debate but on the manner in which he presented his arguments, with which I entirely concur. I am delighted that these commemorations will take place. They need to be held in the manner that my hon. Friend described and consistent with the representations from the Normandy Veterans Association.
My father won the Military Cross at Maltot on 14 July. He was a young man of 25 and it is difficult for us now to realise just what that involved. I think that 2,000 men were lost in the preceding few days in one particular action on the hill of Calvary. It is called hill 112. It is difficult to imagine just how horrendous it must have been, although there have been some extremely good documentaries on this subject on television in the last few weeks.
I received a letter today from the Secretary of State for Defence, saying that there will be 80 days of events in Normandy. At his suggestion I have put it on the Whip that if there are any Members of Parliament whose parents were killed in Normandy they should make themselves known. There may even be in the House of Lords some people who fought there. I therefore suggest that Members who have an intimate and direct connection and those who participated should go over there. In that way we could show our respect, in an appropriate manner, for those who died. It would also be helpful to know from the Minister that we will be able to have the details, a point that my hon. Friend so rightly stressed.
11.14 am
Claire Ward: I congratulate the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) on securing this important Adjournment debate.
I want to add my thanks to the Government and the New Opportunities Fund for announcing the heroes return package, and I hope that the Government and the lottery distributors will do all that they can to ensure that it goes ahead with no problems. As we have already heard, those veterans made the greatest sacrifice that anyone could possibly make to protect this country and to defend the values and democracies in which we believe. As someone from a generation that does not remember that military action, I feel that it is essential that we do more to commemorate their sacrifices. I also want to ensure that the next generations will not forget those sacrifices and what happened, and that they will learn from that history for the future. It has been said that the events are likely to be the last celebrations and commemorations to take place, because of the age of many of those involved.
I also congratulate the BBC on its work in collecting the stories and reminiscences of those involved in the second world war to create a national archive. Will the Government consider establishing a national day of commemoration and public holiday, perhaps in October or November, when we could also remember the 11th hour of the 11 th day of the 11th month? Will the Minister consider talking to colleagues in other Departments, such as the Department of Trade and Industry, to see whether that is possible?
11.16 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) on securing this important debate on the remembrance and commemoration of the events leading up to the end of the second world war. I also welcome the contributions of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward).
I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House on the significant progress made since the previous Adjournment debate on the issue on 11 November 2003. Let me begin by stating clearly that it is Government policy fully to endorse the importance of remembrance and commemoration. The D-day landings in June 1944 were particularly significant, as history makes clear. They were the largest international, combined forces amphibious assault that the world has ever seen. It is one thing to read about such momentous events; to have participated in person is another matter entirely. We collectively owe immense gratitude to those who put their lives at risk in such ways, and it is only fitting that the baton of remembrance for such momentous acts of human courage and perseverance should be passed on from that generation to our young citizens, who will be the next generation of the 21st century.
I was pleased to announce to the House on 15 January that both Her Majesty the Queen and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had accepted invitations from President Chirac to attend the main commemorative events to be held at Arromanches on Sunday 6 June. It is expected that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales will attend events on Saturday 5 June in Normandy.
94WH
It was suggested that the Government could provide direct financial assistance to Normandy veterans for their transport and accommodation expenses, but we were concerned that it would not be fair to provide assistance to one anniversary or group of veterans rather than another. However, that direct financial assistance is now available through the New Opportunities Fund's recently launched veterans reunited programme to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the eat of the second world war. That lottery-funded programme will help to ensure that all generations of United Kingdom residents can commemorate the anniversary together, both at home and abroad.
The three elements of the programme are: "Their Past, Your Future", which focuses on activities for schools and young people; the heroes return initiative, which the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet mentioned and which will focus on overseas visits for veterans, their spouses or widows and their carers; and "Home Front Recall", which provides funding for events and activities in the UK. "Their Past, Your Future" was announced on 12 January. The second part of the programme was launched on 9 February, and the third part will be formally launched in the spring.
Over the next 18 months, we will commemorate the 60th anniversary of some of the most remarkable events in this country's history: the Anzio landings, the eastern fleet's engagements with Japanese installations, D-day and the Normandy campaign, the landings in southern France, the campaigns in Burma, the battle for Italy, the Rhine crossing, the liberation of the Channel Islands, VE-day and VJ-day.
I am acutely aware that this will be the last chance for many of the men and women who lived through those events to commemorate them in any numbers. Just as importantly, it will be the last chance for new generations to learn at first hand from veterans what it was like to be involved in those events. Their memories and experiences will provide a lasting legacy for the nation.
That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I felt that that unique combination of factors deserved lottery support. We are pleased that the New Opportunities Fund has seized the idea and begun to deliver that new lottery initiative. Getting from inception to launch in less than six months is a good example of cross-Government working with the national lottery. I was grateful for the words of support on that basis from the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet
"Their Past, Your Future" allows children to develop a deeper understanding of the issues around commemoration, remembrance, peacemaking and reconciliation. It allows our youngsters to learn more about the work of the British and Commonwealth armed forces, both past and present. As part of the project, children will work with different generations collaboratively, developing their critical thinking and learning about the past and present from museums, battlefields and other significant places. Children will also learn to reassess their attitudes towards people of different generations, nationalities and identities, and

95WH
will come to respect the contributions of veterans to past and present society.
It is impossible to over-emphasise the major contributions made by our veterans during the second world war. This generation of young people will have an invaluable opportunity to hear at first hand what our veterans did to preserve the freedom and security that we enjoy today.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Caplin: I am afraid not.
The heroes return scheme will provide £10 million of lottery funding to help second world war veterans resident in the UK to arrange commemorative visits to the overseas areas where they saw active service in that war. The scheme will ensure that new generations can learn from those experiences. The New Opportunities Fund will make grants towards the cost of those visits, which, if feasible, will be linked with a parallel education project or visit. A fixed sum will be available for each veteran and their spouse and/or carer to go towards the cost of the visit. That is £10 million over two years. I heard what the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said about Normandy, but the project has been designed to be a long project over those important two years, not specifically for the anniversary of D-day in June.
I hope that many veterans will be able to take advantage of the heroes return scheme. Since the launch of the schemes, the Veterans Agency freephone helpline has answered 12,856 calls, approximately 6,500 of which related to that initiative. That slows that there is considerable interest in that worthy scheme.
In my letter of 7 July, I said that the Ministry of Defence will send two military bands to Normandy and I mentioned earlier the attendance of Her Majesty the Queen and the Prime Minister. The UK will also be represented during that weekend by other members of the royal family, other Ministers, including me, and senior members of the armed forces. We are still finalising the attendance programme and I realise that that can be frustrating for those trying to organise events in France. However, I am sure that the House will accept that the armed forces have been busy across the world and at home in recent months, and deployments are taking time to arrange. Our resources are not infinite and must be utilised carefully and sensibly. I will make further announcements when able to do so.
I shall now deal with the question that the hon. Gentleman raised about security in Normandy. The only event that will require major security will be in Arromanches on Sunday 6 June. The details have
96WH
been published and are available. If veterans ring 0800 169 2277, they will be able to get all the necessary details from the Veterans Agency, although not necessarily through their veterans organisation. A simple system of registration must be completed by mid-March and then photocards will be produced for those attending in Arromanches. We are also instigating a registration system for those attending other events over the weekend, but that does not need to be completed until mid-April. It comprises a simple list system primarily for travel operators taking groups, but also for individuals wishing to travel together. For security reasons we hope to have a complete register of those travelling to Normandy.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the Normandy Veterans Association, and I think that his information is slightly flawed. The national chairman of the association and the military attach in Paris have met on several occasions, the last of which was 21–23 January this year in Normandy to discuss many of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. I assure him that the Ministry of Defence has already approached the Normandy Veterans Association and offered assistance to its service of remembrance and thanksgiving at St. Paul's on 20 October. That event is in the early stages of planning; again, I will provide more information when able to do so. It may be that the hon. Gentleman's question about the funding for that event forms part of the "Home Front Recall" programme that we will announce in the spring. That will be the time for the Normandy Veterans Association to approach the lottery operator for a possible grant.
Sixty years have passed since those final shots were fired. Although this will be the last official commemoration of the second world war, the fortitude shown and the sacrifice made by so many at home and around the world will never be forgotten. This Government take seriously all the 60th anniversary commemorative events, and I welcome the initiative that the hon. Member for Stone is considering. Perhaps he and I can talk more about that in the weeks ahead.
The Government have certainly not forgotten the bravery and sacrifice of all those who took part in the Normandy landings in June 1944 and who will participate in the events in this country and on the continent. Through the veterans reunited programme, the Government will ensure that future generations, rather than forgetting those deeds, will learn why they should take up the baton of remembrance to recognise the invaluable contributions made by all our veterans around the world during the second world war.
11.28 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Second Chamber
2 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: Given the number of hon. Members from all parties who have taken the time to be here this afternoon, we can see that reform of the second Chamber is an important issue. Three colleagues have said that they wish to make contributions to the debate and hope to catch your eye, Mr. Cook, as well as the Front Benchers. As we progress, I shall be pleased to take interventions from other colleagues. There is still a great deal of interest in the House about further reform, the need for which is manifest. Although there are many ways forward, few colleagues want to defend the second Chamber's current composition.
The reform that reduced the number of hereditaries was welcome, as are the proposals that may be introduced in the next week or so. However, those proposals must be followed rapidly by further, clear recommendations for reform that will introduce some broader aspects to our second Chamber. On the basis of press reports, it seems that the Government will soon be issuing a Bill on the reform of the second Chamber, and we are all interested to see what it contains.
What might the Bill contain? Judging by the consultation paper that the Government produced in September 2003, we can expect it to do at least two things. First, it will remove the remaining hereditaries. The House of Lords Act 1999 removed all but 92 of the 750 hereditary peers from the House of Lords and did away with the right to inherit a place in the Lords. It is hard to believe that such a relic of feudalism survived as long as it did. It is harder still to believe that the Conservative party, now supposedly the champion of a democratic second Chamber, wanted to leave it the same. The only partisan remark that I shall make today is to refer to the party of my colleague who sits on the side of the Chamber that I am sitting on today, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). The issue needs to command consensus in the House and beyond.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is being a trifle unfair because the position of the Conservative party was that the arrangements in 1999 should continue until there was a permanent settlement of the reform of the second Chamber. In the absence of a permanent settlement, there was no reason to interfere with the agreement that was reached in 1999. There was no desire to keep an elected element of hereditary peers until the end of time.
Mr. Allen: I am reassured by the hon. Gentleman's comments and I hope therefore that a more permanent settlement of the type that I shall float this afternoon will attract the attention of the Conservative party and, indeed, all other parties in the House, so that we make more progress towards a more permanent settlement.
Secondly, the forthcoming Bill is expected to set up an appointments commission on a statutory footing to determine the number and timing of appointments to the House, to select independent Members and to oversee party nominations. The composition and role of the second Chamber will also be affected by the
98WH
Government decision that was announced in June 2003 to abolish the post of Lord Chancellor and to establish a new Supreme Court. That will be in another imminent Bill. It represents the beginning of a proper separation of powers that is long overdue and that, contrary to press reports, was not dreamt up overnight; it had a long gestation period. Indeed, I am proud to say that it was part of a package that I drew up for the Prime Minister when he held the shadow Home Secretary brief more than 10 years ago. That is likely to be the programme.
What are the Government's red lines? They seem to be that an upper Chamber will be
"composed of a membership appropriate to its revising and deliberative functions, and not duplicate or clone the Commons."
It will be
"political in approach—but not dominated by any one political party"
and
"representative of independent expertise and of the broader community in the UK—but not disrupt the relationship between elected members of the Commons and their constituents."
I am sure that I speak for many hon. Members in all parts of the House when I say "Amen" to that.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I am interested in Government red lines and I agree with my hon. Friend's thoughts that there should be no structural interference between the people and their democratic representatives. Why then did the Government, our leaders and our party choose to exclude even discussing the possible abolition of the House of Lords, let alone advancing the arguments for and against? That would have solved such problems.
Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend is far better connected to the Prime Minister And those at No. 10 than I am, and I am sure that he will make a point of asking them those questions. My hon. Friend the Minister may also touch on those questions in his reply, although I hope that he does only touch on them because I want to persuade Members from all perspectives that going back over the old ground of who said what, why and who voted for which option is a recipe for no progress whatsoever. Although I know the strength of feeling of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), I could say the same of every hon. Friend. All of us have a perfect answer that would be the right way forward, if only the other 649 Members could see any common sense. However, this is politics and, if we are to make any progress, all of its will have to compromise to a large degree. Otherwise, we could retain our purity and make absolutely no progress.
Andrew George: I certainly say "Amen" to that. As an enthusiastic democrat, I am keen to apply democracy where it is appropriate. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that we should apply the best possible democratic system to the way in which we elect this Chamber. Does he share my concern that much of the debate about the reform of the second Chamber is about its composition and how that will be achieved? There is an obsession with means rather than ends. Does he not agree that we must concentrate on ensuring that we have neither a lapdog nor a logjam Chamber, but a

