Westminster Hall Sitting of 9 March 2004

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

International Role of Women
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr Kemp.]
9.30 am
Helen Jackson:It gives me great pleasure to have secured the debate for international women's week. I attended last night's international women's day celebration in Congress house—the TUC headquarters. Of the messages that we received from other trade unions throughout the world, the one from Georgia really hit home: "I hope that your day will be as bright as a spring morning."
It struck me that there are two ways of looking at the world. History has been written through the eyes of men, and is about wars, power struggles and politics. However, there has always been the other story on which history concentrates less—the story of families, mothers and children, and sad stories of violence and the struggle against male prejudice and wife beating. The Amnesty International report, published last week, reminded us that 70 per cent. of female murder victims are killed by their partners. There is also female genital mutilation. The other week, I saw the play "The Crucible" at the Crucible theatre in Sheffield, and remembered how it used to be the wise and undeferential women who were dubbed witches.
There are also stories of community, showing how we survive if we work together and share, and how people in communities often understand that they have a common interest in preventing conflict. There is also the story of work—usually unpaid—growing crops in the fields for survival and to sell at the local market, and caring for the young, the sick and the old. It is the story of the world told through women's eyes and women's experience. One of the greatest stories of the last century may be the start of the awareness of the economic and political liberation of women who have done most of the world's work for generations. They will no longer do so without financial reward, and they will take their proper place in society.
The purpose of the debate is to focus on the international aspect of gender policy. The poignancy of the message lies with the developing world, and I am delighted that it is an International Development Minister who will respond to the debate today. However, I remind hon. Members that I originally asked for a cross-cutting debate in Westminster Hall, because this issue demands awareness across Departments, including that of the Minister for Women, the Department for Education and Skills, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Home Office with its refugees policy, the Treasury with its influence in the World Bank, and the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
356WH
There is always a connection between how we work to change the culture in the United Kingdom, our commitment to girls' education and women's policies, and how effectively we deliver our development policies overseas. I hope that through the Minister and his Department we can encourage the entire Government to take a more concerted approach. Education is the starting point. The United Nations led this debate when they held the Beijing conference in 1995. It was interesting to see that the delegates were unanimous in putting the education of girls and women at the forefront of the work to make a difference to development throughout the world. The millennium development goals have followed up that important UN leadership. That is important. The third millennium goal is to
"promote gender equality and the empowerment of women"
and to eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education by 2005—preferably—nd at all levels by 2015. Even if we do not meet those targets, many countries in the developing world will be well on the way to meeting them, and certainly to an awareness that free education is necessary to achieve them.
It is still true that two thirds of the world's illiterate are women. We cannot ignore the interrelationship between education and other development goals. When there is little food available, the women in a family often eat last and least. If that happens during pregnancy, it can have disastrous consequences such as maternal mortality and low birth weight. The Global Campaign for Education, which has done some superb work, showed that in Bangladesh, for example, women who have even a fifth grade of education are more likely to eat more. I know that that sounds ridiculous, but simply having that education makes them realise that they must eat. That puts them in a better position to take decisions in their families and communities, and has a knock-on effect on their health, on the health of the community, and on how they take their places in society. The contribution that education can make is as clear as that.
When I visited Malawi, I saw that there is a huge uptake when primary education is free. However, there are insufficient buildings and teachers to accommodate that, so a key strategy that we in the developed world must adopt to achieve the millennium development goal is to help provide those resources in developing countries that accept the need for free education to make that equality happen. I pay tribute to the work of our Departments and bodies such as the Open university, which is trying to make its input into teacher training a priority, as it has crucial access to radio across the world.
We must recognise the link between education and health, and focus on women there. The differential levels of mortality in the world should be a source of shame. Here, where we have a life expectancy of 80 years, we express policy worries that life expectancy may rise, and ask what we will do with all those old people who remain healthy for longer. In Zambia and so many other countries, the life expectancy is half that in this country: the differential is huge. That is not just because of HIV/ AIDS, but other causes including malaria, child diseases such as measles, water-borne diseases and maternal mortality—all of which are easily preventable. However, for the purposes of the debate, I will focus on HIV/AIDS and how women are the key to fighting that

357WH
threat. More than 60 per cent. of those infected with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa are women. The problem is not just that statistic, but the stigma that goes along with it. In many countries, women risk violence if they press their partner to use a condom. They cannot do anything about it, even with education, because of the pressures of violence in their communities.
I was impressed by the conference that was held by the Association of West European Parliamentarians for Southern Africa, AWEPA. in Botswana last year, where we enabled African parliamentarians, men and women, to address the issue of HIV/AIDS. I was also impressed by the intensity with which that debate is starting to happen among those parliamentarians.
I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) and his all-party Africa group, which is undertaking its own study on AIDS in Africa. At the hearing last week, we heard from Asunta Wagura of the Kenya Network of Women with AIDS. That network began with just three or four women trying to pool resources to help one another, but it now has members in their thousands and is making a difference. This health issue is one example of how we can make progress if we work through women.
As HIV/AIDS is addressed by the developed world through increased resources for treatment, we have to be clear that the treatment goes not only to the wealthy men and those people with a bit of power who can take it up, but to the women in their communities, where it will not only make a difference to them but have an impact on stigma and on the whole community.
Joan Ruddock: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, not least because she knows that I cannot stay for the whole debate. I want to bring to her attention the position of women in Afghanistan. The maternal mortality rate is 1,600 women for every 100,000 live births—a shocking statistic. Women are particularly prone to malaria and they represent 70 per cent. of tuberculosis cases in that country. We now know those statistics for the first time. It is important to note that steps have been taken by the transitional authority, and particularly by the United Nations and others, with the safe motherhood initiative, seeking to resolve the problems for all the reasons that my hon. Friend has stated.
Helen Jackson:I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I was going to go on to pay tribute to her work with women in Afghanistan. She has shown how focusing on the need for women to be at the forefront of rebuilding their community is not merely an option but is absolutely crucial to bringing that country out of the horrors of the wars of the past decades into a more secure future.
It is often said that, although education and health matter, economic development and financial necessity will drive forward success in development work. It is worth recognising that even in that field women play a crucial part.
We often hear that there is a major problem with governance and the culture of corruption. On a visit to Sierra Leone last year by the Commonwealth
358WH
Parliamentary Association, of which I was a member, we were fascinated to see how the country's Administration had decided in their programme of micro-finance and micro-credit initiatives to give 97 per cent. of all those resources to projects led or run by women. They were perfectly open about their reasons. We know that those are the projects where the money will be used for the stated purpose. They will have a better awareness that the money is a loan; they will develop a business plan to pay it back and it will therefore be recycled. That is a small way to address the culture of corruption, but I believe that working in such a way, through small-scale initiatives and letting women lead, is the only way of building a change in that culture in those countries that are emerging from great poverty and, in Sierra Leone's case, a nasty civil war.
I am also reminded of South African women's day last year, when we heard from Nomsa Nhlebeya, a wonderful woman farmer. She was a sugar cane farmer who started by being given a few fields in Mpumalanga when her former husband died. She now employs 35 workers, including her current husband, and owns one of the leading small businesses in the sugar industry. She spoke with authority about what needed to be done on fair trade.
My views on all those issues were sharpened in the five years in which I worked in Northern Ireland, where I was given a role that involved listening and talking to women. I am now moving on from economic development to mention the impact that war and conflict have on the work of the Department for International Development and the tragedy that they cause in so many countries that are poor already.
It was clear to me over those years that it was partly the vision of Mo Mowlam, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, that started to make a difference. According to her vision, we must listen to the voices of women in Northern Ireland to get the wholehearted agreement that there should be a peaceful way forward. I pay tribute to the contribution made by Senator Hillary Clinton, then First Lady of the United States, who promoted a "vital voices" campaign across a range of countries, where she raised the issue of putting women at the forefront of small business development and education, to raise their self-awareness and self-expectation, and to make it clear that they had a role to play in public life and politics.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) has been working in respect of Afghanistan, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), for example, is working in Iraq to build the need for women into the post-conflict reconstruction. I am delighted that the new constitution established a 25 per cent. quota, and I was interested to read last week that Senator Hillary Clinton also raised the issue in a speech to the Senate in Washington. In such a way, international networks are brought together and, because of the pressure that they bring to bear, are effective as time goes on.
Mrs. Betty Williams:Does my hon. Friend agree that confidence building is key, whether we are discussing women in this country, the middle east, Afghanistan or wherever, because women have felt undervalued for many years? I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister will say. I have

359WH
personal experience of the issue. I remember fighting an election when my second child was due within three weeks. Some of the electorate—sadly, some of them women—thought. "How dare she stand for the council in that state," not thinking that my condition was temporary, the baby would be born one day and I would be active again. The miners' strike was a prime example of women feeling that they were needed, and they had the confidence to get involved in active politics. Does my lion. Friend agree that confidence building is terribly important wherever we live?
Helen Jackson:I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I acknowledge that point. Most women who have struggled to get into public life and move into politics will recognise it from their own experience, in a way that only they can express. I shall come on to how to pull that into the central area of politics, decision making and public life.
In Africa, I heard some of the experiences and struggles of female African parliamentarians. When I mentioned the subject of family, a typical response was, "Yes, well I have 10 children and I have the constituency to look after. It is difficult to get the family fed and to get the money together." There are difficulties and pressures on such women, and they naturally wonder whether it is their role to make a difference in public life and policy making, or whether they should stay with their families.
We are making the transition to recognising the crucial contribution that women's experiences in life make to their opinions and wider decision making in public life. The most important overall lesson is to share what we have learned across the world, and to learn from others, about how to bring more women into politics and public life, because that goes hand in hand with improving democracy.
We are not perfect: we are still only 50th in the table of the percentage of women in Parliament, and many developing countries are ahead of us. In that context, we must pay tribute to the ANC. Its struggles in South Africa led it to decide to use a quota system when the democratic process started. That has been a beacon for many other developing countries, because it had the courage to do it at a provincial as well as a national level, and we must not forget that.
I want to pay tribute to the British Council. Through its programme of interaction it makes a huge difference. I know that other colleagues in the Chamber have been part of its programme of twinning female parliamentarians in this country with those in central and eastern Africa. It decided to undertake the programme following research, entitled "Just big cars and leaking roofs?", which showed that public perception of politicians in those African countries was low, but that the public perception of female politicians was higher. There was a feeling among the electorate that female politicians would pay less attention to big cars, and more attention to the leaking roofs and rotten roads in their constituencies. There was growing recognition that a vote for a woman would make more difference. The British Council picked up on that research and worked out ways to promote it. Part of its work in Africa, which I totally support, is to emphasise the link between women in positions in civil society and those in politics.
360WH
I was twinned with the hon. Martha Nasho, the Member of Parliament for Ntcheu, South in Malawi. During my week in Malawi, I attended two seminars that were held by the Young Women Leaders network and sponsored by the British Council. They brought together bright, up and coming young women who were making their way in the media, business, the legal profession, teaching and non-governmental organisations with women parliamentarians, who were often older and who make up only 9 per cent. of Members of Parliament. It was impressive to see those women parliamentarians starting to recognise that they could make a bigger impact in their struggle, which we discussed a moment ago, by using those bright young women to put together business plans for their constituency projects, to help with legal issues and to help raise their media profiles. At the same time, the civil society people started to recognise that not all politicians were a waste of time or corrupt and that it was worth working with them. The work done at those seminars was very important, and we came across something similar, but less developed, on last year's CPA visit to Sierra Leone. I pay tribute to those involved, and I know that the Government value their work highly.
I also pay tribute to AWEPA, which I mentioned. The organisation brings European parliamentarians together with African parliamentarians. Sometimes, we as parliamentarians underrate our relevance to such issues. I know that we are not Ministers, but the links between parliamentarians are often those that matter when it comes to developing a concept of democracy and the international context.
I have given a flavour of the issues involved. They include education, health, economic development, conflict resolution and a bigger part for women in public life, and they stretch across Government. To conclude, however, I want to suggest how we might strengthen our approach to such issues.
Much is going on, and achieving our goals will make a tremendous difference to societies around the world. With more co-ordination, we can be more effective. That is true not only of this Government's activities but of activities across Governments. There is a wealth of good will in the Government, NGOs, Europe, the United Nations, the World Bank and other international bodies. Will the Minister and other colleagues therefore consider setting up an interdepartmental committee to bring together know-how and policy across all the relevant Departments? It would have the time-limited task of pulling together a report setting out Government guidelines on international gender policy and taking the issue into every area of discussion.
When I read the Prime Minister's very welcome announcement that he was going to set up a Commission for Africa, I felt that we had an opportunity to do something. When I read the names of the commission's 10 members, however, I found that there was only one woman and that there was nothing about gender in the terms of reference. We have a job to do to ensure that such guidelines become part of every initiative. We could also do more to inject a gender dimension into the NEPAD—New Partnership for Africa's Development—initiative.