99WH
Chamber for sober second thought and for holding the House of Commons properly and effectively to account? We should not be too obsessed about how its Members are chosen.
Mr. Allen: A great number of difficulties need to be overcome if we are to make any progress whatsoever. The hon. Gentleman has touched on several of them.
We also need to be careful not to try to create, as an answer, a complete package that, which tries to solve the problems all at once. We will make progress only through a step-by-step approach. Whether we address composition first, as I suggest is necessary, or consider something else, we need to be extremely careful that—I come back to this repeatedly—we do not make perfection the enemy of progress. We need to try to achieve consensus, as far as is humanly possibly, on what may be some very modest fist steps, but I hope that such steps will command broader support than has hitherto been the case.
I quoted the Government's approach in their document. Nothing that they said precludes some form of additional democratic determination of the membership. Although the Government's proposals are all welcome and necessary, I would like to consider what the consultation paper refers to as the goal of "representativeness". Rather than having a commission straining to achieve representativeness through meeting a series of quotas set by somebody, would it not be better for all of us to achieve at lea it some of that by a more democratic approach? Certainly it is the historic ambition of the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and now, as we have heard, the Conservative party to bring an end to an unaccountable, unelected upper Chamber. How can we all work together to achieve that?
The key rule is that the proposal for reform—whatever it is, however modest it is—must command the support of the Executive and the legislature. No one can, on their own, impose a solution on everybody else. The key is to make progress on the basis of agreement between the Executive—by that, I mean Governments of all political complexions—and Parliament. It is no longer possible to make policy in this area by multiple choice, just as it is not possible to make policy on health, education or taking the nation to war by multiple choice.
A year ago, a number of options were put before us. It was no surprise to any of us that none of them gained sufficient support. The Executive were not on side for those proposals and the Prime Minister was in one of his screen-saver modes, if I may put it like that. Many of us felt that the opportunity for reform had been lost, possibly for a generation, and that any serious proposal for change might never come again in our political lifetime. I was very depressed at that prospect. However, the Bill to be proposed this week opens the possibility for progress again. Quite rightly, people are saying "Okay, we can have this change in terms of the hereditaries and perhaps an appointments commission, but where are we going in the near term on the issue?" People are right to ask that question and to request that the Government attach that vision to proceedings after that Bill has been dealt with.
100WH
The Bill opens up the possibility for progress, which some of us thought had been lost. Again, I underline that the aim should be progress, not perfection, and achieving a step forward, rather than making claims for a scheme that will never fly.
Mr. Clive Soley: My hon. Friend has said many things that I have argued for some time, including the fact that there is not, and never has been, a big bang solution. First, does he accept that we are looking for a policy process that enables us to reach a settlement, rather than the other way round? In my view, the Joint Committee of both Houses ought to be part of that. Secondly, does he accept the principle that, if the Second Chamber is a hybrid one, it has a better chance of being adopted— that is, mixed backgrounds to the way that one gets there? Thirdly, bearing in mind what the Government are doing in devolving power generally, does he accept that there should be a strong reflection of the regions to bring the United Kingdom back into the second Chamber?
Mr. Allen: There is a lot to be said for all three points that my hon. Friend, with his great experience, brings to bear. Process is very important. Since this is a matter that involves Parliament's rights and those of the second Chamber, that is a stumbling block that we should avoid. I hope that all of us—me above all—have learned the lessons from previous attempts, and certainly from the process last year, which did not show Parliament at its best, to put it in the kindest of terms. How we move forward in the process that my hon. Friend talks about is extremely important. It is incumbent on my hon. Friend, the Minister and his colleagues to take very careful soundings of all parties in this House to ensure that we can move together—however slowly—to achieve consensus. This is one of those issues where anybody can take their ball away and spoil the party, so the negotiation and the process itself will be important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) mentioned the Joint Committee. There is a role for that, although I am not sure that it should be the same Joint Committee that we had in February last year with all the connotations that that brings with it. I do not wish to show any disrespect to anyone who served on it, but it was associated with what happened then. However, there should be a joint body. A Joint Committee with all parties involved would make a lot of sense. It would help Ministers to move the process forward and represent all the different views in both Houses on the matter.
Andrew George: I feel a strong sense of frustration that a lot of this debate has still concentrated on composition—on how people get into the second Chamber—and has not addressed why we should have the Chamber at all. I would like the hon. Gentleman and the Minister to talk about that. We are debating how people get into that place, but what does it do? What is its purpose? We are arguing about how it will be composed but it must have a purpose and unless we are clear about that we cannot offer advice, or even consider how that Chamber might be best composed.
Mr. Allen: I am content to rest on current purpose and current powers. I say that not because I do not want any

101WH
change, but because we should not get sucked into the details of how things might change. That would pre-empt the discussions of those who might come into the Chamber on a more legitimate basis. That argument is the same as an argument about devolution—about having a Scottish Parliament or assemblies for the English regions. If we decide in favour of devolution and a particular group of people is elected, it is incumbent on them to make certain decisions. We will often not approve of those decisions—that has been the case with some of the devolved organizations—but once we let go we have to let them take on some responsibilities.
That goes back to John Smith's original concept of introducing an elected element. I worked with him many years ago on that matter. His view was that, if we created a directly appointed element in the second Chamber, which was what was intended at the time, that element would be the engine for further change. However, that is less the case now than in those days. I am going to propose a slightly different way forward.
We can get hung up on specifics and details about changes that are not yet on the cards, so I shall focus on current powers and purpose until we get the one small step forward on the composition of the second Chamber. Other issues will then start to be smoked out. They will be dealt with by a process of reconciliation between the second Chamber, ourselves, and the Government. That is how a proper democracy should operate. I am deliberately avoiding both the hon. Gentleman's question and supplying answers to it, because it is appropriate for those answers to be given not by us but by people a little further down the line.
Pete Wishart: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's attempt to build consensus on the issue but what part would we who believe in the abolition of the House of Lords play in the process? How would our concerns be addressed, and how would we be a part of any consensus?
Mr. Allen: I am unsure whether that "we" refers to a party position or a personal one. I have spoken to a number of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, and I think that he might wish to make it clear that he is expressing a personal view.
I have a strong personal view about direct election. Given the chance, I would pass a Bill tomorrow for 100 per cent. direct election to the second Chamber. That is not going to happen. I can take my ball away and pontificate about that up and down the land and get lots of cheers in halls everywhere, but that will not make a blind bit of difference to the progress of things in this House. That is not what I see as my role in this House. My role is to move the show forward. I would rather move it forward one step than pretend that there is a revolutionary answer that I can institute tomorrow.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that I hope that he, like me, sees this in political terms and wants to move his political cause forward as the whole show moves forward in the second Chamber. Under the proposals that I will elaborate on in a moment, that will have tremendous benefits for his political viewpoint and his political party.
Mr. Hopkins: My hon. Friend says that a fully elected Chamber is not going to happen. Is not the reason for
102WH
that simply because our Government, and possibly a future Government of a different colour, do not want a fully elected second Chamber? Yet, if it were an option, the majority of the population and of MPs would vote for it.
Mr. Allen: I hope that my hon. Friend, knowing me as he does, will not expect me to take second place to anybody in respect of the efforts that I put in last year to create a wholly elected, second Chamber. My credentials are clear. However, I have looked again at the six-way car wreckage that we saw last February, and I feel that we cannot reconstruct a Rolls-Royce from the nuts and bolts that are littered on the motorway. Where we are is where we are. We need to get together a coalition to ensure that we move the show on a little further than before. Ultimately, who knows what might happen? However, my immediate goal is to make the second Chamber something that more of us in British politics can be proud of than are at the moment.
Mr. Soley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Allen: I shall give way to my hon. Friend because I know that he has to go. I have answered only one of his three points. I have the other two listed but other interventions have prevented me from getting to them. I will be glad to add another to the list.
Mr. Soley: I intervene on my hon. Friend only because of the last few exchanges—I remain here to comment on them at even greater risk to my other appointments.
Hon. Members, and the Liberals in particular, should bear it in mind that there are two cases for having the second Chamber. One is that it is a revising Chamber and the other is that it is a backstop to an over-weaning Government. On that score, when my hon. Friend and some of the Liberals talk about a fully elected Chamber, I ask them to remember that democracy and freedom are not the same things. Democracy is a majority, and a majority can be pretty brutal to smaller groups—the Liberals ought to be aware of that danger. The trick is to get the balance right between democracy and protecting minorities.
Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend speaks wisely. The current second Chamber is a backstop. Through the Parliament Act 1911, the second Chamber can prevent the Government in the first Chamber from extending their own life. Some of us would like that backstop power to be extended to things such as human rights or the ability of local government to be constitutionally independent of the first Chamber. I make no bones about the powers that exist, but these are arguments that we need to have with our colleagues when we can genuinely call those in the second Chamber our colleagues. That is no disrespect to the hard-working Members of the current second Chamber.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush made the point about the need for a hybrid version. One of the lessons that I have the humility to say I have learned is that a 100 per cent. Solution—whether it is all elected, all nominated, or all singing, all dancing—is not the way forward. If we are

103WH
to make progress, we must ensure that there is some form of hybridity and joint action that is acceptable to all those who have an interest.
The final point that my hon. Friend made was about the regions. It is insulting that there seems to be a sense that people from the north-east, the east midlands or anywhere else—whether Scotland, Wales or any of the English regions—do not have a valid contribution to make. I do not wish to talk in the language of class warfare about people who have been born into certain situations. I would rather be positive, look at the people around and the talent available in the nations and regions, and say, "Let's put these people to work."
What fantastic brain-power we have in our regions. We know what great strides have been made in Scotland, Wales and the regions of England, even given the partial devolution settlement ill the past few years. If we put those people to work, they will be tremendous assets not only to our economic system, but to our political system. What variety they could lend. What sensitivity and experience they could bring to issues, based on their localities and areas. No Government should stand accused of wasting that talent.
We must accept that the Executive dominate our Parliament and that, although we can influence Government, without Government support no proposal will make progress. As I have said, it is impossible to create that proposal out of the wreckage of last February. The percentage gain is finished. Fully elected versus fully appointed is fully expired. The effort has to move on. In both Houses, an alliance has to be created between the legislature and the Executive and within parties to unify all those who care about the issue.
I was encouraged to read the words of the Lord Chancellor last week. He said:
"I am genuinely, personally very committed to seeing real progress on the Lords made beyond this bill"—
that is, the Bill to abolish the rest of, the hereditaries—
"and there is widespread support in government for that."
He said that that Bill
"is not the fundamental reform…I do rot exclude any option, but the one that needs particular examination is indirect elections."
That involves talking not about a percentage of the second Chamber, but a real number of, let us say, 300 people whom we would want in the second Chamber. It involves not a direct election, but an indirect one; not the perpetuation of a metropolitan elite, but recognition of the need to represent the diversity of all the regions and nations of our country. We need not a rival to the Commons, but a complement and a partner, with sufficient legitimacy to command public respect, but not so much as to threaten the first Chamber. Those with good will towards a reformed second Chamber should encourage the Government to think further along those lines and encourage them in their search for consensus.
The Leader of the House recently said:
"What I favour is the secondary mandate. The same votes cast in general elections would go into a regional pool".
He seemed positive about that possibility. Under that system, there would still be one election to Parliament: there would be a general election. However, the votes
104WH
cast, as well as determining who was returned to the Commons, would count towards determining some Members of the second Chamber.
I am sure that the following figures are etched on everyone's memory, although I did not recall them—I was helped out on them just before the sitting started. At the last election, 43 per cent. voted Labour, 31 per cent. voted Conservative, and 18 per cent. voted Liberal. I do not have the breakdown of figures for Scotland and Wales; I hope that colleagues will forgive me. They will know what the percentages were better than I do.
Andrew George: I fear that the second Chamber would be the cause of logjam if its make-up were politically opposed to that of the first Chamber, and a lapdog that rubber-stamped things if, politically, it shared the views of the first Chamber. If the hon. Gentleman follows that line, he will certainly propose a situation in which the second Chamber is likely to prove a lapdog to the Government. I have some serious concerns about that proposal from that perspective. The second Chamber should be holding the primary Chamber to account. It should be scrutinising what the first Chamber is doing, and providing independent sober second thoughts.
Mr. Allen: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. That is an obvious worry, to which we have given considerable thought. I hope that he will join us in thinking through the matter, so that we do not get the very problem that he has highlighted. That is the last thing that I want. I will leave the more detailed explanations to those who have been more intimately involved than I. However, there are many ways through that problem. A certain number of the Members of the current. Chamber could be retained, for example. The election could be staggered, so that a percentage of the votes came from this one, the previous one or even further back, depending on how complicated one wished to make it.
Mr. Paul Stinchcombe rose—
Mr. Allen: I gladly give way to my hon. Friend, who has worked very hard on some of the details of this issue, and who will be more expert than I in his contribution.
Mr. Stinchcombe: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the advantages of the secondary mandate system is that no single party could ever have majority control of the second Chamber? If the party of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) were returned to power, that system would ensure that for the first time in history his party would not have a majority in both Houses when in power.
Mr. Allen: It is unusual for one party to get more than 50 per cent. of the electorate's vote under any system. One of the advantages of the proposed scheme is that, although my party has devolved power to areas in which we have been fairly sure that there would be a Labour majority under the first-past-the-post system, devolution has led to shared power in more instances than not. The proposal could provide a coalition that was not Labour-based for the first time, if one looked at

105WH
it like that, in a generous light. My hon. Friend is right and I hope that hon. Members such as the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), who feel passionately about the democratic agenda, will lend us their expertise to ensure that people are reassured about where the project could lead.
I know that people will chip in later to fill out the detail if they catch your eye, Mr. Cook. This proposal is not cast in stone. It is a possible way forward that might command consensus. I ask Members not to take me too literally. To continue the example, each region and nation could have 25 seats, which could be allocated to the parties on the basis of the percentage of votes cast for them. A national top-up list would also figure in the model to reach a more precise proportionality. lf there were 25 seats, and one seat were allocated for every 4 per cent., there would be a bit of leeway or leftover that a national list would help to bring as close to proportionality as possible. A variety of rules for the regional lists could be added; for example, alternation between male and female candidates, closed lists, open lists —there are many possible options.
There are many disadvantages to the scheme. Last February, I could have come up with many such disadvantages if we had talked about two options: that proposal and a directly elected system. Colleagues who supported other options could have done the same. This is a wonderful game because there are 100,000 ways to say no, but probably only one way to say yes. That proposal might be the basis of one way in which we could all say yes to progress on the issue of the second Chamber.
When I was a Front-Bench spokesman in the then shadow Home Secretary's team, I served my time on the Plant commission, which Labour Members will remember. I know that there is no such thing as a perfect system, and that is what has decided my pragmatic view that there are different systems appropriate for different circumstances and institutions. Let nobody look for the perfect answer. Let us try to provide a progressive answer.
Mr. Hopkins: I accept that finding a perfect answer to satisfy us all will be extremely difficult. However, does my hon. Friend accept that there are certain dangers that should be avoided in any system? The main danger is that the second Chamber could become simply a place of patronage and control from Downing street—it could become no more than a Downing street cipher.
Mr. Allen: Yes, I do. I agree that we must be aware of that great danger. If we are to show good will to the proposal, we must all be involved and ensure that that eventuality does not happen. However, the biggest danger is that in search of the perfect answer we retain a system of appointees in the second Chamber, either because of past prime ministerial patronage or future appointments commission patronage, believing that the people of our country do not have the wisdom or maturity to be involved in that process. The perception, rightly or wrongly, that that attitude is displayed in our political society is a reason why fewer people participate in our democracy. That worries colleagues in all parts of
106WH
the House. The proposal may help to restore confidence and make people say, "Yes, my region has a voice in the second Chamber."
Mr. Grieve: Is there not a danger in the interesting model that the hon. Gentleman is proposing that a degree of democratic accountability will not exist? If people are selected from regional lists put together by political parties, where is the extra layer of democratic choice?
Mr. Allen: We must be aware of all the dangers that the hon. Gentleman refers to, and we must eliminate them through discussion and consultation to ensure that indirect election is as democratic as possible. For example, the process could include primaries, which his party is experimenting with. It could involve all sorts of possibilities. It is incumbent on us to ensure that we do not end up with a system that flies in the face of what we are trying to achieve through reforming the second Chamber. We must all compromise to make progress. Taking our ball away and protecting our pet scheme from adulteration is the easiest option.
I want to underline the positive elements in the proposal. There are many advantages. Every vote cast would have a value and would be recognised, possibly for the first time in a parliamentary election. That would reduce one of the negative aspects of the first-past-the-post system, which should not apply to a second Chamber. The proposal would rule out the need for separate elections to a second Chamber. I hope that it will also ensure that there is no ambiguity about the primacy of the House of Commons.
The proposal would provide balanced regional and national representation, which is absent from the upper Chamber. Only two of my colleagues, one of whom is the Lord Chancellor have an east midlands connection in the second Chamber. That is an outrage and should not continue. The Lord Chancellor is an able and eminent individual but he does not, sadly, carry the whole region with him when he speaks in his official capacity in the second Chamber. We want other colleagues to help him while he devotes himself to government.
The means by which each region determines the allocation of candidates could be decided by that region. The Scottish Parliament might want to nominate candidates. There might be primaries of registered supporters in the east midlands. There could be drawing of lots in the north-east. In other words, we should respect whatever method a region or nation chooses to deliver its Members, to the second Chamber. Let those people decide. In the first instance, it may be in order to ensure a sense of direction; perhaps a closed system might be the model. I should like to float the idea that our regions and nations must be trusted to agree with their people their own system of indirect election to the second Chamber.
This is probably the last chance that we shall have before the next general election to make some serious progress on the issue; it may be the last for a generation. I hope that the Minister will respond positively about departmental thinking on the matter. If he gives any word of encouragement, I hope that he will consider a serious process of pre-legislative scrutiny involving all

107WH
the different views that are represented in both Houses, Government, Parliament, and the country. The process should be on-line, so that a serious, considered, rational debate can take place in the atmosphere of pre-legislative scrutiny rather than in standing Committee. It could take place under a newly constituted Joint Committee of both Houses, with wide representation but without any of the burdens of the work that was so heroically done by the previous Joint Committee before February last year. Thereafter, that Committee should be requested by Government to distil one option into a draft Bill, which could be put out h further consultation in this House and beyond. It would then be required, like a normal Bill, to come back to this House for a yes or a no.
We have all learned a lot of lessons in recent years, which has been difficult in many respects. However, I hope that the experience gained will enable us all to make a serious contribution to what we all want—a second Chamber that works well for its incumbents and for Parliament and that, above all, works well and enjoys the respect of the people who helped to put some of the people into it.
Several hon. Members rose$
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): Order. During these Adjournment debates in this Chamber, it is conventional to start the first of the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before conclusion. That means I have to call the spokesman for the minor Opposition party in 17 minutes. I ask Members, who want to speak or to intervene to bear that in mind when they make interventions or contributions or respond to them.
2.43 pm
Mr. David Clelland: I shall try to be brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on securing this important and timely debate and on bringing the issue to the fore again. In the Labour party manifesto at the last election—I do not have it with me—we said that we wanted to produce a more democratic and more representative second Chamber. I wholeheartedly agree with that, and I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend's remarks, because I think that we are coming together on the issue.
There was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to that manifesto promise, and hon. Members immediately thought that if the second Chamber was to be more democratic and more representative, it must be elected. That is, in my view, not necessarily so. A more democratic Chamber could be obtained simply by getting rid of the hereditary peers. It would then be entirely appointed by the Prime Minister, but, as he is elected, it would be more democratic than before. We can certainly have a more democratic; Chamber without having direct elections, although I am not advocating that policy.
The Government's proposals for an appointments commission are in breach of the manifesto, because that method of appointing people to the House of Lords is not a more democratic solution. Without taking the directly elected option, a more democratic solution would be to widen the responsibility for making appointments. A democratic appointments system would give us a better and more balanced House.
108WH
An important question was asked: what is the second Chamber for? We should have started with that question before we came to the issue of how to get Members into the second Chamber. I liked what the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) said from the Liberal Benches—the second Chamber should provide sober second thoughts, which is a good way of putting it, but he also said that the second Chamber should hold the Executive to account. There we part company.
Andrew George: Parliament.
Mr. Clelland: Yes, holding the Executive to account is a job for Parliament, not the second Chamber.
The second Chamber should be advisory and deliberative, and it should add value to our system of government. Elections cannot guarantee a Chamber composed of people who would add value. If people are to advise, deliberate and help the House of Commons in its work, they need experience, expertise and knowledge to be able to do so, but, as we know, the process of election does not necessarily guarantee that they have those qualities. A lot of people in the House of Commons are able and talented, a lot are not so able and talented, and a lot think that they are able and talented.
We need a system that would guarantee that the second Chamber was made up of people who were respected by the country and by the House of Commons for their views. How can we get such a system? If we held elections, we could end up with another Chamber like the House of Commons, which is full of teachers and lawyers, because there is no guarantee of a good spread of expertise and knowledge. Elections produce the candidates that the political parties decide to throw up; there is not necessarily a good balance of people. To achieve that, a planned system is needed. I strongly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North, who said that we need to ensure that we have good representation.
We need a second Chamber that represents the whole United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend said, very eloquently, the current second Chamber certainly does not do that. The devolved assemblies and the English regions should decide whether to appoint or elect representatives to the second Chamber, which would give a good geographical balance. Local government, too, should be represented in the second Chamber.
Political parties are an important part of our democracy, but that does not mean that we are entirely reliant on elections. Many voluntary organisations, professional bodies, business organisations and trade unions play an important and legitimate role in a democracy, but they are not directly elected by the people. Those organisations should also be represented in the second Chamber.
The secondary mandate that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) would mean the political parties deciding on their representation in the second Chamber, but I do not agree that it should be composed entirely of politicians, as a broader expertise is needed.
We can produce a more democratic, representative second Chamber that adds value to the political process by including more people in the system of appointments.