361WH
The joint committee should have careful, limited terms of reference, particular tasks and a time within which to work. It should focus strongly on education; it should garner examples of good practice from within Government, outside organisations and the developing world; and it should, I suggest, involve parliamentarians as well as officials. The Minister may wonder whether we need another all-party parliamentary group, but the argument is undeniable: we should press Government to undertake such projects, and to strengthen the focus as we move into the presidency of the G8 and the European Community.
There is urgency to this matter, because the public and the Government want delivery. The debate is not simply a matter of international women's week at the beginning of March; it is taking place because tackling development through the empowerment of women is what works.
10.1 am
Valerie Davey:I am delighted to follow the significant contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and endorse the excellent idea that she put to the Minister.
In Bristol yesterday we began our celebration of international women's day by unveiling a plaque on the house where Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence was born in 1867. She was one of the leading suffragettes and was particularly known for co-editing "Votes for Women". That influential publication was published initially on behalf of the Women's Social and Political Union and later independently of that group. She was a remarkable woman, and not just in her leading role as a suffragette. Before that time, she had spoken out against the Boer war and organised a women's co-operative dressmaking group in London and children's holidays in Littlehampton. In later life she worked actively for peace.
As I left the ceremony and walked down the road to where women were gathering for a discussion, I wondered why more people were not aware of her individual contribution, the work of the suffragette movement generally, and the international links that so many of the women involved in it had. I immediately found myself involved in a discussion with Bristol women whose project for the coming year is the publication of a manifesto for women's health. Instinctively and immediately, as they had begun to talk about improving the health of women in Bristol, they talked about international matters—their concern about HIV/AIDS and female genital mutilation. They wondered what contribution they could make in those contexts.
I left that meeting reflecting on the courage, determination and sheer hard work that women have demonstrated over the decades in this country. I reflected, too, on the international link between women, which they instinctively express and work for while calling for urgent action in this country. It was salutary to be reminded that it is only 75 years since all women in this country have had the vote, and of the importance of that in underpinning everything that women want to do.
362WH
As has been mentioned, the interim governing group in Iraq yesterday announced that there will be 25 per cent. women's representation in the new constitution. That is welcome news. Obviously we want things to develop further, but when we reflect on the situation in this country, we realise what an enormous step forward it is. We trust—indeed, we know—that it will be hugely beneficial for the people of Iraq.
Another area that concerns me, and for which I have been holding my breath, is the island of Cyprus, which is not too far from Iraq. I hope that eventually that divided island will be brought together on entry to the EU. I have been thinking about what led to the new situation there and of the bi-communal vision held by so many for so long, in particular by those who have crossed the divide, either by e-mail, as it developed as a useful connection for people north and south, or by meeting out of the country. The women have taken the lead in that bi-communal vision. Of course there have been business people, ecologists and trade unionists as well, but right from the start the women have been a strong group.
Those women have, I think, called themselves "women across the divide", but I have not been able to confirm that. That is appropriate because those women in the Turkish and the Greek Cypriot groups have kept up their links, have worked with the women of Northern Ireland and the women of Palestine and Israel, and have sought a way forward to heal divides. It is rather invidious to name people, but I shall mention Katie Clerides, for her bold steps as an elected Member to break the conformity, which women have so often done, and reach out a hand of friendship across that divide to her Turkish Cypriot sisters. We hope and trust that the foundation that those women have laid and the work that they have implanted to bring about understanding will come to fruition in the near future.
I should like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to a Ugandan woman, Angelina Acheng Atyam. I met her for the first time only last month, when she came with a delegation from northern Uganda. I find it hard to believe that a conflict has been taking place in northern Uganda over the past 17 to 18 years which is essentially a war against children. It is a conflict in which the Lord's Resistance Army has abducted and used children as either child fighters or sex slaves. In that time, it is estimated that between 20,000 and 22,000 children have been abducted and used in that way. It is estimated that at least 75 per cent. of the Lord's Resistance Army are 11 to 15-year-olds. Until recently, when I looked into the matter more clearly in preparation for another Adjournment debate in this Chamber, I had not realised that children who are abducted from a community in that way and used on the front line of battles are fighting their own people, while those attacking them back, when the battle ensues, are killing their own children. That is the most horrific war situation that I have come across.
Angelina was part of a delegation of community leaders and church leaders. She came because she was a co-founder of the Concerned Parents Association, of which she is now chairperson. There are 5,000 parents in that organisation, working to secure and release their sons and daughters. Angelina lost her daughter, who was abducted in 1996 and remains in captivity. I cannot begin to imagine the pain and horror that those parents

363WH
suffer. However, Angelina presented herself here with the great dignity, patience and forbearing of that delegation. I looked into her eyes and I saw a woman of great courage, bravery and determination. Those are exactly the qualities of the suffragette movement that I have talked about. Those qualities are to be found in all the references that my hon. Friend made to women struggling for justice for women, children and families. Those families in northern Uganda have been torn apart. The children are often made to kill their own family members before being taken away.
The healing that is needed in that community will depend on people such as Angelina. She deserves our utmost support. She is asking for a peaceful resolution and says that additional conflict and war will never bring that about. She is asking for our help, the Government's help and the United Nations' help to initiate further discussions among her Government, our Government, the United Nations and even those people—although she says it reluctantly—who are responsible for the horror in her community. I ask for support for Angelina and the Concerned Parents Association. That is my special plea today.
I cannot finish, however, without also referring to the British Council and the work that it does to bring more women in central and east Africa into roles of responsibility and effective leadership in local and national communities, and to my political twin in Tanzania, Ruth Msafiri of Muleba North. She is working in that same tradition by prioritising education, in particular by trying to gain more secondary schools in her constituency, and by setting up a credit union for women's groups. I honour her for the energy that she puts into her role as a Member of Parliament in Tanzania.
This week, we pay tribute to and celebrate what women have done, but we also ponder how best we can promote those qualities of concern, commitment and hard work. In particular, I urge the Commission for Africa to take on more women members and to take more seriously the role that women play, and should be encouraged to play, in Africa.
10.11 am
Ms Dari Taylor: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) on securing the debate. I am always pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the many roles that women play in our national and international communities.
Some women, such as my mother, define themselves as very ordinary, but are actually extraordinary. I always thought that it was near miraculous that my mother, with great fortitude and energy, managed to organise our family and keep us going on almost no money, so that we all achieved a place at university and did things that she did not have the chance to do.
However, we celebrate not just the many ordinary women such as my mother—who are not ordinary at all—but the women who, against all odds, achieve the opportunity to represent their communities in Parliament. For example, I should like to talk about the Delhi Chief Minister, Sheila Dikshit, who is an extraordinary woman with amazing grace and a delightful, quiet personality, but a sheer tenacity that
364WH
would make her capable of organising the Welsh rugby team—who perhaps need a bit of help in that quarter. However, I also wish to talk about the many women who, from small beginnings in Gujarat, set up the Self Employed Women's Association and have given women, families and the community a belief that they have a positive future.
Recently, I had the privilege of leading a group of 10 elected Labour women parliamentarians on a visit to India. That was a pleasure, but also a privilege, because of the way in which we were greeted, spoken with and involved in the communities that we visited. We met Sonia Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition; Dr. Purnima Advani, the president of the National Commission for Women; Ms Mehbooba Mufti, the president of the People's Democratic Party in Jammu and Kashmir; and Sheila Dikshit, the Chief Minister of Delhi. It was a serious pleasure to meet those women, many of whom had startling levels of responsibility, but who had an enormous focus on what they wanted to achieve for their communities.
While in Calcutta, we visited a DFID project—what a serious pleasure that was, too. I am not talking about the enthusiasm that many people, including my community in Stockton, feel when a Minister or someone from outside visits them. The sheer enthusiasm of the people we visited went further than that. The children did not want us to go. They wanted to shake all our hands and tell us what had gone on in their community. We could not speak their language and they could not understand ours, but a big smile and a shake of the hand do not half cross the barriers effortlessly.
That project spent £3 million. That is not big money in anyone else's budget, but to those people it meant a transformation of their slum dwellings. We sank drains—actually, we provided the money and they sank drains. They created concrete pathways between the houses, so that when the rains came they would not be sliding around on mud. It is a considerable settlement of 3,000 people. They decided where the taps and lavatories should go and how all the other workings should be, and we provided the money. The strength that one could see in that community because it was given that opportunity was profoundly valuable.
Again, I have to say that, on the whole, it was men in DFID who held the purse strings. They were there dealing with the money, but it was the women who spoke to the people, pulled them all together and got them to map out their community, so that they knew where the community centres, taps and so on should be. It was the women who said that if the people of the community took possession of the project, they would feel that it was what they wanted, secure the results permanently and respect it. I was so pleased.
There is so much to say about that small community. It was very important to see the difference that paths and sunk drains meant for one small home. The woman in that home now has a sewing machine. She now reads, as do her children—they have to learn to read so that they can use the equipment to its fullest extent. What a pleasure it was to see that. It was even more of a pleasure for me because, as is the case for many women, one of my jobs in life is to keep my family going and to cook, and the women in India seem to be the only cooks—

365WH
except, of course, in the fancy hotels, where, somewhere along the line, women are not quite seen as competent enough to be chefs. I totally deprecate that.
One young woman was thrilled to show me her home in that small settlement outside Calcutta. There she was on her haunches before an open fire, cooking. She wanted me to see that a chimney had been put in, which was taking away the smoke from the fire. She told me in her own way that her children's chests had improved, their breathing was infinitely better, the house did not smell of smoke, and they felt that that was such an achievement. When I went away from there, I was so thrilled that she was thrilled, but I was so depressed that, in the 21st century, we are still seeing people celebrate the fact that a chimney has been put into their home to take out the smoke.
I say with great warmth to my hon. Friend the Minister that we need many more practical women to define and operationalise the way in which DFID should deliver its projects. In the 21st century, we should not be organising where taps and chimneys should go. Most of us would have thought that that happened without the need for much consideration. For the moment, however, let us go on, because the visit was positive and Calcutta was positive.
Speaking with the National Commission for Women was, again, an important moment for all the women in the delegation, because there was a commonality of hope and of problems. As people spoke around the table, we heard about how we can deliver within homes the opportunity to maximise a family's income and the achievements that flow from that. Once again, however, it left a feeling of disappointment, although we knew that it was going to happen.
Every time I speak with women in different groups, I have the same conversations again and again, including one about women confidently challenging domestic violence. The marker was that it was not just men who were abusing women and their families, but that mothers-in-law were supporting it because they were supporting their sons. There is a nasty sense of lack of control. I believe that with twinning and support from British women, and women of other nationalities, Indian women will become as confident as ours are about challenging it. Inevitably, we had a discussion about the glass ceiling, with so many women of quality and serious talent finding it impossibly difficult to move up the greasy pole.
In Jammu and Kashmir, discussion centred more on migrant groups. The war between Pakistan and India has cost ordinary folks very dearly, as war always does throughout the world. We spoke to a community of 300,000 displaced people, who had moved out of the valley of Kashmir. away from their farms and homes, who were too frightened to return. It is sometimes difficult in debates to get the balance right, but my balance now has to be to say it as it is. Within that community, everyone who spoke formally to our delegation was a man; everyone who was delivering, whether in education or looking after the elderly, was a woman. We must recognise that wherever we are, women find it so much more difficult to achieve positions that they deserve. Their skills in schooling and supporting the rest of the community were very evident.
366WH
The depression, the sense of absolute concern, the feeling of anger and the desire not to be displaced were so evident, to put it mildly. They want, as anyone would, to go home and to believe that the peace between Indian and Pakistan is now set on course. I ask the Minister to ensure that our contribution to the discussion on India and Pakistan refers to that community's need to maintain the peace.
I should like to make, quickly but importantly, a brief comment about the Chief Minister of Delhi. As I said earlier, Sheila Dikshit was quiet and gently spoken; one could have believed that she was a woman who would have been pushed around, but one would have been totally wrong. She was a very focused and tough female. We spoke about water, space and people living on the streets. She carefully told us, "I am organising the water companies, because they do not manage water. I am speaking to the state Government to ensure that the management of what we have can actually ensure sufficient water for this community There isn't a problem about amount. There is a problem about the way that it is used.'" She cited the management of a number of areas. We spoke about people on the streets: it is quite the most unpalatable sight to see communities living under a tarpaulin, or less, on the streets. She told me that she was speaking with the Governments of surrounding states because the migrant population coming into Delhi is enormous, with more than a million people moving in every year. It is impossible to handle in terms of housing. She said that employment opportunities in rural communities must be built up, so that people do not feel that they have to move to Delhi. They can live where they were born, as most of them want. Over her six years, to great acclaim, she has seen the amount of green space in Delhi available for public access increase significantly, such that everybody wanted to claim it.
I want to end not on Sheila Dikshit, who is a robust woman with a total command of the situation and total determination to achieve, but on Gujarat. I did not visit Gujarat this time; I went there on my previous visit to India. When I was there, I saw many different Government offices, but the one group that stood out was the Self Employed Women's Association. SEWA is a group of women who have put practical projects together and used the skills of their community to maximum effect. They have ensured that the needlework or soft-furnishing competence of an Indian community translates to a retail business, and the community is benefiting enormously.
The group has ensured that., because people want to eat, the women have become farmers. They manage the land with great care, and they have a retail outlet so that they can sell what they grow. They set themselves up with a small grant from the Government, which they have paid back, because—this is the dignity of SEWA—they set up a credit union bank. The group is exclusively for women, and ordinary women who may have only 10 rupees can save them secure in the knowledge that the money will be used only for their benefit and that of their families and community. The group's work is astounding. It is creative and practical, and it has changed the sense of what future can be available for the ordinary people of Gujarat.
My final point is something that all my sisters—hon. Members of this Parliament—have spoken about. Indian political parties made a commitment to ensuring

367WH
that 33 per cent. of their Parliament will be made up of women, but that policy has been shamefully shelved. We spoke to all the chief Ministers, from Sonia Gandhi to anyone else we could, to find out the details of the policy. All the political parties agreed it, but not one Government have been prepared to put it into practice. We must persuade them that capturing the quality of mind, tenacity and energy of women in the political world ensures unquantifiable benefits.
The Confederation of Indian industry, the high commission in London and many other generous bodies from the Indian community sponsored the visit that the 10 Labour parliamentarians took to India. I thank them publicly. As has been said, the more we speak, network and twin with each other, the more we benefit. Women's lives are creative and a focus in all our communities; they should always be a focus in our political community.
10.29 am
Sandra Gidley:I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) on securing the debate. I do not want to be too churlish, but it is a shame that in the debates last Friday and today, only women have taken part. My party is as guilty in that as any.[Interruption.] I apologise, as the Minister is clearly not a woman. However, he has to he here—he is not here from choice.
Last week's debate focused on the post-conflict work in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I will not rehearse it today. However, I was pleased that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough raised that vital subject. At some stage in the future, I would like us to debate what women are doing in that regard. I have submitted many requests for a debate on United Nations Security Council resolution 1325, and other hon. Members would be welcome to join me. As women, we should be particularly interested in the issue. Today, however, I shall focus on two issues: HIV/AIDS and the Amnesty International report "It's in our hands", which is part of a campaign to stop violence against women.
I make no apology for talking about a subject as specific as HIV/AIDS. It is one of the biggest problems facing women today, although it is not recognised as a women's issue. Some people take an interest in that aspect of HIV/AIDS, but much of the general public still regard it as something that affects only gay men. That is clearly not the case. Since HIV/AIDS was first discovered 20 years ago, more people have died from it than died of the black death in the middle ages. In sub-Saharan Africa, an estimated 12.2 million women and 10.1 million men carry the virus, so its prevalence seems to be greater in the female population.
In South Africa, one in 10 people are HIV-positive. The country has been described as the rape capital of the world, and violence is fuelling the epidemic. In such an atmosphere, people feel that no one is safe and that no one can be trusted. Speaking to the New Internationalist in 2002–1 suspect that the same comments could still be made today—a 30-year old Johannesburg activist described how she was infected:
"I was walking home from work when he drove up to me. He was dressed as a priest, soft-spoken and sweet. There was even a bible on the seat of his car. I said: 'Father, how can I help you?"
368WH
He asked directions to a church. It was close to my place. I thought to myself, why shouldn't I help this priest, only to find later, he was going to be my rapist."
Everyone has mentioned women they have met who have had an impact on them. I met Princess Zulu—she is not a real princess—who came to talk to DFID about securing more money for children, who are, so to speak, the second-hand victims of HIV/AIDS. She was very healthy and very attractive, and she had developed the rather bizarre practice of waving down lorry drivers, jumping into their cabs, pretending to offer sex and then saying, "Well, actually, I am HIV-positive." They are all shocked because she looks so healthy and normal. That is one of the issues with AIDS. In the past, there were lots of pictures of people who had clearly been ravaged by some sort of disease. Increasingly, however, those with access to anti-retroviral therapy do not look ill.
Someone said that marriage was the answer, but it is not, because many women contract the virus from their husbands, who may have multiple partners. It is difficult for a woman to insist that her husband should wear a condom, because he will assume that she is sleeping around, and the issue of violence is also intertwined with that. He will think that she does not trust him. We have all heard of such cases.
When a woman contracts AIDS or dies from it, the consequences for her children can be stark. In many cases, they may no longer be able to access education. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough spoke movingly about the need for education and about some of its unforeseen benefits. If young women have no education or skills, however, they may be forced to go to the cities or elsewhere and become sex workers, and so the cycle continues. We must find a way of breaking that cycle.
Much work is being done to develop vaccines and microbicides. For those who do not know what microbicides are, they are an exciting development. A woman can protect herself from HIV by using one, and the man does not have to know that she has used it. She can protect herself without risking his anger. Much work has also been done to promote awareness programmes, the most common of which is the ABC programme—"Abstain, be faithful, use a condom".They are not, however, the complete answer. A similar campaign that was introduced in Cambodia managed to reduce quite significantly the number of HIV-positive women who attended the local hospital to have their babies. It sometimes seems as if all these efforts are a drop in the ocean, but it is well worth making them.
Sadly, a large part of the problem is still gender equality. The good news, however, is that there is a growing number of programmes that focus on the empowerment of women—I hate the word "empowerment", but I cannot think of another one—human rights education and raising self-esteem. Poverty does not cause HIV/AIDS, but it is the ideal incubator. Gender and poverty are inextricably linked. Some 70 per cent. of the world's poor are women, and poor women are the most susceptible to HIV/AIDS. I could talk about that all day. I pay tribute to the latest Amnesty International campaign. What is great about it is that Amnesty International is not a feminist organisation, which is almost a first. I hope that the campaign will be supported equally by men and by women.

369WH
Amnesty International has some horrifying statistics on violence. One out of every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime, usually by someone known to her. The Council of Europe stated that domestic violence is the major cause of death and disability among women aged 16 to 44, and accounts for more death and ill health than cancer or traffic accidents. Why on earth are we not doing more about it? By asking that question, I am not dismissing what the Government are doing to tackle the problem by introducing the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill.

It is also estimated that more than 60 million women are missing from the world as a result of sex-selective abortions and female infanticide. The Amnesty International campaign deals with many of the key areas that, sadly, I do not have time to discuss. I was particularly struck by a small section of the campaign literature on the Dalit community of untouchables—the lowest caste—in India. Dalit women are treated worse than animals, and are made to do menial jobs such as removing night soil. Their poverty, although caste-based, is forced on them. It struck me that this is not a women's issue, because women from the higher castes do not do anything to help them. We must try to get the message across that it is not right to discriminate against people in this way. The talk of sisterhood in Westminster last Thursday does not work everywhere; it is more of a dream than a reality.
I end by paying tribute to the British Council. I have been taking part in this year's scheme and hope to visit my counterpart. Ultimately, however, we must get men more involved if these issues are to be taken more seriously.
10.39 am
Mrs. Caroline Spelman:I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) on securing the debate. We had a debate on women in Government time in the House, and I chose to focus on domestic issues and the pay gap suffered by women in this country, because we already knew that the hon. Lady had secured today's debate. This allows us two bites of the cherry.
There have been many events relating to international women's day yesterday, and it is right to record the women's world day of prayer last Friday. We have an opportunity to discuss domestic and international issues. What saddens me is that, in both those contexts, the focus has returned to violence against women. Hon. Members may know that 25 November is the international day against violence against women. However, it is hard to get away from the fact that when considering the issues facing women around the world and in this country, violence remains one of the main problems. I support Amnesty International's campaign against violence against women. The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) made the valid point that Amnesty International is not specifically a women's organisation, so it is good that it has taken up the cause on domestic violence.
I recently saw shocking figures—official Russian Government figures—that claim that 14,000 women a year are killed by their partners or relatives in Russia.
370WH
However, the Russian Government acknowledge that no legislation is in place to prevent such appalling acts. The sheer numbers are horrifying. In this country, two women and two children die each week as a result of domestic violence. No one could argue that the problem is not serious. Together with the oppression and denial of equal rights in scores of countries around the globe, it is clear that the international role of women is in desperate need of affirmative action.
I want to focus on two countries in particular, about which I denied myself the opportunity to speak last Thursday. I shall talk about women in Afghanistan, as have other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), and women in Iraq. Both countries present a test case for the future of women's rights. As a nation, we are part of an occupying force in one of those countries and a multinational peacekeeping force in the other, so we have a role to play.
Despite the relatively enlightened historical position of women in Iraq compared with those in neighbouring countries, I am concerned about whether women's representation and their position in Iraqi society will advance or regress. There is no room for complacency. I am delighted that the Governing Council has set a quota that a quarter of National Assembly members should be female, but culturally that has encountered stiff resistance. Despite the coalition's moves to bring democracy to the country, the influence of hard-line leaders presents a serious obstacle to securing equal treatment in the institutions of the newly liberated Iraq. It would be wrong to skate over that reality. The importance of setting a precedent in such a formative period in the country is history is paramount if the long-term future of women in Iraq is to be secured.
In Afghanistan, where the electoral process is more advanced, similar difficulties are being encountered in the registration of women for the June elections. Aside from the general problems of preparing for the poll, registration of women is standing at about 2 per cent. of the eligible electorate, which is well below even the 10 per cent. figure of the total eligible population. When I was in Afghanistan in August 2003, I met the UN representative responsible for enfranchising those women and making it possible for them to vote, and I realised how practical the problems of achieving that are. For a start, the country is still insecure. A military cordon is provided by, among others, our soldiers to keep the peace, but even within the cordon the situation cannot be described as entirely secure. Beyond it, the country is highly insecure. That makes seeking out the women whom the UN representatives want to register to vote a particularly difficult task. There is also the problem of identification in a country where female modesty is taken to lengths that are quite hard for us to imagine. There is a practical problem, which is that it is difficult for a woman under the burqa to be positively identified. The cultural issues attached to that are again not to be underestimated.
Given our role in the country, it is important that hon. Members should not miss the irony that Afghanistan is a deeply traditional country. In enfranchising the women, there is a considerable chance that some of those deeply conservative attitudes will become further entrenched. The women are not used to exercising their views free from their husbands. Enfranchising them may