109WH
If we take that route, or a combination of my thoughts and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North, we can achieve a consensus that will move the issue forward and result in a second Chamber that commands respect and adds value to the political process.
2.49 pm
Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: Thank you, Mr. Cook, for allowing me to contribute to this important debate.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on securing the debate. He and I recognise that the imminent publication of a Bill to remove all the hereditary peers from the second Chamber presents us with a political challenge and a constitutional opportunity of historic importance. The challenge is simple: it is to prevent the second Chamber from becoming a House of cronies. The opportunity is even greater: it is to achieve what so many for so long have considered unachievable—building a consensus across a divided House of Commons on how properly to complete House of Lords reform and provide this country, with its nations and regions, the second Chamber that it needs. It needs a second Chamber that is both more democratic and more legitimate than today's, but not so democratic or so legitimate that it can challenge the primacy of the Commons.
If we are to start that process of consensus building, we must find ways of reconciling the various factions that divided the House of Commons last February. That requires us in turn to not only understand but respect the reasons why hon. Members voted as they did in rejecting first a directly elected House, then an appointed House and then a hybrid House that was partly directly elected and partly appointed.
I voted for elections. Those who voted against a directly elected second Chamber last year did so not because they are not democrats. First, they wanted to protect the supremacy of the Commons, which is democratic and is supreme precisely because it is democratic. Secondly, they wanted to prevent our parliamentary democracy from being brought into disrepute by Parliament imposing on an election-weary electorate another tier of elections that they would not turn out to vote in.
If those who voted for an appointed Chamber did so because they considered themselves democrats, so more surely did those who voted for a directly elected second Chamber. As democrats, they could see no point in reforming the House of Lords unless it was to make it more democratic. They believe that, although democracy may not equal legitimacy, it at least confers it. It affords two vital constitutional protections: government by consent and government by representatives.
Indeed, it is precisely because the hereditary peers are an affront to democracy that we are soon to be asked to vote to remove them. But as soon as we vote to remove the hereditary peers we are confronted by the next problem: what to do about the life peers, who are also undemocratic. They are there only by reason of patronage. They have never been voted in and they do
110WH
not have the legitimacy that only election can confer. That is why hon. Members voted against an all-appointed Chamber
Hon. Members also voted against a hybrid Chamber. They did so because that may be the worst possible outcome in many respects. The unelected element would still remain illegitimate, and the elected element might also be illegitimate if the turnout was so low that the whole process was tainted in the eyes of the public. More fundamentally, we have to ask ourselves whether a stable constitutional settlement can ever be based upon a Chamber of Parliament in which Members have different legitimacies. Many of us believe that stability demands that all Members have the same standing and that none is more legitimate than any others. A hybrid House is not an answer, but a fudge, and two wrongs rarely make a right; they often simply make two wrongs.
When this House considered on 4 February last year the options for composing the second Chamber that the Joint Committee put before it—a directly elected, an all-appointed and a hybrid House—it rejected each for reasons of principle. We may not agree with all those reasons, but there were objections of principle to all those options. It was the fault of the Joint Committee that that happened. I served on the Joint Committee and I assume my fair share of the blame for that. We allowed the debate to become too narrow. We reduced complex constitutional issues—primacy, legitimacy and participation—to a mere set of choices between varying proportions of Members elected and Members appointed, all apparently plucked from the air. We gave Members the opportunity to restate their prior positions, but in truth, we never gave them an opportunity to reconcile them.
If we are ever to build consensus out of the wreckage to which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North referred in respect of the February votes, that is precisely what we have to do. We have to ask one critical question that we have never asked ourselves before—not what proportion of MSCs we elect, but how we elect them. He is absolutely right. We need to devise an electoral model that will be democratic, but that will also ensure through the nature of the election itself that the second Chamber neither duplicates the composition of the Commons nor receives a mandate from the electorate that allows it to challenge its primacy. That must mean that we need to develop a model of indirect elections for the second Chamber.
Under my hon. Friend's proposed model of secondary mandate. Members of Parliament would continue to be elected by a first-past-the-post system and enjoy the primacy that only direct elections can confer, but each vote cast at the general election would carry with it a secondary mandate for a second Chamber. As he says, that Chamber could be could be 300 strong, with each of the 12 regions and nations of the UK having 25 seats. It would be composed by distributing the seats in direct proportion to the votes cast for each party in the general election in each of the 12 nations and regions. As well as being a democratic expression of political preference, the secondary mandate would be just that—secondary—in conferring a legitimacy one step removed from those elected by the first-past-the-post system. As such, Members of the second Chamber could never challenge the prime mandate of directly elected MPs.

111WH
As my hon. Friend also noted, the secondary mandate would underscore the primacy of the Commons because it would encourage the electorate to re-engage with the democratic process by voting at the general election. That is crucial, and it is the unique selling point of the system. Turnout is threatening to fall to American levels of non-participation, and this model is the only one that encourages people to vote in our general elections. Rather than add another tier of elections to an election-weary electorate when they are increasingly ignoring the elections that we already have, we should simply add weight to the votes that are already cast.
The ballot paper would look the same as it does today. Only one mark would be made, against the candidate of one's choice. As present, only the votes cast for the winning candidate count. I voted in Beaconsfield in 1997 for the Labour candidate, and it did not count. In the future, all votes would count, and all would lead to representation, including regional representation to cure the appalling ill that has been referred to—government of the nation not by the nation, but by the south-east instead.
Mr. Grieve: Only one cross would be made on the ballot paper. Is not the implication of making that cross that the elector would be sanctioning the move into the upper House of a group of people who were selected only by the party of the MP for whom he or she votes?
Mr. Stinchcombe: I will come to that point after I have completed the point on representation.
The proposed system would also lead to proportional representation, so that no single party could ever command the majority of the House of Lords or second Chamber, as I would call it. It would also be far more pluralistic, with smaller parties able to find their voice through the democratic process rather than the engineered means of patronage and appointment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North said, no system is perfect. There will be problems with the secondary mandate model. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) suggested, the lists will be closed, but that does not mean that they will not be democratic or transparent. We could have primaries and ensure that the party members choose their list and its order, with each member having one vote. We could re-engage people at an earlier stage with participatory democracy.
Let me deal with another potential worry. The system might mean that the British National party has more people standing and gains more representation. However, we should beat the BNP through democracy rather than run away from democracy because of it. Let us see what candidates it is forced to field if it wants to stand in every constituency in a region, let us see how many articulate skinheads it can find and let us expose it for what it is under the spotlight scrutiny that only elections can bring. Let us watch its protest votes dissipate to the other, more respectable parties, including the United Kingdom Independence party or socialist parties, and let us see it waste its money on lost deposits as it is finally defeated.
I accept that no system is perfect. The secondary mandate system is not perfect, but perfection should be the enemy only of the bad and not of the good. The
112WH
secondary mandate system is not just good; it is the best that we have on offer. It is simple and meets all our objectives. It underscores the primacy of the Commons, encourages people to vote at the general election and would make a second Chamber more legitimate than it has ever been while denying it the equal authority of the Commons. It secures regional and independent representation, pluralism and the continued presence of the experts needed to make the Chamber effective.
Most importantly, such a system would bridge the divide that was so evident in the Commons in February last year, so that we can finally move on and go into the next election with more to offer the British people than a House of cronies. As Lord Falconer said, this model will fly.
2.59 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), because of his thoughtful contributions both to the debate this afternoon and to the Joint Committee. I hold up my hand as one of the other guilty persons on that Committee for failing to identify clear choices on which the two Houses could have taken a view on 4 February last year.
I want to make it clear that my Liberal Democrat colleagues in both Houses are determined to do everything they can to assist the Government in fulfilling what they said in their election manifesto. As other hon. Members have pointed out, Labour Members of Parliament were elected at the last election on a manifesto commitment to make the second Chamber more democratic and more representative. As several hon. Members have said this afternoon, that task still remains to be completed.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), not just for his speech today, but for the single-minded way that he has worked to try to find practical and pragmatic ways in which we can move forward. However, my colleagues in both Houses and I do not believe that we can make real progress unless from now on we have a road map. It is not good enough to stick with the Bill that is to be published later this week.
As the hon. Member for Nottingham, North made clear, that legislation will provide a transitory solution, which will not be sustainable in the longer term. As a responsible and constructive Opposition, we therefore feel that unless we can clearly see the continuum and momentum thereafter, it would be wrong for us to support that Bill in its current form.
As the Minister will know, my colleagues and I have suggested to the Secretary of State that there should be not only that Bill, but a further draft Bill soon to cover the next stages. We cannot complete the process for this stage of the continuum unless we have that draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny now. By "now", I mean not next week, but certainly within the next few weeks, so that we can make real progress this Session—although, of course, that Bill could be carried over into the next Session.
I read the proceedings of a debate in this Chamber in which the hon. Member for Nottingham, North led on the issue of pre-legislative scrutiny. This issue is a classic

113WH
case in which that would help to narrow the options and to reach consensus between and within the parties as to the way forward that he and other hon. Members have been promoting this afternoon. Without that, the Government cannot rely on Liberal Democrat support to remove the remaining hereditaries.
The tinkering legislation that we expect to be published this week will almost certainly fail, either during consideration in Committee, which must take place on the Floor of the House because the measure is constitutional, or in the House of Lords. Without a road map, I believe that the Bill is doomed, in one House or another. I cannot believe that the Government, in the dying days of this Parliament, would try to use the Parliament Act to push through, against the other parties and some of their own Members, a temporary solution to what is a long-standing problem. I hope that the Secretary of State is listening to the Liberal Democrats because, as he knows, we may not have the swing votes on many issues in the House of Commons, but we often do in the other place, unreformed as it is.
The option of an all-appointed Chamber was the one major casualty of the parliamentary pile-up that occurred on 4 February last year. Although that vehicle was driven by the Lord Chancellor, with a co-driver from No. 10, it left the motorway with sensational results and disappeared out of sight. It would be ridiculous if the House of Commons were now to ignore that vote and, by voting through this temporary Bill without any promise of further reform, ended up with an all-appointed House.
Mr. Clelland: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what was defeated was not necessarily the principle of appointment, but the status quo?
Mr. Tyler: I would not agree. It was quite clearly put to the House by the Leader of the House and by Members on both sides that an all-appointed option was not a goer—and it left the motorway.
I should also say in response to hon. Members who mentioned abolition that a unicameral system also disappeared without trace—that vehicle was a complete write-off. The only vehicles with some semblance of continued existence were those heading for a hybrid solution. I am not wedded to a figure of 60 or 80 per cent. All I am convinced of is that if we are to move forward, the Government must make a firm proposition for a form of election.
I support the view, which has been expressed during the debate, that we must examine the different forms of election. I say to the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) that that does not include the election of interest group representatives. That would take us back to 1832, as it is the legitimacy that supposedly existed for the pre-1832 Parliament in which the landowning interests were thought to be the only important sectional interests in the country that deserved representation.
I believe that Cornwall then had more seats than Lancashire. Indeed, in my constituency, Bossiney had a seat, which had previously been represented by Sir Francis Drake—one of my illustrious predecessors. That hardly constituted legitimacy or legitimate
114WH
representation. Therefore, we must discard the idea that somehow democracy can be served by having a better system of appointment by different interest groups. I think that it was the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) who said in the House that in this country talking of democratic appointment means election and anything else would be a misuse of the phrase.
We need to make real progress. I believe that there is good will in the Government. All the signs that we have seen in recent weeks from the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs—in this capacity he is the Secretary of State as far as I am concerned, rather than the Lord Chancellor—from No.10 and from the Leader of the House are that there is an opening now.
I endorse the comments made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North that if we do not take this opportunity, it will be lost until after the general election. Imagine the situation if the three parties produce their manifestos for the next election with this issue unresolved and no progress made. It would be ludicrous. I say to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that it would be a great irony if the Conservative party which is split down the middle on the issue, were to occupy the moral high ground of being able to say to the Government, "Look, you are not doing anything like what was in your manifesto, as with all your other manifesto promises. Maybe you have torn them up." Surely we can persuade No. 10 and the Minister that this issue is something on which real progress can be made.
I turn to the issue of different forms of election. There is merit in examining the proposals that have come forward from Mr. Billy Bragg, and from hon. Members present, for some form of election that is different from that to the Commons. I have come round to the view of the different parts of the United Kingdom having some equality of representation. That would distinguish between the two Houses very effectively. If Cornwall were to become a region, I would expect 25 Members for Cornwall. Whatever the appropriate way to do it, there is merit, as in the American model, in giving precise regional and national representation in the second Chamber to distinguish it from the first.
We must recognise the fact that there is concern over primacy and supremacy in this House. I accept that, and it is why the votes last year must be taken into account. A Government who refuse to take note of the fact that the House of Commons voted against an all-appointed second Chamber—just as the vote went against its abolition—would be a Government who were trying to undermine the primacy and supremacy of the House of Commons. I do not believe that to be the case, so distinguishing between the two Houses is a helpful way forward.
I am convinced that Members from all parties will want to be involved in the process. The right way for that process to take place is within Parliament. We have had enough consultation papers; we have had enough royal commissions It is time to have some concrete proposals to narrow the options down. Clearly, the option that I have referred to needs to be involved.
I have some doubt as to whether secondary mandate or indirect election is the precise description that we should adopt, because "mandate" implies a mandate