371WH
lead to a more conservative election result than otherwise. I had not spotted that irony until I went there and talked to the women and the UN representatives who are enfranchising them. It is important to bear that in mind. There is work to be clone not only in enfranchising women but in educating them about empowerment and their freedom to think and do as they please. We seem to take those freedoms entirely for granted in our countries; indeed, some even choose not to vote.
There is one another thing about which I should like to speak, again because there is an opportunity to do something about it in the legislation that is completing its course in another place and will shortly come to our House. The topic is also not unrelated to international development. The position on the legal status of women asylum seekers who are subject to domestic violence has been opaque, and at worst discriminatory. Many women who come to this country to join their partners or spouses or who are resident here are subjected to violence before they are granted citizenship or leave to remain. At present they face the choice of either staying in that violent relationship or pulling out and risking being forced to return to the country from which they came. The latter is not an easy option, with the loss of face involved in retreating from a relationship that the family back home might have thought to be a way up for the individual concerned.
The Government's concession on domestic violence in 1999 went some way to addressing that concern. A probationary period was to be granted to allow victims to apply for indefinite leave to stay in the UK if clear evidence of violence could be shown. However, that still left significant gaps, leading to the perpetrators of violence going unpunished and failing to provide the victims with the necessary support that they rightfully deserve. I invite hon. Members to think about the difficulty for a woman in that position who may not speak English, may be frightened and will perhaps be behind closed doors when the violence is inflicted. It is difficult for us to conceive how hard it must be to surmount that obstacle, to leave the home where the violence is occurring, to know where to turn and to find someone who understands the problem. Those who work with women in that position advise me that it remains a significant problem.
To many of us, domestic violence is one of the unseen tragedies of this country. A quarter of the female population experience it at some time in their lives. We welcome the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill and shall support the Government by seeking to refine it and make it the best possible piece of legislation to tackle the problem. However, I am anxious that we should not overlook the plight of female asylum seekers who experience domestic violence With the backing of Southall Black Sisters, an organisation working to highlight the problems of violence against female immigrants and minorities, Baroness Anelay, Baroness Walmsley and Lord Dubs moved an amendment in the Lords to extend the provisions of the 1999 legislation to include all victims of domestic violence and, most importantly, to allow them access to public funds to help them with their problems. The persistence of such problems indicates that even within the supposedly civilised western world the unequal treatment of women is real and current. It is an issue for every Government, not least our own.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) on securing the debate. We have had an excellent debate with strong contributions from Opposition Members and from my Back-Bench colleagues as well.
Almost three decades have passed since 1975, when the UN General Assembly confirmed international women's year. During that period, considerable progress has been made in understanding the nature of gender inequality. It is recognised now that not only do women and girls bear the brunt of poverty, but that the empowerment of women is an essential precondition for eliminating poverty more generally and for upholding human rights.
In Africa, we know that for a whole series of cultural, social, economic and political reasons women do not enjoy anything like equal access to opportunity in terms of ownership of assets or access to education, health care and financial services. Indeed, in many African countries they are still considered legally to be minors. Against such a backdrop, the under-representation of women in Government structures locally, regionally and nationally is hardly surprising.
Similar problems are faced in Asia, too. In south and south-east Asia, women account for some 60 per cent. of young people infected with HIV/AIDS and the sexual exploitation of women, as a number of contributions emphasised, is widespread. My hon. Friend made a point about education. In Asia, we know that the highest number of girls are out of school.
My hon. Friend touched on issues of governance and was supported in that by a number of other speakers. There has been positive progress in many parts of Africa. The Southern African Development Community has sought to ensure a minimum of 30 per cent. representation in member states' national Parliaments by 2005. That has been achieved in South Africa and Mozambique. To be blunt, we know that it is not likely to be achieved across the rest of the SADC member states, but it has sparked off a debate across the region, which has been productive.
Helen Jackson:Does my hon. Friend agree that the SADC region has made more progress in a decade in establishing that aspect of democracy than we have managed in several hundred years?
Mr. Thomas:Yes, the statistics can only bring out the accuracy of my hon. Friend's comment. One other example that will give encouragement in terms of the progress that has been made in the institutions that serve the needs of Africa is that the African Union has ensured that half its Commissioners are women. That is a first for what is a new, Africa-wide organisation and it can only help to tackle some issues that hon. Members have referred to.
We heard yesterday that the Bangladeshi Government have committed to appoint a series of new women MPs to the Parliament. In Afghanistan and Iraq—the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and for Sheffield,

373WH
Hillsborough alluded to this—the progress that has been made on the constitutional position of women is clearly extremely welcome.
The hon. Member for Meriden was absolutely right to warn us that we cannot sit back and assume that simply because quotas have been set and progress has been made on the constitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq the education and empowerment issues beneath the question of constitutional parlance have been resolved. I hope that she and others will welcome the fact that my Department has contributed some £500.000 to support UNIFEM's work in Iraq—supporting the development of women's groups at Government level and working with the governing council more generally to take proper account of the needs of women. I accept absolutely that more needs to be done in that area.
My hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough and for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) made their representations about the Commission for Africa at an opportune moment. One woman commissioner has been confirmed, as they acknowledged. Full membership in general has not yet been confirmed and we are still seeking other possible women commissioners.
Similarly, with respect to the terms of reference, we hope to ensure that gender will continue to be a major focus in the work of the Commission for Africa. There will be an opportunity for women Members of Parliament to contribute. Indeed, we want to ensure that parliamentarians can contribute to the work of the commission generally. I look forward to the day when my hon. Friends are perhaps among those who lead on such contributions, and other women Members of the House might do so as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough mentioned NEPAD, and she will know that several eminent African women parliamentarians, such as Graca Machel, will be involved in the peer review mechanism, for example, as part of that work. I shall reflect further on my hon. Friend's comments on the Commission for Africa and the need for more work in this area.
Another matter rightly highlighted by my hon. Friend is the importance of education and the work of the Global Campaign for Education to highlight the fact that two thirds of the world's illiterate are women. That issue is considerably important to the work of my Department. We are, internationally, planning to increase our investment in education by up to £1 billion over the next five years. An example of that investment is the £2.2 million being given to UNICEF in support of
374WH
its accelerated girls' education strategy, which is aimed at ending gender disparities in 25 of the countries that have the poorest access to education for girls.
Mrs. Williams:Will my hon. Friend join us in paying tribute to Soroptimist International and Business and Professional Women, which have worked tirelessly on the issues that he is raising?
Gareth Thomas:I of course join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to those organisations. Indeed, I pay tribute to her for continuing to support and advocate their work.
We have just announced an extra £100 million over seven years for a programme of improvement in education in Bangladesh. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough mentioned Bangladesh, where the overall literacy rate is just 43 per cent., whereas for women it is 26 per cent. That shows the scale of the challenge that remains.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough and the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) flagged up the importance of progress on HIV/AIDS. I am sure that they will welcome the fact that UNAIDS has initiated a global coalition on women and AIDS. It seeks, first, to prevent new HIV infections among women and girls and, secondly, to ensure equal access to HIV care and treatment. That is particularly important in the context of the World Health Organisation's three-by-five initiative. We are committed, along with the WHO, to ensuring that that leads to equal access to treatment for women as well as for men, and we have just announced a contribution of £3 million to its work.
The coalition aims, thirdly, to accelerate research into microbicides. Yesterday, I was delighted to attend St. Mary's hospital to see some clinical trials, which we are funding, involving microbicides. Fourthly, the protection of women's inheritance and property rights is a relevant issue.
Violence against women has also been highlighted as an issue of particular importance. A day has been earmarked for debating that issue, and that will offer a welcome opportunity to return to it. I add my praise to that which has been given to Amnesty. It does important work in challenging us to go further as parliamentarians and as Ministers in our work in this area. Internationally, our work on it is done with the United Nations Development Fund for Women, the WHO and the International Labour Organisation. We also fund work bilaterally.
I recognise that I have probably not been able to do justice to the quality of the contributions from all Members, but I will reflect further on them and write to those Members whose points I have not replied to.

Rossgate School
11 am
Mr. Tony McWalter: I am going to go at a gallop, as I have a lot to say. I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to raise the matter.

It was 22 September 2003. The man who had the reputation as the best head teacher in Hemel Hempstead, Mr. Chris Pratt, was welcoming a team from Ofsted led by Mrs. Sue Walker. The school was Rossgate school in Hemel Hempstead, a town just designated by the Halifax building society as the place in which those wishing to get on the housing ladder have the most difficult task in the country. Wages are so much on the low side, and house prices so much on the high side, that one would need 11.6 times the average wage in the area to purchase a starter home The next town in the Halifax survey was a considerable distance behind.
Rossgate school in Gadebridge is in an area in which many of those who will never be able to afford to buy a house live. They are often in accommodation from which they would like to escape. Single parents live in second-floor flats and would love their children to have access to a garden. There are elderly pensioners in council houses who are desperately worried about the imminent closure of the local post office and how much it will cost them out of their minimal income just to collect their entitlement. The school faces many challenges, but it has historically transcended them, taking in children at four who often have considerable problems with socialisation and language, and turning them out at age 11 with achievements at and above the national average. The school has, and deserves, a high reputation in the local and education community.
The school was to be inspected in a new way. As a school that was doing well, it was to be subjected to a "light-touch" Ofsted inspection, called at short notice and with a brief visit. I want to make it clear that that idea has my full support. If a school is doing well, it is not necessary constantly to subject it to full, rigorous and critical inspection. A light-touch Ofsted inspection could be a touch on the tiller—a check on something that has been going well to see whether it is still going well. However, those who are asked to carry out such an inspection have to leave behind them their normal views of what they are doing in an inspection. They need to be trained to carry out that new task in the same way as we now ask our police to deal not only with criminal behaviour but with antisocial behaviour. A change of role needs a change of attitude.
Rossgate was not subjected to a light-touch inspection in the way that I have described. Within three and a half days, the team led by Mrs. Walker claimed that those at the school and in the wider education and social community were subject to some sort of self-delusion. On the basis of the most fleeting observations, the inspection team used the full weight of its powers to bring about the resignation of the head teacher and to designate this successful school as having serious weaknesses.
I ask the Minster today to embrace one key idea. I suggest that if there is a light-touch inspection, there should be a restriction on the decisions that can be made as a result of it. In particular, if a team decides that a
376WH
school that is doing well enough to have a light-touch inspection is in fact not doing well, its powers should be limited to ordering that the school be subject to a full inspection. A team should not be allowed to make claims that can be justified only when a full inspection has been carried out.
In my experience, inspectors such as those on the Walker team carry out a light-touch inspection in the same way as they would a full Ofsted inspection, with one difference. The brevity of the process curtails the right of staff to present counter-arguments to suggestions that certain things are going wrong when they think that the inspectors are in error. The brevity also means that assumptions made by inspectors, which might be erroneous, as was the case for Rossgate, about what might count as "a similar school"—a phrase repeated several times in the report—cannot be challenged or corrected.
One specific assumption made by the inspectors in Rossgate was that Hemel Hempstead is a leafy Hertfordshire town that should have high levels of attainment. There are constant references in the inspectors' report to "a similar school", when it was not at all clear that they would know what a similar school was. They did not know my area the way I do. There is a high level of rented property in my area, from which families have no prospect of improvement. There are many single-parent families, and housing circumstances generate a poor level of social skills much of the time. There is a strong need to develop pupils' attention span. Most new towns have a relatively poorly developed set of cultural amenities, such as, for example, an abysmal library in Hemel Hempstead and no cultural amenities in the town centre.
It is agreed by everyone in the community that I represent that Rossgate school's achievements were extraordinarily good, given that background. The head was thought of as of the highest calibre by other head teachers in the area, to the point that he was regarded as a sort of super-head, who could be called in to help failing schools to overcome those deficiencies that a full Ofsted inspection had rightly identified. He did that at Leverstock Green school in my constituency, which has never looked back from the tremendous contribution made by Chris Pratt, whom the inspectors thought lacked leadership and vision.
A second assumption made was that the inspectors thought that the children in the nursery class that they saw were beginners, when in fact most of them had been in school some considerable time—six months or so. That caused the inspectors to think that the children had a higher level of attainment when entering the school, and it served to mask the fact that many of the children had and have great difficulties with concentration and self-discipline. Negative judgments were made about the nursery because it was thought of as not doing enough for children who already had considerable social skills, when in fact their attainment of those skills was a tribute to the work done in the nursery, which again many schools in Hemel Hempstead deemed a beacon of its type.
The general tenor of the inspectors' report was that the school was coasting, and that its management failed to give it a sense of direction, or a vision. In fact, the report itself is radically inconsistent, claiming for instance that classes in years 5 and I were unsatisfactory

377WH
when not a single unsatisfactory class in those years was witnessed. There was a distinct air of Alice's White Rabbit about the inspection: everywhere one looks in the report, the inspectors had too little time to get more than a most fleeting impression of the work of Rossgate school.
In their subsequent report, the governors complained that the inspectors broke the code of conduct that should have governed their behaviour. I would submit that in some ways it was impossible for them to have conformed to their code of conduct. They visited a school with an extraordinarily high reputation. and decided that there was some sort of self-delusion on the part of the staff, and in particular its head, but they had no time to obtain the evidence that might have led them to correct that initial judgment. They found that, of the 41 classes that they visited, four were unsatisfactory. Their judgments throughout were delivered in a confrontational and unco-operative way. For instance, a teacher who had a "very good" rating for a class, and who asked what could be done to achieve an "excellent" rating, was told by an inspector:
"The hairs did not stand up on the back of my neck."
Such a way of dealing with that question demonstrates incompetence of the worst sort. That judgment is ultra-subjective and offers no guidance or suggestion for improvement. In another case, a teacher was told that a class was "good", but that it could not be given a "very good" because the inspector had not been able to attend the whole of the class. The shortage of time did not prevent the inspection team from producing the most damning judgments on the school's character, but such a White Rabbit syndrome was invoked to avoid praising them.
There were four "unsatisfactory" classes out of 41. What of them? Two of the classes were taught by newly qualified teachers who were new to their posts when they were assessed—at the beginning of the autumn term, which is right at the beginning of the academic year. It is hardly managerial weakness not to have turned NQTs into perfect specimens of the didactic profession within three weeks. Two of the unsatisfactory classes were in the nursery.
One aspect of the inspection that I wish to highlight is the gross insensitivity of the inspection team. They arrived at the school on the next working day after the funeral of the much-loved head of the nursery, Rebecca Dickenson, who died of motor neurone disease at the age of 53. She was typical of the teachers at the school, and is one of the people who make me glad that I joined the Labour party. She was a Labour councillor who displayed the kind of love and considerateness for her fellow human beings that it is the greatest of joys to encounter. She was my friend. Her loss was a terrible blow, and the light that she spread around the school has been for ever extinguished.
Chris Pratt knew exactly how to handle that terrible event, but the inspection team, who decided entirely to overlook those circumstances, castigated him for his lack of leadership at the very time at which he displayed a quality of leadership that all who knew Rebecca and Chris would regard as typical of the man. He has resigned since those events because, I suspect, he
378WH
thought that the judgments of the inspection team were inconsistent, woolly, ill-informed, repetitively erroneous, entirely without a spark of the co-operative spirit that is so vital to the educational enterprise and, as a result, unimplementable. As a former teacher of logic, I must say that the 'improvements" suggested by the inspection team appear to be incapable of being made, because they refer to "weaknesses" that were mostly of the team's invention.
Following those events, Chris Pratt was hospitalised for six days because he suffered from heart palpitations. Those who are devoted to children and schooling take it badly when, in three days, a team of people who seem to be careless of how hard it is to build a successful school in a difficult area such as Gadebridge can utter judgments that have no right of appeal or scope to be countermanded. Of course, the governors tried to remedy the situation: they pointed to what they said were 92 errors of fact made by the inspection team. However, those who are unaccountable need not address their limitations.
Rossgate was not coasting. It had a vision: to do its best for children, many of whom must do a great deal to reach a point at which they are willing to engage in the educational process. Rossgate was not stagnating. It was providing a secure, stable learning environment, while embracing the changes faced by all education. For example, its information and communications technology suite was:1 mere 12 months old, but instead of praising the suite and the work that had gone into it, the inspection team chose to focus on the general disruption caused by the new suite: the fact that the school had not yet sorted out what to do with the computers that remained in the classrooms. A problem that was caused by dynamism was considered by the inspectors to be evidence of stagnation.
There appears to be no proper right of appeal for a school that is deemed to have serious weaknesses—except, perhaps, to this place. Such a judgment seems not to be changeable. The inspectors received the governors' objections and, it seems, were charged with responding to them. I believe that to be wrong for both light-touch Ofsted reports and full inspections. Usually, if a school is deemed to have a problem, that judgment is accepted and the school gets on with addressing the issue. Like most MPs, I have seen several schools get results from inspections that are negative but helpful, and education of the children has been improved once the recommendations have been implemented. However, the Rossgate inspection was not like that. I am astonished that a school that is located in a difficult area but achieves results that are above the national average at the end of year six, could be treated so brusquely and contemptuously. The children and parents of Rossgate school feel devastated by the outcome. Moreover every school head in my constituency has said tome, "If that can happen to Chris Pratt, it can happen to me."
Ofsted has spread the fear of arbitrary judgment throughout my constituency. No one who has seen what the inspectors say about the school recognises it as accurate. Mr. Pratt, a man who is regarded as a super-head, is now a data entry clerk on the local industrial estate. If teachers are treated like that, it is hardly surprising that we find it difficult to motivate people to join the profession.

379WH
I seek structural change as the outcome of this debate. As a supporter and advocate of light-touch Ofsted inspections, I did not think that they would be implemented in such a clumsy and irreversible way. If a school is deemed to be doing well, the effect of a light-touch inspection should be either to commend it further, or to judge that it is continuing 10 make good use of taxpayers' money. If a school seems to be slipping, it should be given guidance about what needs correction, and if it seems to be slipping badly, it should be subjected again to the full weight of a full Ofsted inspection.
I also seek an apology for Chris Pratt. He has been a distinguished head teacher for 17 years, but was judged a failure in three days. The supporting argument for the negative remarks about management at Rossgate School is weak in the extreme, but based on the judgment of those inspectors, Mr. Pratt was removed from doing what everyone in the community that I represent wants to see him doing—helping children to learn.
It is clear that such problems are not unique to Hemel Hempstead.The Times Educational Supplement of 13 February dealt with a similar problem at Seaford Head community college in East Sussex. The head teacher in that case was a sort of head teachers' expert, who answered questions in the TES about being a head. He resigned after the inspection, and was reported as being deeply critical of the harshness of the new inspections framework.
I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that she will give serious attention to the matters that I have raised, and that any structural weaknesses will be addressed and instructions to inspection teams revised as appropriate.
11.18 am
The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge): I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) on securing the debate. In his speech he demonstrated his close personal interest in the issue and his concern to represent the interests of his constituents.
All of us in the education team value and recognise the importance of the contribution that teachers make to raising standards and thereby improving the achievements of all our children. I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that the focus of everything that we do must be to ensure better outcomes for our children— that that must be our starting point. We must consider the job that Ofsted does in that context.
Ofsted has a critical job to do in inspecting, reporting and providing expert advice, underpinned by the evidence of its inspections. High standards are expected of Ofsted, as they are of teacher; in our schools. I am therefore always concerned when teachers or others feel that the inspection system has let them down.
My hon. Friend expressed concerns about the inspection process at Rossgate school and about Mr. Pratt's subsequent decision to resign. As regulator of the contracted-out school inspection system, Ofsted is responsible for assuring the quahty of inspections, and for investigating complaints when they arise. As part of that quality assurance process Her Majesty'
380WH
inspectorate visits a sample of inspections and reviews reports and inspection evidence. In fact, Rossgate's inspection was subject to such a monitoring visit.
While the outcomes of those visits are confidential, I thought that it would be helpful to share with my hon. Friend, as the lead inspector has enabled me to do, the fact that the inspection met Ofsted's requirements. A quality assurance process has therefore been put in place through Ofsted itself. It is also worth putting this into perspective, and I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that Ofsted monitors how its customers view its processes. Nine out of 10 schools are satisfied with the quality of their inspection report. There is also a pretty thorough complaints procedure, with which I am sure my hon. Friend is familiar.
In the 2002–03 school year, the last year for which we have figures, Ofsted dealt with only 48 formal complaints about school inspections. Nearly 4,000 inspections were conducted, so that is about 5 per cent, which seems indicative of a relatively high satisfaction rate in a pretty contentious area where people are being held to account for their performance in their professional job.
Ofsted has, I understand, received eight letters of complaint about the inspection of Rossgate School. Of those, five came from parents, one from a former teacher at the school, one from a learning assistant at the school and one from a governor at another school. The letters have been referred to the inspection contractor for investigation, in line with Ofsted's procedures. However, no formal complaint has been received by Ofsted about the inspection at this stage, and no letter of any kind has been received from Mr. Pratt. My hon. Friend may want to consider pursuing that legitimate role, perhaps with others in his constituency.
There is however, no formal appeals mechanism against inspection judgments, nor are there any plans to introduce one. I hope that my hon. Friend understands the reasons why. Such a system could have a detrimental effect on the process, encouraging challenges that would divert time and energy away from the priority of developing and implementing post-inspection action plans. The Education and Employment Committee considered this issue in its detailed examination of the work of Ofsted in 1999, and decided that it would be wrong to reopen those inspection conclusions on anything other than questions of fact.
I turn now to the specific inspection findings at Rossgate school. First, there is no such thing as a light-touch inspection. There may be some misunderstanding and my hon. Friend may wish to talk to Ofsted in a general way about these issues. The inspections take place under the new framework of inspection that was established last year.
Secondly, my hon. Friend understands that the school was not compared with like schools. My understanding, which I can confirm in writing as well if that would help him, was that it was compared with similar schools. That is based on a whole range of data, including prior attainment, so it is possible to look at the school's value-added measure.
Rossgate school, as we have heard, was found to have serious weaknesses. Such a judgment is not taken lightly. It is arrived at, as a corporate decision, following comprehensive examination of evidence gathered both

381WH
before and during the inspection, from a variety of sources, including discussions with the head teacher, staff, pupils and governors. My hon. Friend talked about this being a surprise to everyone, so let me share with him the briefing that I have received.
In April 2001, concerns were expressed about the school development plan and the strategic direction of the school. In November 2002, issues were raised about the target-setting process. The assessment data were not used successfully. Governors' knowledge and understanding was also identified as an area of concern. In September 2003, the local education authority raised concerns about the quality of teaching at the school. Concerns have been raised about the very high level of staff turnover in recent years at the school. That was evidenced by the fact that my hon. Friend talked about two newly qualified teachers being there.
A programme of support had been put in place by the local education authority, although I understand that the head at the time was reluctant to accept that. It is worth sharing the LEA's view that there was complacency at the school and that it was coasting. This was not an in-out inspection that came out of nowhere. From what my hon. Friend said, it struck me that that was his perception. However, that is not confirmed by the reports that I have read or by the evidence that was around at the time.
Let us look at the positive side, however, because the inspectors did find some strengths at the school. They praised the head for the pastoral care that he gave pupils and staff, to which my hon. Friend drew attention. They found that final-year pupils attained high standards in science, and that pupils had made good progress in ICT. They also praised special educational needs provision, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and personal social and health education.
There were, however, some important weaknesses. Significant among them were the standards achieved in the core subjects of English, maths and science during much of the pupils' time at the school. The standards reached by pupils at the end of year six compared favourably with those at other schools, but they were achieved only after considerable effort by teachers and pupils in the pupils' final year. Years five and six apart, the inspectors thought that the quality of the teaching was, overall, unsatisfactory.
The inspectors also found that teachers' aspirations for their pupils were too low and that their behaviour management was sometimes unsatisfactory. Standards at the end of key stage 1, as measured against national standards, were found to have fallen since the last inspection. It is worth quoting the report to highlight some of those points:
"Teachers do not have high enough expectations of what pupils should do and do not manage behaviour well enough in some classes so that pupils can learn. Too many worksheets are used.….
382WH
Basic skills are not taught well enough and pupils are not given enough opportunities to practise and consolidate the things they have learnt in English, mathematics, science and other subjects."
The inspectors also criticised the school's leadership and management. They felt that the school lacked a clear vision for the future and that there were significant weaknesses in its planning and monitoring.
Mr. McWalter:I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but if she looks at page 10 of the report, she will see that the average results for year two in all the subjects that she mentioned went up, not down.
Margaret Hodge:The new framework—I hope that my hon. Friend will accept this, too—is intended to challenge schools to improve and achieve high standards rather than to coast. If he looks more generally at the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate, he will see that more schools are being found not to provide a satisfactory education for their pupils. I hope that he accepts that we should take up that challenge to the system in our desire to raise standards.
The inspectors talked about complacency at the school, saying:
"the headteacher and senior staff are complacent about standards achieved…and do not try hard enough to raise pupils' achievement as they mow through the school."