115WH
not just for the individual constituency representative, but for a Government. For that reason, I have concerns about the suggestion that there should be only one ballot paper and one vote, and that those should be counted for both purposes. Once someone is in a polling booth, there is merit in having two ballot papers, or two sections to the ballot paper, so that one would vote for the Government one wanted and the constituency Member on one paper, and for the second Chamber representative of the party on the other.
My speaking time is up. I am delighted that the debate has taken place this week because it gives the Government a great opportunity to come clean and tell us what they intend to do.
3.10 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve: The length of the contribution of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) does not suggest that there is a fixed view about the best way in which to approach the problem.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on securing the debate. I repeat that he has been assiduous, not only in respect of today's debate, but in promoting the reform of the second Chamber, something that he believes in passionately.
I start from the view expressed by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), who I am sorry to see has left the Chamber. In an intervention, he asked about the purpose of a second Chamber. It is obvious that it is not to achieve pure democracy. If we were in a state of pure democracy, we would be voting annually on whether to execute the Minister on the basis of whether he had succeeded in fulfilling his mandate and promises over the previous 12 months, which would be along the lines of the Athenian model. Mercifully, we do not do that.
We have parliamentary government. The democratic element introduced to it is the first-past-the-post system under which we are elected and the electorate's opportunity to express their view every five years. The purpose of the second Chamber is to revise and preserve freedoms, and freedom and democracy are not necessarily the same thing. Democrats can be oppressors just as much as tyrants. I start from that premise. Speaking personally, if we consider whether the present House of Lords and, for that matter, the House of Lords before the hereditary peers departed, has succeeded in fulfilling that purpose, it seems to me that is rather good at doing its job.
There is no overall majority in the second Chamber. There must be some movement among people of different political allegiances in corning together if the Government are to be defeated. As we have seen consistently during the past year or two, it has been successful in getting them to think again about important matters. Moreover, it is obvious to those who believe in a unicameral legislature that we do not have the time to carry out proper legislative scrutiny, let alone revision. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North, with whom I have had the pleasure of sitting on many a Committee, knows that the House of Commons is still not succeeding in properly scrutinising legislation. It would be disastrous to believe that we can wave a magic wand and make the second Chamber disappear.
116WH
Can the second Chamber be improved? At the outset of the last election, the Conservative party's commitment was to a mainly elected second Chamber. I suspect that that is the majority view within my party, although, as was rightly said, others hold different views, as they do on the Labour Benches. Indeed, a diverse view has been expressed this afternoon. 'There is a respectable argument for saying that we can have a wholly appointed second Chamber, although if we follow that route it will be difficult to justify current levels of prime ministerial patronage. Indeed, we would have to become reliant on something similar to a judicial appointments commission, such as a Lords appointments commission, set down with parameters enshrined in statute determining what it is supposed to do.
We could argue that such parameters would ensure that there was no overall majority, that the Chamber was broadly representative of the make-up of political parties nationally, and that there was an independent element. We could introduce other measures. such as a ceiling on the total number of Members of the House of Lords, allowing political parties to put forward their nominees without guaranteeing that they would be accepted, and setting a date for retirement from being an active Member. Those are perfectly logical suggestions. Another option is to have a broadly elected second Chamber. I shall return to that because it is important. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North put forward a variant of that proposal.
On the hybrid arrangements. I was a little surprised to hear the comments of the hon. Member for North Cornwall because it has always struck me, from both anecdotal conversation and what I heard in the House when we debated this last year, that a hybrid solution—having a substantial mix of elected and appointed people—is the option that commends itself to the fewest people. It raises enormous difficulties about the legitimacy of the appointed as against the elected element. and it would turn out to be undesirable. However, if we were to have a largely elected second Chamber, I can appreciate that there might be an argument for having a mechanism for introducing a very small top-up of independent appointees, or even of people co-opted by the House, to add certain areas of expertise.
Mr. Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Grieve: I will do so, but only briefly I hope.
Mr. Tyler: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the majority of his colleagues voted for a hybrid second Chamber?
Mr. Grieve: The voting that took place in the Chamber was quite mysterious and illustrated the diversity of views. However, it is increasingly not my impression—certainly the more I look at the current make-up of our colleagues—that the hybrid option commends itself. Many Members of all parties might have taken some pleasure in voting for entirely contradictory options one after the other because they did not want any great progress to be made. The hon. Gentleman might want to speculate on that, or to look at the voting figures in that debate.

117WH
I want to do justice to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North's contribution by addressing his proposal for indirect elections. I hope that he will forgive me if I deliver something of a critique. The proposal is perfectly reasonable because it protects the supremacy of the House of Commons. What bothers me, however, is that it is a recipe for a House of placemen. If there are closed lists, the people who are put on them will be entirely at the behest of the political parties who put them there.
I noted with interest the suggestion that parties might, with great generosity, hold primaries or have other systems, but I do not understand how Parliament can impose that on them. My experience of politics suggests to me that if parties are left to their own devices there will be closed lists, with the most loyal placemen rewarded with a position at the top.
We will end up with an unsatisfactory solution if we pursue that route. Although it fulfils the hon. Gentleman's objective, which I share, of providing a greater degree of public choice, it also withdraws that because when closed lists are introduced the public have no choice. We know from European elections that that lack of choice is reflected in low turnouts. When people come to vote on election day and they put their cross next to the person they want to elect as their MP, they will not pay a blind bit of notice to the list or to who is going into the upper House, or whatever we happen to call it. The electors will then complain that those people are unrepresentative of their views, and those people who have been elected will know that they are beholden to no one except their political party for putting them back on top of the list when the next election comes around. That is the reason for my rooted objection to the proposal.
I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) had to say. He had another model: corporate representation by groups within society that are regarded as stakeholders which elect their representatives to Parliament. That is the original fascist model. I hope that he will forgive me for saying that, as I do not mean it pejoratively. That model survives in one country in particular—the Republic of Ireland. When it was set up there in the 1920s it had some vaguely fascist affinities. Irish people might be embarrassed to realise that. His proposal is not completely idiotic, but it does introduce a sclerosis, because who chooses those groups?
We must give the subject careful consideration. I think that we could go for a form of direct election, but there must be straightforward accountability, with constituencies or at least counties returning a certain number of people and identifiable individuals being sent to Parliament to serve. I would decouple that from the general election process. I would have a separate system involving rotation, with one third coming up for election at different intervals. That model commends itself to me quite a lot. Alternatively, if we cannot do that, for goodness' sake let us get rid of prime ministerial patronage and at least have an appointed second Chamber that is not seen as consisting entirely of the Prime Minister's henchmen.
3.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs(Mr. Christopher Leslie): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on securing this important debate. He made a thoughtful, constructive and detailed contribution on many seemingly intractable issues, and I appreciate the points that he made. Having heard the contribution made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), I am not sure exactly what Conservative party policy is, but perhaps a longer conversation with him will elucidate that.
Obviously, many hon. Members referred to what happened last February. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North called it a six-way car wreckage. I am not sure that I would characterise it as such, but in any case there was a failure to record a majority in favour of any option. Some have speculated as to the motives of those who voted. As the Joint Committee has suggested, perhaps the multiple choice system that sought to break down the proportion of elected versus appointed Member; was not the best approach to take.
I suspect that there are other routes towards finding consensus and forming a final view on what our second Chamber should look like. Many ideas about those potential routes have had an airing today. There is no doubt that there are significant flaws in the current system. The events of last February significantly changed the landscape of where we stand, and a Bill making a variety of proposals will be published shortly. We cannot, for example, continue to have a hereditary element in our second Chamber. That is simply intolerable. Surely all people with democratic instincts see that as the most obvious point. We have recently seen a small number of hereditary peers selecting another hereditary peer to represent them. I would not call it an election; I would call it a selection. How long can such a system be sustainable? Choosing from hereditary peers who have had experience in the second Chamber is one thing, but choosing hereditary peers who have had nothing to do with the second Chamber takes us into particularly difficult circumstances.
We have an Appointments Commission process, but on a non-statutory and informal basis. It is a matter of policy, not statutory law. Again, there are disadvantages to that situation, given its impermanence. I hope that the current Bill will stabilise the second Chamber, remove hereditary peers, put the Appointments Commission on a statutory footing, introduce rules for disqualification and allow peers to resign their membership without resigning their peerage. Nothing in that Bill need block off any road towards further reform. Nothing in the package is designed to lead to the entrenchment of the current system. We want to Keep the route open for further ideas and we intend to keep working on reform.
I hope that one benefit of this debate will be that we can begin to forge a consensus on a solution that will spread across as many different political parties and corners of parties as possible. The Secretary of State said in the introduction to the consultation paper that we issued last September that
"there is more to be done on Lords reform…Parliament is clearly divided",

119WH
but we hope that we can now shape a consensus on the way forward.
I should like to comment on several important contributions that were made today. First, there was the idea that there could be a regional component in the composition of a future second chamber and that regionalism could be part of the reform process. Regional identity is becoming increasingly important in our country. Referendums are occurring in October for the three northern regions, and this country has a strong tradition of local democracy elsewhere too. Regions form the basis of many different aspects of our life not only in economic, development and planning terms, but in our representation in the European Parliament. I believe that, if that proposal were developed more thoroughly, regions could have a number of advantages as the basis for membership to a second Chamber. They could provide a different but none the less geographical focus for Members' interests, and they would provide a sufficiently broad base not to undermine the position of constituency Members of Parliament as the primary form of democratic representation in Parliament.

It is also important to comment on a second related aspect, which was clearly brought out by my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, North, for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), and Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) and other colleagues—the route of indirect elections, which can take several different forms. The idea of the secondary mandate has been floated not only by the royal commission, but by Mr. Billy Bragg, who is to be commended for putting this proposal into an easily obtainable form. Today, the Fabian Society is holding a debate in this very Chamber, and it will he interesting to see how that develops.
It is feasible to consider indirect elections as a way forward. They are used in many other democracies across the world, including in European countries. Germany has a particular system and France has an electoral college. Indirect elections can serve purposes that direct elections cannot. They can contribute to
120WH
establishing a proper hierarchy among the institutions of Parliament. They are pertinent to precisely the arguments over which we are wrestling with the House of Lords, and they deserve a much fuller examination.
There will be a number of deep-seated problems if we stick to the approach of fully elected versus fully appointed, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge mentioned many of them in his contribution. There is the idea of the Commons' supremacy and how we deal with that issue if people feel that an elected component undermines it. That supremacy is cherished, and there is widespread consensus that we need to preserve it. The Government understand those concerns, and we must face up to the fact that a fully elected second Chamber might not automatically defer to the elected House of Commons. There must be a proper understanding of what its roles and functions would be and of the extent to which it could refuse to agree to legislation to which this House had agreed.
Other questions have been raised about diversity of representation. What added value is brought by the second Chamber? Again, some of the questions about hybridity are important; they cannot be dismissed and need to be thought through carefully.
Unicameralism was an option that arose last February, and it was defeated, but I sensed from the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) in one of his interventions about the point of a second Chamber that there were questions about whether we need to continue with it. I suspect that that is a debate for another day. We want to see further moves. A Joint Committee is important, and I earnestly appeal to other parties to consider taking part in it to drive forward the consensus in the long term.
The key to the issue is finding a way of reconciling the Commons' supremacy with a more legitimate revising Chamber of Parliament. We can find ways forward, and I hope that all hon. Members and all parties share a belief in that entirely reasonable and feasible prospect. I look forward to the debate continuing in that manner.