We are particularly keen to tackle that issue within the inspection framework.
My hon. Friend suggested that the inspection's findings came as a surprise, but I should emphasise that I am advised that that is not the case. Hertfordshire LEA not only supports the findings as an accurate reflection of the school's performance but had identified the issues raised as concerns and communicated them to Mr. Pratt on many occasions. Indeed, it had put in place a programme of support for the school before the inspection.
The framework has been revised twice since 1998—once in 2000 and again in 2003. On both occasions, we tried to realign our understanding of what is and is not acceptable in the context of rising educational standards. Again, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that.
My hon. Friend might find it useful to have a general discussion with Ofsted about the way in which it approaches inspections. If he has concerns about the school's inspection, he should pursue the formal complaints procedure to assure himself that everything was done in the proper and appropriate manner and that any decisions were properly taken.
To conclude, decisive progress in educational standards occurs where every child matters, and inspection is, above all else, about helping schools to improve children's education.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Zimbabwe
2 pm
Mr. Hugo Swire: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for making time this afternoon for this important debate.
The last time I spoke in a debate on Zimbabwe was on 15 July 2003. That was the day on which the all-party group on Zimbabwe was founded, and I congratulate the hon. Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) and for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on setting it up, attracting interesting speakers and keeping the situation of Zimbabwe alive. In a small commercial plug for the group, I will say that at its meeting tomorrow, "Playing with Fire", a report from the Zimbabwe Institute—a South Africa-based think-tank—will be discussed. The report, which appeared in some of this morning's newspapers, reveals that Zimbabwe's Opposition MPs are among the most persecuted legislators in any so-called democracy in the world.
In July I said:
"However, while we debate the issue, the situation in Zimbabwe worsens by the day and by the hour. I wonder, somewhat sadly and forlornly, whether we will be here again in weeks and months to come to debate the matter for the fourteenth time and to repeat the same impassioned, frustrated and desperate pleas, as we watch what was once the grain basket of Africa rapidly become its basket case."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 15 July 2003; Vol. 409, c. 9W H.]
Well. here we are again. This is the fifteenth time that we have held such a debate in Westminster Hall. Despite promises to the contrary, we are still waiting for the Government to initiate a debate in Government time on the Floor of the House to address the Zimbabwe question. Perhaps the Minister will be able to give us a definite date for that debate.
Government policy over the past two weeks or so has been to brand everything that the official Opposition do as opportunistic. However, the Minister cannot level that accusation on this occasion because it is the Conservative party that has spoken up time and again for the ordinary citizens of Zimbabwe, who continue to suffer at the hands of the despotic tyrant Mugabe. Indeed, the last time that Zimbabwe was debated on the Floor of the House was as part of an Opposition day debate on 25 June 2002, which w is opened by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the shadow Foreign Secretary. It is perhaps worth remembering the motion, which was
"That this House deplores the deteriorating political, economic and humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe; condemns the continuing violations of basic human rights committed by the Mugabe regime; reaffirms the view that following the rigged presidential election in March the current Zimbabwean government lacks legitimacy; regrets the failure of Her Majesty's Government and the EU to implement sanctions and exert effective pressure on the Mugabe regime to hold new free and independently monitored presidential elections; recognises the growing politically-induced humanitarian suffering in Zimbabwe, and its effects on her neighbours; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to take effective action to build an international coalition to apply whatever pressure is necessary, in line with the Harare Declaration, to restore democracy in Zimbabwe through fresh Presidential elections."—[Official Report, 25 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 803.]
Unfortunately, it would be possible to propose almost the same motion more than 20 months later.
384WH
I want to be as brief as possible, as other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. Equally, I hope that we will leave enough time for the Minister to answer some of the questions that we raise. I shall not go over old ground, but it is worth repeating that many constituents and other people to whom I speak simply cannot understand why, when we were so decisive and swift in acting to help the people of Kosovo, our only response to some 6.5 million Zimbabweans facing starvation is a fierce condemnation of Mugabe and his regime, and the promise to exert international pressure on him. Do we honestly believe that Mugabe cares that we do not like him—that he will be brought to his knees by empty rhetoric? The Government continue to stand steadfastly by that approach. Meanwhile, the situation deteriorates.
Replying to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes in a similar Westminster Hall debate on 17 December 2002, the Minister for Trade and Investment, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who was then the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, claimed that such comparisons between the situations in Zimbabwe and Kosovo demonstrated "a loss of perspective". That raises the question whether one group of people is more important than others. Our moral conscience led us to intervene in Kosovo and to remove the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, yet when it comes to Zimbabwe we appear lacklustre. Where is the consistency in the Government's so-called ethical foreign policy?
The then Under-Secretary also stated that
"Zimbabwe's regime needs to accept responsibility for its actions"—[Official Report, Westminster Hull, 17 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 188WH.]
Should we infer from that that the Government believe that Robert Mugabe is likely to have an attack of conscience in the not-too-distant future? He is, after all, the same man who in March last year proudly proclaimed,
"I am still the Hitler of the time."
South Africa's quiet diplomacy, originally through the Southern African Development Community, has not worked. It is worth remembering the history of it. Following the collapse of the Abuja agreement in September 2001 the South African rand fell by 40 per cent. In all fairness there was then a hardening of the position against Zimbabwe in Government circles in South Africa. At an international investors fund meeting, a gathering of leading business figures and politicians spoke plainly of the damage that the situation in Zimbabwe was doing to the South African economy. However, one problem was that South African leverage over the Zimbabwean energy sector was thwarted by a $360 million deal between Colonel Gaddafi and Mugabe, over fuel.
It would be interesting, and would contribute much to the debate, if the Minister could tell us whether, in the recent discussions with Libya, and in the context of its rehabilitation into the civilised world, he or his colleagues have had any discussions about Colonel Gaddafi's relations with the Mugabe regime.
Following the Zimbabwe election results, a senior British official said that the Prime Minister was sympathetic to NEPAD—the New Partnership for

385WH
Africa's Development. However, if Mbeki rolls over on Zimbabwe, British domestic opinion may leave little room for manoeuvre. It was left to America to be firmer, with its Assistant Secretary for African Affairs stating that without South African condemnation of the election,
"NEPAD would be a dead animal".
Finally, as we all know, events led to the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth.
It was surely right to build a consensus against Mugabe and his regime, but, as far as many African nations are concerned, the approach of quiet diplomacy has clearly failed. We were told by the Nigerian high commissioner last year that the issue is an African problem that needs an African solution, while the ANC in South Africa believes that it owes a debt to ZANUPF for its support against the apartheid regime.
Thabo Mbeki is culpable of appeasing Mugabe. Seeking his help is beginning to look fruitless. Referring to those countries that have openly advocated the continuing suspension of Zimbabwe from the councils of the Commonwealth, President Mbeki has said:
"For them, it was important that this objective should be achieved, to maintain their credibility especially with the media".
Yet his indifferent approach has been roundly condemned. On 24 February the Kenya Times editorial proclaimed its opposition to Robert Mugabe and exasperation at Thabo Mbeki:
"Supporting Mugabe is tantamount to betraying the interests of the region. What is asked of Mbeki is not much. He is not asked to send troops across the Limpopo. What people want is for him to express his and this country's displeasure at what is happening in Zimbabwe."
The South African Council of Churches has also sought to bring pressure to bear on President Mugabe. The SACC general secretary, Dr. Molefe Tsese, said in a statement:
"The people of Zimbabwe, especially the churches, have repeatedly told us that they are counting on us to assist them in finding a resolution to their acute economic and political crisis.… We will be failing in our moral obligation to be with them in their hour of need."
The Democratic Alliance national chairman, Joe Seremane, stated that Mbeki's policy of "quiet diplomacy" on Zimbabwe had been exposed as an embarrassing and costly disaster.
The International Crisis Group report "Decision time in Zimbabwe", published on 8 July 2003, also recognised the importance of Mbeki if the crisis is to be resolved diplomatically. South Africa must be the primary foreign actor that sits down with the two sides, helps them find the necessary compromises and applies its considerable influence to get them to accept those compromises.
Job Sikhala, a Member of Parliament for the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, and a recent victim of torture by state police, is less diplomatic. He said:
"President Mbeki is a collaborator with Robert Mugabe in the crimes perpetrated against the people of this country. What `quietness' are they talking about? When we supported the African National Congress in their fight against apartheid, it wasn't 'quiet diplomacy'. And we are fighting a worse system than the apartheid regime."
386WH
Quite apart from Mbeki's ineffective political strategy, his country is being financially damaged by events in Zimbabwe. He may fear total anarchy in Zimbabwe and an even worse effect on South Africa, were he to come out against Mugabe. Nevertheless, in a Zimbabwe research Initiative published in May last year, it was estimated that a 9.9 per cent. decline in the rand over the past three years was directly attributable to Zimbabwe, and the economic impact has damaged economies across southern Africa, affecting interest rates, inflation, foreign direct investment and tourism. The Zimbabwe research initiative estimates the total cost to the combined Southern African Development Community countries to have been at least $1.88 billion by the end of 2002.
Mugabe's reaction to international pressure is worthy of Colonel Kurtz in "Apocalypse Now". Today, we read of suspected mercenaries landing in unmarked planes, armed with bolt cutters, a sledgehammer, army boots, sleeping bags and walkie-talkie radios, but no weapons or ammunition. The situation would be worthy of Evelyn Waugh if it were not so tragic.
In the meantime, Mugabe has set up secret camps aimed at brainwashing and training youths to undertake violence and administer torture techniques to enemies of the ZANU-PF party. The revelations about those camps following the screening of the BBC's "Panorama" programme on Sunday 29 February were extremely disturbing. The indoctrination and brutality in the camps is masked by the Government's propaganda machine. It is estimated that about 50,000 people have passed through the camps, but expansion programmes are planned and camp budgets have doubled so that all youths may eventually undertake the training.
Those young people are being mentally broken and forced to think like Mugabe—how to kill and how to apply the technology of pain. They are even made to undertake tests of dedication and loyalty by attacking and beating members of their own family. Not only is Mugabe violating human rights accords, but the future prospects for the country and its people are now even bleaker.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is making an excellent case for further action against Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Is he aware that Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Anglican archbishop of Cape Town, is in London now and that he participated in the Commonwealth observance service at Westminster Abbey only yesterday? I was there and heard him speak. Dogs my hon. Friend believe that approaching Desmond Tutu, who played a constructive part in bringing about changes in South Africa, might be an effective way of increasing efforts around the world to bring about the end of Mugabe's tyranny?
Mr. Swire:My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I would welcome the intervention of anyone of the standing of Archbishop Tutu or ex-President Mandela, who could raise awareness of the tragedy and bring people to their senses so that they sought a solution rather than waiting for something to happen.
Mugabe is violating human rights accords, and the prospects for the country and its people are now even bleaker. It is too serious a problem to ignore, because a

387WH
whole generation will grow up believing that inflicting rape and torture on their fellow citizens is not only acceptable but justified. As the documentary so aptly concluded, Mugabe is willing to convert a generation from innocence to evil.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for International Development for letting me know last week that it is now possible legally to exchange money at a more realistic rate, following the implementation of an auction system in Zimbabwe. People should now be able to get about 6,500 Zimbabwe dollars to the pound, rather than the official rate of 1,500 Zimbabwe dollars. If the auction system works, it will be great news to constituents who have written to the about their wish to give money to charities in Zimbabwe but whose plans have been thwarted in the past.
On the subject of providing money to Zimbabwe, the Department for International Development has given the country £62 million in humanitarian assistance since the crisis began in 2001, and it provides further funds to help tackle HIV/AIDS. However, internal documents show that 89 per cent. of all EU aid to Zimbabwe disappears into the coffers of Mugabe's aides and his ruling ZANU-PF party. It is belated good news that the Secretary of State is to launch an investigation, as some of us have asked him to do for some time, but why is he doing so only now? What progress are he and his Department making in tracking down the misappropriated millions in aid that were given to Mugabe and his henchmen? What progress has the Secretary of State made on talks with the Governments of countries such as Malaysia? There is a strong feeling that much of the money might have gone to such countries to give Mugabe an escape route, should he need one.
We should welcome the imposition and, indeed, the widening of sanctions against the ZANU-PF leadership and the embargoes on the supply of arms and military equipment to Zimbabwe. We should also welcome the EU statement that Ministers
"deplored the degradation of the human rights situation in Zimbabwe and the failure on the part of the government … to engage in meaningful dialogue with the opposition and civil society".
Will the Minister follow the lead taken by the United States in imposing sanctions on designated Zimbabwean entities, as announced by the US Department of the Treasury? Each of the seven entities that it has targeted is controlled by one or more key members of the Mugabe regime. Such action is not only effective but sends a welcome message to those who attempt to break the sanctions. That includes criminal penalties of up to $500,000 for organisations that do business with any of those entities. and the threat of up 10 years' imprisonment for individuals who violate the sanctions.
How much mo re persuasion do the British Government need to do something? It is simply no good adopting the Herod approach of washing one's hands of the situation, or, indeed, wringing one's hands and saying, "Anything we, as the ex-colonial power, do will only exacerbate the situation." How, exactly, can the situation be exacerbated? Mugabe already accuses the MDC of being dictated to from abroad, and of being a front for the former colonial power, Britain, and for white farmers who oppose land reform. So what we have got to lose?
388WH
Mugabe may go to Malaysia sooner rather than later, but we simply do not know. Although we want him to go, I hope the Minister will confirm that we will not be part of any deal that exonerates him or his henchmen of the blame for his corruption and human rights abuses. The Government must realise that, by not dealing with the mounting crisis in Zimbabwe, they are being irresponsible, and thus are partly responsible for the tragic situation continuing.
2.20 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackay: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), not only for initiating the debate, but for the quality of his contribution. I agreed with every word that he said, and he has added significantly to the wider debate.
Having said that, I put it gently to the Minister, for whom I have a very high regard and whom the whole House holds in affection because of his distinguished record on human rights, that it is a pity that we are having the debate in Westminster Hall, not on the Floor of the House. In fairness to the Leader of the House. I must point out that he indicated, in answer to a question from me following the business statement last Thursday, that he hoped that there could be a full-scale debate in Government time on the Floor of the House, and that he was in conversation with the Foreign Secretary accordingly. Perhaps this Minister will indicate when that debate will take place. It will send a clear message, not only to the people of Zimbabwe, but to others whom we want to hear it.
On 17 December 2002, I initiated a debate identical to that of my hon. Friend. The tragedy is that little has changed: indeed, nothing has changed for the better, but a lot has changed for the worse. I want to pick up on a couple of points from that debate. With your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall quote quite extensively from one aspect of my speech, because it is so relevant to what my hon. Friend said. I said to the then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who is now the Minister for Trade and Investment:
"I call for an expansion of the list of those targeted to cover the commercial supporters of the regime in Zimbabwe, who so far seem to have got off completely—the bankers and those who front ZANU-PF's economic interests, including safari operators. Many of those people are white and they benefit hugely from the regime. I hope that when the sanctions are reviewed their travel will be restricted…. The sanctions should be further expanded to include another layer of politicians and civil servants, including ZAN U-PF Members of Parliament and senior civil servants, who must be subject to the same restrictions as Ministers and Army leaders. I encourage the Minister also to ban their immediate families from travelling, including children and relatives who are being educated in the West. Some will say, `Ah, if we educate these people they will see that western democracy works, so they should be excluded from such a ban,' but I do not believe that that will happen. I am convinced that money looted from Zimbabwe, which should go into state education in that country, is instead going into private education in the United Kingdom, America and elsewhere, and that is morally wrong. We should make it absolutely clear that no members of the family of anyone on the sanction list, including the commercial backers, will be allowed any form of education in this country."

389WH
The Minister's response was interesting. He said:
"The right hon. Member for Bracknell expressed concern about extending the various bans. I will consider that, and will write to him on that point."
He never did. The Minister went on to say that I
"also said that we should consider the possibility of extending the bans to civil servants and some of their families, as well as to bankers. That is a useful point, and I will consider the feasibility of doing that and how it would work. Again, I will write to the right hon. Gentleman."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 17 December 2002; Vol. 396. c. 173–90WH]
Again, he never did.
It is a great pity that sanctions have not been extended. Sharp sanctions work; mass sanctions affect only the ordinary people of Zimbabwe. I think that we all accept that—I see the Minister nodding. However, the extension of sharp sanctions, which I called for in some detail in the debate that I secured in December 2002, has not been followed through with the United Kingdom and its allies in Europe and America. I am convinced that such an extension would be effective. I ask the Minister to address that point in his summing up. An extension of sanctions is vital. It is one of the ways in which we can bring more pressure to bear on the Mugabe regime.
There is a second way, which my hon. Friend described effectively: putting more pressure on South Africa. Those of us who love South Africa and who believed that it had a great future under President Mandela and his successor, President Mbeki, are having second thoughts. One has to be a brave person to invest in South Africa today. Much of its falling reputation is due to the way in which the President has handled the AIDS problem—he has ignored it completely, which is a matter for another debate—andthe way in which he has handled Zimbabwe.
South Africa is rightly the regional superpower, and it must take the lead. The lead cannot be taken by Botswana, Mozambique, or Namibia under its current President. Many of us also believe that President Mbeki's role has been entirely counter-productive. He urged our Commonwealth colleagues to allow Mugabe to go to the last conference in Nigeria. Mbeki seemed to be the odd man out in the council of the three wise men on the renewal of sanctions. He also urged us to be patient, and talked about "quiet diplomacy". That is fine, but how long do we wait for that quiet diplomacy to work?
Nothing positive has come out of anything that President Mbeki has done. The United States, the UK and our European Union partners must put much more pressure on South Africa. A long-term settlement is very much in South Africa's interests. It will give the region stability and investment and will improve South Africa's reputation.
My last point is that Zimbabwe sometimes falls off the international agenda. A debate on Iraq is currently being held in Plaid Cymru time on the Floor of the House. International terrorism, the middle east problem, and the invasion of Iraq by the United
390WH
Kingdom and our allies, which I believe was right, occupy a great deal of time, but it would be disastrous if we did not push and prod and use sharp elbows to ensure that Zimbabwe is also at the top of the international agenda. I hope that the Minister will assure us that we are doing more to persuade our European partners to work together to increase sanctions, and that we are doing more to work closely with our American allies to the same end.
I should be fascinated to hear the Minister's answer to a point that my hon. Friend made about Libya, because the whole world has changed. One of the most exciting developments of recent times has been the transformation in Libya, for reasons that we well understand. Surely Zimbabwe is an important by-product of that transformation, because the evil Mugabe regime has survived largely as a result of the cheap, perhaps even free, oil that has come from President Gaddafi.
Much more can he done, and I look forward to the Minister's positive response, followed by what I hope will be equally fine action.
2.29 pm
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) on raising the subject today, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) on his comments.
It is appropriate that there should be a debate about Zimbabwe in the House, albeit in Westminster Hall rather than in the main Chamber, during the fifty-third Commonwealth seminar, which is currently taking place here in London. I have had the privilege of participating in that seminar and of meeting and talking to many parliamentarians, including some Speakers, a number of whom came from Africa. They all, from their different positions, expressed deep concern about the deteriorating position in Zimbabwe. Although clearly many of them are discreet in the remarks they make, and correctly so, I have not yet met one who does not believe that the salvation of Zimbabwe can occur only when Robert Mugabe steps down, in whatever w ay he does so—whether to a bolthole in Malaysia or to any other country.
I am, however, distressed because our own country, the United Kingdom, played a part in putting Mr. Mugabe in power in Zimbabwe. I regret that what started as a country with huge good will—one might almost say that it started off with the good will that Nelson Mandela, as president of South Africa, engendered. It started off with forgiveness, reconciliation and all the peoples of Zimbabwe working together. We know what has happened since.
I appreciate that our country, our politicians and my hon. Friends who have spoken so powerfully in this debate must not endanger the fragile Opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change, and its leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, who is facing treason charges in his country. It is rubbish to say that the leader of the MDC is guilty of treason. No one is more committed to aiding his country and his people than the leader of the MDC.

391WH
However, we need to be cautious in what we advocate and in what we say, so that we do not in any way prejudice his position.
I hope that what remains of the independent judiciary in Zimbabwe will give Mr. Tsvangirai a fair trial and that he will be acquitted of all charges, because I do not believe that anyone, other than perhaps Mr. Mugabe, believes that Mr. Tsvangirai is guilty of treason. He may have said a number of things about the current president but bearing in mind what occurred at the last presidential election, which in reality put Mr. Morgan Tsvangirai in the position of president, one can understand his frustration and concern about what is being done in the name of democracy.
I recently had a constructive and positive meeting with the Minister and I am grateful for the time he gave me and for his understanding of the serious problems of the country and of the sensitive nature of those problems. We need to look at new ways of bringing pressure to bear on Mr. Mugabe and the ZANU-PF Administration. How much longer can a country survive when half its population is on food aid? How long can it survive when inflation is raging at nearly 600 per cent? When will the basic stability of that country break down? Will it create civil war? Will the people lose their patience? There are many who hope that they will, because that is another way of toppling Mr. Mugabe.
As a friend of Zimbabwe, but no friend of Mr. Mugabe, as he will know, I say that we do not want that country to degenerate into chaos and disorder. We want it again to play a major role in the prosperity and economic growth of central southern Africa. Will the Minister respond to the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon? Is there a way of bringing greater pressure? Is it possible to extend the ban on travel? Is there any way in which to put pressure on the few wealthy business men who are bankrolling Mr. Mugabe, in order to limit their ability to assist him and his regime financially?
My right hon. and hon. Friends referred to the position of President Gaddafi of Libya. I do not know how much he is helping Mr. Mugabe and the ZANU-PF Administration, but he has provided them with energy assistance, which is clearly beneficial. If my memory serves me correctly, President Gaddafi recently wanted to come in from the cold and join the world nations that seek to be responsible. What pressure, therefore, are Governments putting on him to minimise, or even to cut off, his assistance to Robert Mugabe?
People are dying daily in Zimbabwe. I know that because I have friends who live there and who are involved in business there—yes, there is still business and people are still doing their best to ensure the survival of the country, but with increasing difficulty. I ask the Minister what more we can responsibly do without undermining the position of Opposition parties, particularly the Movement for Democratic Change, to show the people of Zimbabwe that we are concerned for them and that we accept that we are partly responsible for Mr. Mugabe being their president. How can we help them to save their country from the further destructive actions of a brutal man?
Mr. Mugabe is over 80 years old. He must be aware that his time is short—if not in this world, then certainly as the president of his country. In one respect I do not
392WH
go along with my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon. If Mr. Mugabe could be persuaded to move elsewhere, I would neither stand in the way of that, nor suggest that we should seek to bring him before a criminal tribunal anywhere. My concern is for the people of Zimbabwe—a country that I have been visiting for over 30 years. My hon. Friend was right to say that it was the bread-basket of central southern Africa, as it used to supply many of its neighbouring countries with food. It had stability and an improving infrastructure, and its health and education were dramatically improving, thus providing increased quality of life. Let us say to the people of Zimbabwe, "We want to restore democracy to you. We want to help you. We will give you aid, but we can't give you aid under the tyrant that you currently have ruling in Harare."
I beg the Minister, when he responds to my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon, to indicate what further action can be taken, even if some of that action is ongoing, quiet diplomacy.
2.40 pm
Tam Brake: I commend the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) for securing the debate and congratulate right hon. and hon. Members with a long-standing interest in and commitment to Zimbabwe on their contributions. It is entirely appropriate that we should have an opportunity to return to such an important subject.
There are not opportunities enough, however, to condemn the Zimbabwean regime and the way it arrived in power through unfair and corrupt elections. Those elections have clearly had a heavy impact on the poorest and most vulnerable in Zimbabwe. If confirmation of that were needed, I received it yesterday in a telephone conversation with a Zimbabwean who is living in the UK but returns regularly and is in contact with friends and family. He said, for instance, that the inflation rate of over 600 per cent. means that a loaf of bread in Zimbabwe now costs the equivalent of 5p. That might not sound like very much to us, but for Zimbabweans it is extremely expensive. The view of the Zimbabwean with whom I spoke is that the issue now is not so much the availability of goods as their affordability for the poorest in society.
Hon. Members have mentioned Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, Zimbabwe's closest neighbour, and the quiet diplomacy on which South Africa has embarked. Unfortunately, for many people quiet diplomacy amounts to silent diplomacy or even silent inactivity. South Africa can enable positive change in Zimbabwe, but has so far used its clout insufficiently. The Mugabe regime has repeatedly stymied attempts at meaningful engagement and formal dialogue with the MDC. Like other hon. Members, I praise the president of the MDC, whose leaders continue to press for peaceful change, despite being put on trial for treason.
Shortly before the debate—literally, minutes before—I had a telephone conversation with the secretary-general of the MDC, Professor Ncube. I asked him what the Government could or should do to help the position in Zimbabwe. He made some comments to which I hope the Minister will respond.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin):It may help the hon. Gentleman to know that the Foreign Secretary and I had a meeting with Professor Ncube this morning.
Tom Brake:I am aware of that. No doubt the Minister will be able to respond to Professor Ncube's four key points. First, the UK should exert all possible leverage against South Africa. Secondly, the UK should mobilise support for a human rights commissioner, which the EU backs, but which I understand South Africa has blocked in the past. Thirdly, the UK should support, as far as possible, civil society in Zimbabwe, especially Mugabe's victims. Fourthly, the UK should introduce sanctions against the entities that the US has identified as companies or farms with close links with ZANU-PF.
Professor Ncube did not call for general sanctions, but felt that sanctions against those companies could perform an important function. The US has designated seven farms or companies as specially designated nationals. Any US organisation or individual violating the ban on doing business with a Zimbabwean organisation on the proscribed list faces severe criminal penalties—not only fines of up to $500,000, but imprisonment. In other words, there are heavy sanctions against US companies or individuals dealing with those organisations.
As may be the case with other companies on the list, M & S Syndicate, which was the first ZANU-PF holding company, has a joint venture with the UK-based firm Unicorn Import-Export, called Zidco Holdings. Is the Minister happy with that arrangement? If the Government are considering taking action against the seven entities identified by the US, what sort of action, if any, might be taken against companies that, according to www.zimbabwesituation.com, have clear links with companies on the list?
Hon. Members are aware of the UK's heavy role in Zimbabwe. We are the second largest foreign investor in southern Africa. Although I accept that the current relationship between the two countries means that the UK's economic leverage is limited, there must be a way of using investment on that scale to support measures to improve human rights in Zimbabwe.
Will the Minister comment on whether there is a discrepancy between the promotion of human rights and the role of the Department of Trade and Industry and UK Trade and Investment? According to Zimbabwe's country profile on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's website, there is a
"chronic shortage of foreign exchange, which has led to shortages of fuel and other key inputs including power."
The profile notes that
"Zimbabwe imports 35 per cent. of its electricity needs from Mozambique and South Africa",
and I know that many people advocate South Africa turning off the power supply. Will the Minister comment on that way of exerting pressure?
While the FCO sets out its concerns, the UK Trade and Investment website, which apparently has a policy of not promoting a particular export market, includes statements that, although not actively promoting trade,
394WH
at least facilitate it in a way that the Minister may think inappropriate. Under the heading, "Key methods of doing business", the website suggests
"The best approach to doing business in Zimbabwe is by making a personal visit, either on a trade mission or attending a trade fair. It's not uncommon for correspondence particularly to Government Ministries or parastatals to go unanswered."
In other words, it is better to be there on the ground dealing with them.
The website points out that, although the prevailing political and economic climate has resulted in reduced volumes of trade between the UK and Zimbabwe,
"doing business is still relatively easy to do."
It continues:
"With the Government in Zimbabwe keen to empower the indigenous population, foreign companies who have established a presence here or who have engaged a local partner would probably have an edge especially when tendering for Government contracts."
It concludes:
"Advice on how to find an agent or details on how to set up a company in Zimbabwe is Available on the Zimbabwe Gateway."
At the very least, such comments facilitate trade in a way that the Minister might consider inappropriate, for instance with Zimbabwean partners that may be listed by the Americans as entities with which they do not want their nationals to trade.
On repression against politicians, other hon. Members have referred to the Zimbabwe Institute report, published today, which found that 50 of the Movement for Democratic Change's 59 MPs, and 28 of its parliamentary candidates, had personally experienced human rights abuses. Politicians are clearly under very heavy pressure there. Has the Minister had time to consider that report? He clearly has a copy, so perhaps he could provide some immediate feedback on what, if anything, the UK government propose to do about it.
There is also the problem of the attacks on the media.The Daily News was shut down, and pressure is now being applied to the Zimbabwe Independent. It would be useful to know what representations the Minister has received on that issue, what contacts there are with journalists operating in Zimbabwe—if any—and whether the UK Government and media can play a part in helping them.
I have taken up with the non-governmental organisations active in Zimbabwe the important issue of political interference affecting food aid. Their view is that the food aid that they are delivering is reaching the right people. They have checks and balances in place. However, there may be a question mark about the food aid that is being distributed by the Zimbabwean Government. Will the Minister comment on that, and more alarmingly, on any assessment that has been made about whether the NGOs working there or the Zimbabwean Government will be able to deliver the much higher level of food aid that is required? A posting on the UN website, ReliefWeb, states that the number of people going hungry in Zimbabwe has outstripped earlier projections, with 7.5 million of the country's estimated 11.65 million expected to require food aid in the next few months. Is there any evidence that organisations are gearing up to deliver that additional food aid?