Iraq
3.30 pm
Mr. David Stewart: I am pleased to have the opportunity to make the case for debt relief for Iraq. Reconstruction of Iraq is one of the most important issues facing the international community. Nye Bevan once said that
"socialism if anything is a crusade";
I believe that debt relief is also a crusade.
My involvement with this issue is twofold. First, I have been committed since my election in 1997 to the Jubilee 2000 campaign, and thoroughly support and praise all the individuals, the non-governmental organisations and the Churches that have lobbied for decades for the cancellation of unpayable developing world debt. I also support Jubilee Iraq and Oxfam, which have campaigned specifically for debt relief for Iraq. Secondly, on a personal front, I had the opportunity in September, through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, to spend three days in Basra, where I met Royal Air Force personnel and ordinary Iraqis, so I have some first-hand experience of the state of that country. There is clearly a great need for infrastructural growth and for new work to go into central services to promote sustainable development in Iraq.
I should like to share one word-picture with the Committee. Near the end of my time in Basra, some of the RAF officers and I left the secure compound to go just outside the gates. We were dressed in body armour and camouflage fatigues, and as I walked out of the gate, I passed a bus-load of young Iraqi children entering the base. I was not sure what sort of response we would receive, as they obviously considered us all soldiers. In fact, the response was immediate and unanimous: every single one gave us a thumbs-up sign. Some cynics might say that they could have presented another sign to us, but it was quite gratifying to me because they saw that having armed forces there was not just about the military aspect, but about breaking away from Saddam towards reconstruction.
I strongly believe that the Iraqi people will be free from Saddam's legacy only when we can break the chains of debt that he created. How do we do that? Iraq needs the oxygen of economic growth to tackle its shocking poverty. We need to improve employment rates, standards of public service, health and education. Of course, the international community understands that: it is committed to provide about ․32 billion of aid to Iraq to rebuild the cities, towns and villages, and to create the climate in which to grow new jobs. The Madrid conference in October 2003 was a good step towards Iraq's recovery. However, Iraq continues to be crippled by unsustainable debt, which threatens to undermine reconstruction efforts. Iraq's debt is not practically repayable: repayment would effectively involve the next 20 years of Iraq's oil revenues. That would mean less money for hospitals; schools and sanitation in a country that is desperate to rebuild.
I am aware, of course, that Iraq has potentially the world's second biggest oil revenues, but that is not much comfort to ordinary Iraqis, who earn about ․2 a day. International assistance, not least from the United
122WH
Kingdom, will have a central role in Iraq's reconstruction. The danger is that creditors' demands will lead to over-dependence on aid. In his classic analysis of the treaty of Versailles, "The Economic Consequences of the Peace", John Maynard Keynes wrote:
"By fixing the reparations payments well within Germany's capacity to pay, we make possible the renewal of hope and enterprise within her territory."
If debt repayments and reparations—the other important factor—continue to be required of Iraq, the country will have to pay out a large proportion of the aid that it is receiving, which will mean that plans to reduce poverty and rebuild the country will be seriously compromised. Beyond that, I believe that there are moral and legal grounds on which to justify the cancellation of Iraq s outstanding debts, enabling its full recovery. The truth is simply that Saddam never spent the money that he received from creditors for the benefit of his people. Ordinary Iraqis had no say. Iraq's debts were accrued under Saddam Hussein for his purposes only. Why should Iraqi people repay a debt accumulated by a tyrannical regime, which borrowed from creditors that lent to Saddam with their eyes open? Surely, with the fall of the dictatorship, Saddam's debts should be wiped out to enable Iraqis, who gained nothing from Saddam's spending, to start afresh. Thus, I call for debt relief for Iraq on the basis that the loans were odious and the debts are illegitimate. Put simply by Mohammed Kamil of the Iraqi Prospect Organisation:
"When Saddam executed people, he used to charge their families for the bullets used—this is what the creditor countries who financed Saddam are asking of Iraqis today."
The principle of odious debt is important. It is borrowing that is undertaken by a regime without the consent of the people and not spent for the benefit of the people. The doctrine of odious debt goes back to 1927, when it was develop by the Russian lawyer, Alexander Sack. More recently the International Development Committee referred to it in its report on debt relief. Oxfam argues a specific point. It says that what is needed is an internationally agreed framework to deal with odious debt as t arises. It proposes an independent, UN panel of economists—the analogy could be made with our Monetary Policy Committee-to rule on the legitimacy of Iraq's debt. Will the Minister respond to that in his summing up? That seems to be a sensible, constructive idea worth supporting.
Let me take the Chamber back in time to 1979 when Iraq had ․36 billion of cash reserves and no foreign debt. Over the past 24 years, under Saddam's rule, Iraq fought three wars, suffered 13 years of sanctions, and has suffered gross state mismanagement of the economy and human rights abuses. Three million people have died and infant mortality has doubled in just over a decade. Average incomes have fallen from ․9,000 to as little as ․200 a year. The world Food Programme reports that one fifth of Iraq's central and southern population is chronically poor, and unemployment in some areas reaches 50 per cent. The Iraqi people have clearly gained nothing from Saddam's rule.
Estimates vary, but the Government's estimate is that Iraq owes about ․120 billion of debt and ․80 billion in reparations and compensation payments, particularly to Kuwait. Therefore, each Iraqi owes about ․11,000, despite the average income being as low as ․2 a day. The

123WH
Gulf states and western and former Soviet countries provided export credit. Some of that funded arms; some funded non-military purchases. It enabled Saddam to channel his oil revenues into the oppression of his people and increased military spending. Under the previous Administration, Britain provided about £623 million, but the overall figure is now estimated to be about £1 billion if interest payments are also taken into account.
I put on record my thanks to the Chancellor for the positive work that he has done generally on debt relief, which I recognise and welcome. With regard to Iraq, some progress has been made in the past 10 months in measuring the scale of the debt and obtaining agreements from most creditor countries that, in principle, debt should be reduced.
Nick Harvey: The hon. Gentleman just quantified the Iraqi debt to the UK as about £1 billion. The UK has pledged just over £500 million to Iraq for assistance with, its recovery, which is most welcome and I echo the words of the hon. Gentleman in drawing our attention to that. However, does that contrast not highlight the problem? The UK has pledged £500 million but is owed £1 billion. The UK could give a great example to others if we were to face up to the sheer illogicality of that and wipe out that debt.
Mr. Stewart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution; I know that he has a great interest in the subject and has worked very hard on debt relief issues. There is a danger of giving with one hand and taking back with the other. That is a good point. I am just about to touch on the Paris Club and the International Monetary Fund.
As hon. Members will be aware, debt relief to Iraq is at present being tackled through the IMF and the Paris Club, which are looking at restructuring initiatives. As I understand it, the scenario is for two-thirds debt "forgiveness", which will leave Iraq with at least ․40 billion still to pay. There are some worries about that, because the Paris Club conditions ․that is the list of creditors, effectively—depend on what it calls economic "conditionalities". That may mean, for example, the privatisation of a lot of Iraqi industry. There are big issues involved about the ultimate it dependence of Iraq.
Professor Rowat of Birmingham university said:
"If the new government inherits a heavy debt load, it will have fewer carrots to spend on establishing its legitimacy, leaving it to rely on sticks".>
Although I welcome the move of the IMF and the Paris Club, the fundamental issue of the illegitimacy of the debts has not been properly addressed. If the loans are odious, surely there is a strong argument for not simply restructuring but cancelling them altogether. No debt has yet been written off, but the Paris Club NS agreed a comprehensive treatment of Iraq's debt by the end of the year to give a fully rounded picture No arrears of debt are currently being sought, as I understand it.
I welcome the Evian report, which, under the Paris Club arrangements, is looking to adopt longer term solutions for countries with serious debt. Again, that appears to be sensible. The Government have pledged to ensure a fair and sustainable solution to Iraq's debts, but surely, in the disagreement between Iraqi people and the creditor nations over the legitimacy of Iraq's debts, the only fair way forward is through the process of arbitration.
124WH
In conclusion, my hope is for a future in which a democratic Iraqi Government work with the international community to rebuild and reconstruct their country, which has been shattered by wars and strangled by Saddam's oppressive regimes. Iraq is a country of stark contrasts: on the one hand, there was fabulous wealth, privilege and palaces for Saddam's inner circle; on the other, there was the poverty, starvation and torture endured by ordinary Iraqis.
My call is for a cancellation of odious debt, an independent UN panel of economists to rule on the legitimacy of Iraq's debt, and debt negotiations that are fair, with a strong Iraqi voice. That will give ordinary Iraqi men and women such as those I met in Basra the opportunity to win the peace.
3.42 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) on securing this debate and on the way in which he presented his case. His speech was not only heartfelt and passionate, but widely referenced, well informed and erudite, reflecting his long-standing interest in issues of debt and development, and his active interest in Iraq. As he said, in September, he and the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) were among the first Back-Bench Members of this House, Mr. Cook, who—
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): Order. I would be remiss in my responsibilities if I did not call the attention of the House to the fact that, in this Chair, the title of the first three members of the Chairman's Panel is Deputy Speaker.
John Healey: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I seek—
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): That is okay; just continue.
John Healey: I have not paid you due respect, and I apologise.
I was commending my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber for the commitment and interest that he has shown in Iraq, particularly as in quite early days, he and the hon. Member for Huntingdon were among the first Back-Bench Members of this House to stay in Basra as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of debt relief with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor at the most recent Treasury questions. As my hon. Friend has said, the question of Iraqi debt is one of the most important international issues facing us today. I welcome the chance to debate his concerns more fully than was possible at that Question Time.
I welcome, as the Government do, the wider Jubilee debt campaign to cut the debts of the poorest countries around the world. My hon. Friend has also recognised the role that the campaign, other charities and Church groups have played, which has been tremendously important in shifting international opinion on the issue.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured to know that the UK Government have made it clear that our goal is a fair and sustainable solution to Iraq's debt.

125WH
problems, although that is just one essential element in our overall aim of helping Iraq back on to the road of long-term peace and prosperity.
Iraq should be a wealthy country. It has the second greatest oil reserves in the world—some 110 billion barrels. However, as my hon. Friend so vividly explained, because of Saddam Hussein's tyranny, wars and mismanagement, Iraq's people are now desperately poor. The population has an average income per head of only ․500 a year, which, as was said, is less than ․2 a day. That is particularly depressing when we consider that more than 20 years ago, its per capita income was ․3,600 a year.
On a more optimistic note, however, Iraq's abundant human and natural resources offer the potential for a rapid return to relative prosperity if the right conditions are created in the short and medium term. In order to access its potential wealth, Iraq needs to have in place the right economic conditions and institutions, which is why the Department for International Development's objectives for the next two years are to support economic growth, bring about effective and accountable governance and encourage much greater social and political cohesion and stability.
My hon. Friend is right: to achieve that objective, Iraq's debts must be brought back to sustainable levels so that it can start to invest and grow again. He is also right about the scale of the challenge, and his figures are correct too. Iraq's debt to the international community currently stands at about ․120 billion. As the UK Government have already made clear, our view is that creditors will have to write off the vast majority of Iraq's debt to restore economic stability. I say to the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), whose intervention I also welcome, that the Government stand ready to make a full commitment to do so.
I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber that we believe that the most effective way to deliver that commitment is through the Paris Club, which has already announced that it intends to agree a comprehensive treatment of Iraq's debt problem by the end of 2004. We will then work with the international community to ensure that other creditors offer comparable treatment. The plan is to deal with the debt under the Paris Club's new Evian approach, which he welcome and endorsed this afternoon. In our view, that approach offers a long-term solution for countries with the most serious debt problems, including debt reduction where the need is clearly demonstrated.
The Paris Club is the only forum in which major creditor countries work together to negotiate fair and sustainable debt treatments in a timely manner, drawing on assessments of needs, resources and obligations from the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other responsible international organisations. My hon. Friend may be aware that preparations are now well advanced and that we hope to see a solution in the Paris Club following the transfer of power to a transitional authority in Iraq. In the meantime, I can confirm to him and the House that the UK will seek no repayment of debts.
126WH
Let me also be clear about the scale and nature of Iraq's debts to the UK Government. The Export Credits Guarantee Department has unrecovered claims of £623 million arising from insured commercial export contracts with Iraq signed prior to the first Gulf conflict in 1991. With interest, that figure could increase up to about £1.15 billion. Of those claims, only a small Fraction—about £26 million—relates to defence cases, all of which had export licences from the Department of Trade and Industry and none of which directly involved arms.
The ECGD can provide insurance on repayment risk, the premiums for which are based on the risk of default. It is important to stress that under the business principles introduced in 2000 by this Government, the ECGD now carries out rigorous environmental and social impact assessments of its cover decisions. For the poorest countries, the ECGD would issue guarantees only if the project contributed to the social and economic development of the country and did not lead or add to an unsustainable debt burden.
I recognise that many argue the case for an automatic 100 per cent. write-off of debt and that they do so, as my hon. Friend has this afternoon, on the basis of the Iraqi people's suffering under Saddam Hussein's regime. We expect the vast majority of Iraq's debts to be written off. Our aim is a settlement that will bring Iraq back to debt sustainability so that it can invest and grow again.
In the long term, however, Iraq is not comparable to the poorest countries of the world that are granted debt relief under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. Although Iraq is extremely poor now, as my hon. Friend has pointed out in the past and as I have tried to underline this afternoon, in the long term, its prospects for prosperity are good. It has the second largest oil reserves to draw on.
Any further debt relief beyond what is needed to make Iraq sustainable has to be considered against the country's other pressing needs: humanitarian relief and reconstruction. The Government have worked very actively to promote understanding of Iraq's needs in the international community. We have keenly supported the US presidential envoy James Baker. During recent months, his work has led to the building up of a G7 consensus that there should be substantial debt reduction for Iraq in the Paris Club this year. He has also persuaded several other large creditors to commit themselves to grant substantial debt reduction as part of the ․32 billion pled ed towards Iraq's reconstruction needs at the Madrid donors conference in October. That includes the Saudis and the Kuwaitis, who together hold more than 30 per cent, of claims on Iraq. The work is ongoing, and the UK actively participates and contributes financially. Our total reconstruction commitment in Iraq since April 2003 now stands at £544 million.
I now turn to the matter of odious debt, which my hon. Friend dwelt on in his speech. I understand the moral concerns that underlie that concept. The Government believe t hat the most appropriate response to such moral arguments is to ensure that Iraq is in the best possible position to support its people now and in the long term. That means that we must focus on pragmatic and practical means that can deliver a sustainable debt solution. As he will be aware, there are thousands of individual debts and it is not practicable to

127WH
go through them one by one. To do so would plunge the Iraqi people into a legal minefield and damage the prospects of finding a long-term, sustainable solution. There are also serious concerns about the workability of odious debt as a legal concept and the impact on other developing countries' ability to raise much-needed finance.
We believe that the multilateral process that we are supporting will lead to the writing off of the vast majority of Iraq's debt in the shortest possible time. We would welcome the involvement of the UN as an observer in that process. The Government also share the concern expressed by many groups, including Oxfam and some with which my hon. Friend is well connected, that we should work together to ensure that developing countries do not build up unsustainable debts in the future.
Mr. Michael Connarty: I hoped that my hon. Friend would move on to talk about the individual components of the debt. Just before the conflict began, I went to the Kurdish enclave in the north. I took Foreign Office information about the £1 million a day it was costing the allies to keep the no-fly zone in place. Will the Minister give an assurance that when we add up the debt owed by Iraq, we will not charge the cost of that no-fly zone policy to the Iraqi people, and through them to the Kurdish people in Iraq?
John Healey: I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention and the expertise and interest that he brings to this debate, but he may have missed my point that the UK Government, at this stage in the process of preparing to take decisions about the amount of debt that we should write off as a country through the Paris Club process, will in the meantime require no repayments of existing debt.
128WH
With regard to the importance of the institutions and interest groups that want a long-term solution and a return to prosperity in Iraq, the Government welcome the work of the IMF and the World Bank on debt sustainability in low-income countries, which we expect to be completed over the coming months.
In conclusion, I should like to stress that the Government's overall aim is a peaceful and prosperous Iraq. That requires actions and commitment on many fronts. including debt relief. Finding a sustainable solution to Iraq's debt problems, essential though it certainly is, should be seen as only one part of our efforts towards that end.
I am keen to draw this debate to a conclusion on a more positive note, despite the scale of the challenges that are undoubtedly faced in Iraq. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber that he will know from his practical experience in Iraq that progress is being made. He touched on it himself: the coalition has launched more than 17,000 reconstruction projects; food distribution systems were restored soon after the conflict; almost all the 240 hospitals in Iraq are functioning; water and sanitation projects are providing cleaner water; schools across the country reopened in October; and power supply surpassed pre-war levels in October. Against this background, the UK's commitment and work to help Iraq will continue. If the right measures are taken now and the economy is able to grow, Iraq's human capital and oil reserves should enable it to meet its future needs without significant external grant assistance.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House earlier this month:
"The people are free, and Iraq—a nation of immense history and deepest culture—is no longer a pariah, with its people enslaved. It is now a country with some hope for the future in its heart."—[Official Report, 4 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 782.1
We recognise that we have a big role and responsibility to help nourish that hope, and debt relief will certainly play a central part in that.

School Funding (Guildford)
Sue Doughty: I am most grateful for the opportunity to put to the Minister some of the problems in schools in the Guildford area. I pay tribute to the schools in my constituency. Each and every one has dedicated, strongly committed staff who deliver good education. The problem is that good schools are faced with difficulties in meeting the Government's financial controls and in dealing with their impact. I believe that the Government still fail to recognise the problems caused by the funding crisis of 2003–04. which has continued into the following year.
We are not a poor area, but low funding is causing major difficulties in meeting the requirements set by the Government. We run the risk of undoing good work, which the Government asked of our schools and which they worked so hard to deliver. Locally, the high cost of living, of which the Minister is well aware, is producing recruitment and retention challenges and driving up costs, as is the proximity to London schools, where teachers qualify for an extra £2,000 in allowances.
In Guildford, new teachers do not start at the bottom of the pay scale, as that would make it impossible to recruit. The problem of the bottom of the scale was ignored by the Government in their financial plans. Like schools across the country, the schools in my constituency were forced to plan for deficit budgets and cuts in staffing. More than 80 per cent. of Surrey schools project in-year deficits for 2003–04, and a sample survey by Surrey showed that 125 full-time equivalent posts have been lost.
The impact on total balances for schools in Surrey is a projected reduction of £12 million, which would bring balances down to about £3 million. That is unsustainable.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: As the hon. Lady is aware, the southern part of my constituency is also in Guildford borough. I share her concerns, expressed on behalf of local schools, including the very successful Ash Manor secondary school, whose headmaster, Bob Linnell, is one of the leaders of secondary heads in Surrey. All of us in Surrey have had the problems that she talks about. Does she agree that local education authorities such as Surrey county council, which is well led by Dr. Paul Gray, are doing an excellent job in trying to support schools, despite the difficulty caused by the lack of funding from the Labour Government?
Sue Doughty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I have no problem in agreeing with him about the excellent work that is done by the department and by the director of education and children's services. However, it is like pushing rocks uphill.
The precise impact of next year's formula settlement is not known but it is expected to increase the budget by about 5 per cent. There will be the protection of a 4 per cent. minimum per pupil funding guarantee and the Government have diverted additional funding to education, so the 2004–05 settlement will produce between 1 per cent. and 1.5 per cent. of additional resources above inflation. That will translate into an
130WH
additional £3.5 million to £5 million maximum in the Surrey schools' funding pot. It means that a minority of schools that successfully balance their budgets in 2003–04 may have a real terms increase, but it is insufficient to tackle the cost pressures that resulted in the cull of £12 million from balances.
The county council is facing growing pressures across all services. Demographic changes in adult services such as those for older people are resulting in the need for further care packages and independent care, the cost of which I have raised before in the House.
Children's social care is getting more expensive because there are increasing numbers of looked-after children and a lack of foster carers, and high council tax rises to pay for it are not an option. The scope for the county council to find additional funding for schools is therefore severely restricted in 2004–05. The Department for Education and Skills has acknowledged its responsibility for the funding crisis of 2003–04, but it concedes only to having moved too fast in its reforms, which gives us no real hope of change, especially in the hard-pressed local authority.
New regulations restrict the budget increase that local education authorities can make to centrally managed school functions, such as those involving the education of pupils with special educational needs and early-years education. Pressure; on those budgets are immense following new statutory duties placed on local education authorities for the education of sick children, for example, and the rising cost of placements for pupils in independent and out-of-county settings. In my constituency surgeries, I regularly meet families who are desperate to get the right education for their children, for whom there is no decent funding. Will the Minister tell me where the money is supposed to come from to provide fair treatment for the disadvantaged?
The Government responded to the crisis by adopting a stability-before-equity policy for 2004–05 funding and are seeking to target funding to schools and LEAs in difficulty. Surrey did not qualify for transitional support grant, so that was one opportunity gone. The second approach suggested by the Government was for Surrey to target additional funding to schools in financial difficulty from within its total schools budget, which top-slices the funding for all other schools. Surrey consulted its schoo1s forum and decided not to undertake targeted funding in 2003–04, as more than 80 per cent. are predicting in-year deficits. There is no room to achieve stability before equity.
Despite Government reassurances, schools in my constituency are facing considerable challenges, which will not be fully funded—for example, work force reform and teachers upper pay scale 3. Problems have already been caused by UPS2 being funded at only 60 per cent., and UPS1 is around the corner. Again, the Government have made reassuring sounds but they have no clarity. Will the Minister tell me whether the Government are going to fund UPS3 in full, or, if not, how much of it they will fund? In the race for funding, we know that Surrey is never going to be a major winner.
In 2003–04, the Department encouraged local authorities to license school deficits and to approve the use of formula capital for ongoing running costs, but in recent months there has been a noticeable change in approach, with heads' ability to manage school budgets

131WH
being called into question by the Department and the introduction of training for school managers in running schools with declining funds. In Surrey, those managers have been doing a tough job for years. Does the Minister really believe that the shortfall in funding is coming from poor management?
In view of external audit concerns regarding the low projected level of schools' Balances, the county is seeking in-year balance budgets from schools in 2004–05. It is a hardline approach. It appears that there is a lack of recognition of the difficulty that that will bring to many schools. Surrey has had to recognise the concerns of some heads that, if they make difficult decisions, they may end up subsidising the schools that cannot. A deficit in any school could ultimately result in the top-slicing of all schools' budgets, either to write off a deficit if a school has to close, or in response to departmental targeting requirements.
Schools are taking a deep interest in this debate and many have been in touch with me. They point out other aspects of their experience. A chair of governors has pointed out that they are performing a management skill. They are eking out the money They are spending the time. We are paying school managers to spend their time finding savings here and extra money there. We are investing merely to try to plug the gaps. Our heads expect to manage, but spend a disproportionate amount of time on trying to balance books. Managing a deficit budget is a headache and one for which there is little remedy.
A local head said to me:
"We have done everything that is asked of us. We have implemented the workforce reform agreement but with no funding. Funding doesn't meet inflation".
He has cut back wherever he can. He has cut back on his plans for improving the schools. He is scraping even to get on with basic repairs and emergency repairs. Now his only hope is to lose a specialist music teacher. I should like the Minister to see that music work that is done at that school to understand the loss that that would be.
We have the problem that as teachers and teaching assistants move up the experience scale they get more expensive. The Minister is aware of our problems in retaining teachers. We want to retain these people. We have got to the stage in Surrey where as teaching assistants move up the salary scale they have to take a drop in hours if the books are to be balanced. As teachers move up the pay scale, more money is needed and they have no idea what will happen when teachers reach the top.
Decisions have to be based on finance and not on educational reasons. The chair of governors of a school that had a really good Ofsted report wrote to me:
"As a governing body it is fair to say that we are desperately disappointed that we have had to cut back in numerous areas of spending this year in order to reduce a deficit budget which has arisen due to a rise in income which continues to bear no relation to the much deserved increase in teachers salaries and employment costs over which we have no control. We have made these cuts in relation to our discretionary spending on various resources, curriculum, property maintenance etc but this spending is at embarrassingly low levels and certainly not something which we could continue to repeat in future years. We have not made any redundancies in our already cut back stalling as we feel that this would really impact upon our children's quality of education.
132WH
As a businessman I completely approve of keeping things tight—but not to the point of strangulation. Listening to the government is like living in a different world—I wish they would come down to the pit face and explain to my governing body that, contrary to our governors perceptions, our school is fortunate to have been so well funded this year and next. This just doesn't wash!!
We are living off our reserves and when they run out—well it will be interesting to see how things move on from there. At the moment 2005/2006 and onwards is very worrying indeed."
He also points that school governors are volunteers who become governors in order to run an efficient school to the benefit of the community. They are there to serve the community and the school and not just to wield the knife on behalf of the Government.
Ewhurst school in my constituency has no staff room for non-contact time for its teachers. It is not acceptable that, in this day and age, teachers spend non-contact time on a bench in a kitchenette. St. Thomas of Canterbury school is spending 91 per cent. of its budget on salaries, in common with many other schools that are way above the guidelines for salary spend. The recommended level is 80 per cent., but only three schools in the whole of Surrey have gone below that figure. When we reach 90 per cent. on pay and pay costs, the situation is desperate.
Money for in-service training is a joke in our schools, yet they, like others, need to plan for refurbishment. Schools need to make improvements. They need to spend on information, communications and technology. The schools can raise funds, but that is such a distraction from their core business of teaching kids.
Mr. Hawkins: Does the hon. Lady agree that, when she meets the heads of schools in the primary sector, one of their main worries, in addition to the shortage of funds to which she correctly referred, is the immense burden placed on heads, teachers and governors—especially on heads and governors—just to deal with the huge tide of paperwork, circulars and ring binders full of advice that they have statutory obligations to read, which churn out of the Minister's Department? Each head whom I have met during the past seven years has said that the burden is enormous and that the huge tide of paper coming from the Labour Government must be stopped.
Sue Doughty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is right to pay tribute to the people who are handling such enormous problems. It is way beyond what they signed up to, what they wanted to give their personal commitment to and put their lives into—the service of our communities and schools.
I draw the Minister's attention to the problems experienced by infant schools. They face a further hurdle. Children are not funded for full-time places until the term in which they are five years old. Schools must find the money for spring and summer-borns who are in full-time school before their fifth birthday. Will the Minister consider such discrimination in infant schools?
I wish to highlight a further comment by a Guildford head teacher, because our governors and teachers tell the same story. In a long letter to me, he said:
"By September 2005 we are looking at having to provide our teachers with 10 per cent. PPA non contact time. To achieve this we would have to appoint 1.4 Full Time Equivalent of a teacher.

133WH
However, there is some scope in the regulations to use Teacher Assistants to take classes instead of a teacher to achieve the PPA time. My teaching staff are not keen on this approach, but needs may dictate that we have no other choice. In order to balance the budget last year we actually reduced the number of Teacher Assistant hours. Given that covering the PPA time with teachers is too expensive to be a likely solution, then Teacher Assistants would need to be trained to become Higher Level Teacher Assistants to be qualified to provide this role. One would expect that in the interim period namely next year, we would be increasing the number of TAs and providing them with training. Which brings us back to the budget."
In my closing remarks, I want to go back to the budget. Guildford is an economic powerhouse. As a nation, we need our kids to do well. As an MP, I want them to do well. We need them to thrive and to pay taxes to support the education system for the benefit of the country as a whole. Guildford is an area of investment for this country but my schools are being forced to go backwards against all the improvements that we have seen in education. We do not want gold plating. We just want fair treatment. Will the Minister promise to take the situation far more seriously?
4.14 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): It is a pleasure to serve under your beneficent chairmanship again, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I have discovered that hon. Members take two approaches to such debates. One is to seek out common ground, present a fair balance of the facts and find a sensible way forward. The alternative is to paint a picture of disaster and desolation and to try to impress on the audience the gravity of the situation, thereby achieving action. In my experience, the first approach is far more likely to be effective than the second. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) chose to paint such a black picture of the situation in Surrey.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to return to the issue of education funding in Surrey. I had a useful meeting with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and his colleagues, although unfortunately the hon. Member for Guildford was not able to attend. I understand that there have also been Adjournment debates on the subject, which were responded to by the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg).
One harmonious note from the hon. Member for Guildford was her word of congratulation in the first few seconds of her speech for the hard work done by teachers and pupils in Surrey. I am pleased to say that when she speaks of the hard work done by teachers, we can point to the increased number of teachers in Surrey. In 2003, there were 7,660 compared with 7,220 in January 1997. That is an extra 440 teachers, which is an increase of about 6 per cent. I am pleased that they have joined their 7,000 colleagues in working hard on behalf of local pupils.
Over the same period, the number of school support staff working in the county rose from 3,280 to 4,620. I am surprised that the hon. Lady was not able to refer to those statistics while painting her picture of the situation
134WH
in the Surrey local education authority area. She might also have pointed out that the teacher vacancy rate is 1.1 per cent. I am happy to put on record my gratitude to the hard-working to teachers and school leaders who have delivered significant improvements in education in Surrey.
In a non-partisan fashion, it is also important to place it on the record that the achievement of Surrey pupils in some ways reflects the high priority that Surrey county council puts on education, which was noted by Ofsted at the time of its last inspection. I shall address the funding challenges, but it is significant that results across all key stages in Surrey consistently exceed national averages, and the recently introduced comprehensive performance assessment mirrors that situation.
With regard to central Government funding, out of 150 authorities, Surrey is the 65th most generously funded. Between 1997–98 and 2001–05, our estimate is that Surrey's funding per pupil has increased in real terms from £2,820 etc £3,540 per year. That is an increase of about £710, or 25 per cent. in real terms, or about £1,000 in cash terms. That does not include capital investment, to which the hon. Lady briefly referred. In 1996–97, capital funding in Surrey was £8.5 million. In 1997–98 it was £11.7 million, and by this year it was £49.3 million.
The system for devolving funds from the Department for Education and Skills to local education authorities works on the basis that we calculate the number of pupils, give top-ups to reflect extra need—for example, to account for pupils whose families are on income support or the working families tax credit—and then, where appropriate, recognise additional costs. Surrey is 146th out of 150 authorities in respect of percentage of pupils from families on income support and percentage of pupils from families in low-wage employment. Surrey is a prosperous county, although it has areas of deprivation that need to be targeted by the local formula chosen by local government.
The hon. Lady knows that responsibility for funding schools is shared between central Government and local government. Both raise funds for education, and both have formulas for the distribution of those funds. The Government's money goes to the local education authority, which then has a formula for its distribution to schools. If the hon. Lady has concerns about how deprivation in her constituency is recognised in Surrey local education authority's funding formula, she should take them up with the authority.
Mr. Hawkins: First, I am glad that the Minister paid tribute to what Surrey local education authority has done. I declare a personal interest, because my wife, Jenny, was-vice-chairman of Surrey county council's education committee: until 2001. I pay tribute to the work that she and her colleagues did, and that their successors have continued to do.
In the meeting that. other Surrey colleagues and I had with the Minister, he recognised that Surrey has always passported on to schools more than the Government recommend in respect of central Government funding. That is a proud record. Does he not recognise that teachers get frustrated that the extra bureaucracy is taking up so much of their time and money?
Mr. Miliband: The hon. Gentleman was doing well until his last sentence. The passporting by Surrey has.

135WH
met the basis set by the Government, but I was referring to the formula by which Surrey local education authority gives out money to different schools. In a large authority, that is obviously important. His allegation that the money is somehow swallowed in bureaucracy is belied by the fact that there are more teachers and support staff, all of whom are being paid more. That is the obvious explanation of where he money has gone. I thought he was going to refer to problems that he raised at the meeting, which are worth discussing.
Sue Doughty: I want to make a couple of points of clarification. I was surprised to I hear the Minister say that I was not with my county colleagues at the meeting with him. I seem to remember that,. I was there. I see my Surrey colleague, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, agreeing.
We are talking about the funding formula, and I hope that the Minister will address the overall situation. He will have heard me pay tribute to the schools, their excellent work and the improvements that they made at the Government's request. However, we have not addressed issues of deprivation. We are trying to sort out the Government's end of the formula, so I would be grateful if the Minister built on his discussions with me and my Surrey colleagues and addressed those points.
Mr. Miliband: If the hon. Lath says she was at the meeting, I do not doubt it. My notes said that she was not, but I am terribly sorry if I have misled the House and obviously I do not deny her memory of it.
In the summer, the Secretary of State set out the principles he would follow to restore confidence in the school funding system, and in late October he made an announcement on the approach that we are taking. He set out for the first time a guaranteed minimum increase in the budget of every school throughout the country, which will be 4 per cent. per pupil in 2004–05. The guarantee takes account of the unavoidable standstill cost pressures on school budgets, which we, with the National Association of Head Teachers and other teacher organisations, estimate to be 3.4 per cent. That is the first bit of headroom.
The hon. Lady said that she does not know what the increases are for Surrey next year. it is public knowledge that we have ensured that every local education authority will receive a guaranteed minimum funding increase of 5 per cent. per pupil, and Surrey's increase is above the average at 6.3 per cent. That gives further headroom for the authority. In addition, there is a package of transitional support for those authorities that had the lowest increase in 2003–04 and 2004–05.
We also discussed in our meeting the fact that certain schools have been hit hard by changes to the standards fund. The devolution of responsibility for the fund to local budgets was seen as good in theory on both sides of the House. It was urged on us by local government, but in practice it created particular problems in individual schools. The standstill that has been guaranteed for 2004–05 and 2005–06 in the operation of the standards fund gives welcome stability. Unlike the hon. Lady, I do not believe that that will be at the expense of equity. The standards fund is used on the basis of need, and it is right that we keep those funds for the next two years.
136WH
It is important that LEAs play their part in the process of delivering funding to schools, the passporting that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath mentioned and the attempts to limit central spend outside the individual schools budget so that the money goes through to the front line and resources are targeted to ensure that every school is helped to financial sustainability over the medium term.
Hon. Members should also remember the Chancellor's announcement of 10 December, which had a significant impact on school funding. He announced a further £317 million in the revenue support grant for 2004–05 for local authorities with education and social services functions. That is on top of the increases already announced in the provisional settlement. In the case of Surrey, the additional grant amounts to £7.3 million. That means that in 2004–05 the grant from central Government to Surrey county council will rise by 7.7 per cent., which is well above the rate of inflation.
The hon. Member for Guildford mentioned the fact that Surrey faces recruitment challenges because of its proximity to Greater London, and I do not deny that. Pay is not the only factor influencing teachers' decisions, but I was interested in her remark that the stability and experience of the Surrey teaching force mean that they have higher salaries. She will also know that newer staff have the fastest increase in salary on the main pay scale. Their salary rises once a year and those increases are worth between £1,000 and £1,500 an increment. On the upper pay scale, increases occur every two years. She is right to refer to the upper pay spine and I will refer to it briefly in a moment.
The funding formula that we have put in place is designed to be objective and reflect the relative needs of Surrey compared with those of other authorities. It tries to strike a proper balance between the basic funding and the top-ups that I referred to. The hon. Lady knows that Surrey benefits from additional funding through the area cost adjustment, which helps authorities with the highest staff recruitment and retention costs. Surrey's ACA factor is higher than that for those outer London authorities to the east of central London, but just below that for those to the west of central London. I am sure we could debate the size of that ACA—the hon. Lady may believe it should be bigger to reflect the recruitment challenges in Surrey—but I hope she recognises that it exists in the context of the current formula.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the work force agreement, and this academic year is the first year of its operation. Teachers will be relieved of the 24 administrative tasks, which will be passed on to teaching assistants. Next year, there will be a limit in respect of 38-hour cover and in 2005–06 there will be a limit of 10 per cent. in respect of preparation, planning and assessment time.
We have made it clear—most teacher organisations would support this—that work force reform involves the use of the whole budget, not just a marginal part. Our responsibility is to ensure that every school has the headroom to make the necessary changes to deliver on the higher standards that we believe will follow from helping teachers to focus on teaching and giving them.

137WH
support staff. I hope that I have addressed all the issues in the 30 minutes available for the debate.
Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister, but I am a little concerned about his remarks on headroom. We have schools operating with more than 90 per cent. of their budget going on staffing. How much headroom does he think there is?
Mr. Miliband: Headroom refers to the difference between the increase in costs and the increase in budget, both of an LEA and an individual school. The increase in the budget of an individual school is a matter for the LEA. We distribute money to the LEA, but its formula determines what the increase will be for individual schools.
138WH
Some people believe that there should be a national funding formula and that the famed powers of competence and sagacity of the Department for Education and Skill, should be used to distribute funds to 24,000 schools across the country. That is not the Government's position. We believe that the constitutional settlement that gives an important role to local government—people who are closer to the front line than those in Whitehall—is right. That constitutional settlement demands that LEAs make a judgment about how to distribute money, thereby determining the headroom available to each school in its area.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.