395WH
Finally, it is clear that the policy of quiet diplomacy, whether on the part of the South African or the British Government, is not working. We know that Thabo Mbeki protested last month that a decision to prolong Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth was undemocratic and unhelpful, while at the same time he brushed off concerns about human rights abuses there. It is instructive and heartening to note that that view is not held by Nelson Mandela, Bishop Tutu or the US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Charles Snyder, who said that the jury is out on whether South Africa has done enough to help to resolve the crisis. The Americans' view is that Thabo Mbeki could become the point man on Zimbabwe if there were a desire to do that.
The situation in Zimbabwe is extremely grim. As the secretary-general of the MDC said, the UK must use its leverage to pressure South Africa to take a stand against Zimbabwe's repressive regime. South Africa must not block plans to appoint a human rights commissioner for Zimbabwe, and the UK Government must increase support to civil society there, particularly for those who have suffered at the hands of Mugabe. The UK must also consider whether introducing sanctions against firms that have been identified by the US Government as having close links with Zimbabwe's top ZANU-PF officials would be appropriate. Zimbabwe's killing fields are unrolling in front of our eyes. We can either wait and, in years to come, express dismay at the uncovering of massive human rights abuses, or we can take action now. The Minister needs to set out which course of action he intends to pursue.
2.55 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) on his powerful and persuasive speech. It is not the first time that he has spoken so cogently on the subject of Zimbabwe. The speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) were also of the highest quality. They have both consistently spoken about the unfolding tragedy in Zimbabwe. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, who probably has more experience and understanding of Zimbabwe than any other hon. Member in the House. I also applaud the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) for his contribution to the debate.
Last December, in its annual report, the Foreign Affairs Committee stated that it believed that
"it is very important that Parliament remains fully focused on the latest developments, and that the profile of Zimbabwe in British political life remains high."
I entirely agree. But how can we in the House be fully focused on Zimbabwe if the Government have not, thus far, introduced a debate on the subject in the main Chamber? In the seven-year lifespan of this Government, we have had many debates on foreign affairs, but we have not had a debate on Zimbabwe in Government time. Even today, we are debating the matter because of the success of my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon in securing the debate.
The Minister knows of the real tragedy that is gripping Zimbabwe and of our links to that country, and has heard the powerful speeches today. I hope he
396WH
will use his powers of persuasion, so that we can have a debate on Zimbabwe on the Floor of the House of Commons. Everyone will then know that Zimbabwe is a matter of great concern, and that that concern crosses the party political divide. Moreover, the public will know that we in the House of Commons want to debate the matter comprehensively.
The Foreign Affairs Committee was right. It is vital that we remain focused on developments in Zimbabwe, which inexorably and distressingly continues to sink ever deeper into chaos, violence, brutality and economic collapse because of the malevolent and brutal rule of Mugabe and ZANU-PF.
We heard this afternoon that the agricultural base of the country has been destroyed by the illegal land seizures. Many farm workers, and farmers themselves, have been left devoid of any means of support. Since 1998. more than 400,000 jobs have been lost. Of a population of 11.5 million, 7.5 million are, to varying degrees, in receipt of food aid, and the UN World Food Programme is having to increase its aid provision.
However, the Zimbabwean Government continue to maintain that the land seizures have worked—they were the original basis for the unravelling of the country. The truth is that much land remains unproductive and idle. It is estimated that only 600 commercial farms are still operational across the country—a mere 14 per cent. of the more than 4,000 farms that were operational in 1997, according to the central statistical office figures. The shocking thing is that only 2 per cent. of land has actually been given to ex-farm workers, whereas much has been given to Mugabe's cronies. Earlier this year it was announced that some 400 farms were to be redistributed again from the black farm workers who had received them under the original seizures. The point about the hunger for land reform, which Mugabe gave as the spurious basis for his land seizures, is that the land reform has not happened at all. The situation is extraordinary, tragic and Kafkaesque. The picture is one of gloom and chaos. The so-called land reform programme has utterly failed to help its supposed beneficiaries.
The Zimbabwean economy should be flourishing given the abundant natural resources, the energy of the people of Zimbabwe and the country's historic reputation as Africa's bread-basket. We have heard some of the frightening economic statistics, with inflation at more than 600 per cent. and Zimbabwe's banks in crisis, we have read the recent comments of the governor of the reserve bank, and we have seen so much of the financial sector in collapse.
New laws, supposedly aimed at targeting those engaged in economic corruption, allow detention without bail for up to four weeks, and once again, after an all-too-brief reappearance,The Daily News has been forced from the streets. Although economic corruption in Zimbabwe must be tackled, nothing of the kind has happened and I am utterly unconvinced that the moves are anything other than window dressing. Moves supposedly against corruption have been made at the expense of the rule of law. A re-establishment of the rule of law and freedom of expression must be a priority for Zimbabwe—although I believe that it will never happen while Mugabe remains in power—and I agree with the appointment of a human rights commissioner.

397WH
As we have continually forecast, the so-called informal and erratic talks between the MDC and ZANU-PF have come to naught. Substantive and genuine talks must remain a pre-condition to moving on and to Zimbabwe's readmission to the Commonwealth, as its secretary-general Mr. McKinnon recently stated. ZANU-PF must engage in genuine, formal and structured talks with the MDC to that end, but I fear that that will never happen under Mr. Mugabe. He is obsessed with protecting himself from the consequences of leaving office, and I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for should Mr. Mugabe want to leave the country in one way or another, he should be assisted in that process, as happened with a former African dictator, Idi Amin.
Tom Brake:I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about Mr. Mugabe leaving the country. However, if he did that, there would have to be a detailed analysis of any funds that he might have salted away.
Mr. Spring:There is clear evidence that that has happened, and we have seen the grotesque extravagance of Mr. Mugabe and his family when he has been allowed to travel in Europe and elsewhere.
Mugabe will seize any opportunity to cling to power and boost his position with propaganda, and it is for that reason that my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary called on the England and Wales Cricket Board not to go ahead with a Zimbabwe tour. As he said,
"I would never …leave England's captain in the intolerable position of having to shake the bloodied hand of Zimbabwe's cricket patron, Robert Mugabe."
We have made our views on that point crystal clear, and I would be grateful—I am sure the ECB would be even more grateful—if the Minister stated unequivocally, on behalf of the Government, whether he believes that the tour should proceed.
To wait for demography or the anger of people to topple Mugabe would be to wait too long, considering what is happening and because, regrettably, such a prospect is not likely in the near future. As we see Zimbabwe ever falling into despair and misery, to wait for a reaction to Mugabe from within is to shirk our obligations to the Zimbabwean people.
The EU recently decided to extend the targeted sanctions for a third year, increasing the list of individuals covered from 79 to 95 people. The travel bans and asset freezes for which we called for so long are a welcome start, but they must be rigorously enforced and extended to the businesses and individuals that bankroll the Mugabe regime. The US recently introduced new and tougher sanctions to target Government-owned companies and the Information Minister, Jonathan Moyo.
Why are our Government reluctant to take an even tougher line and follow the US example? When will we see the Government seeking to internationalise the issue even more, taking the matter to the UN Security Council to obtain a resolution to try to place food monitors on the ground? There is no point in saying that such a resolution would not be passed. If a country does not table and argue for a resolution, it will never happen.
398WH
Thus there is still much to do to improve on what is already being done. Alongside increased pressure from the United Kingdom and the European Union there must be increased regional pressure. All hon. Members have alluded to that this afternoon. The regional power most able to do this, and with a real interest in doing so, given the knock-on effects of collapse, is South Africa.
I had the pleasure some months ago of meeting Archbishop Pius Ncube of Bulawayo. He was reported as calling on President Mbeki's Government to cut off electricity supplies to Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is dependent upon South Africa for much of its fuel and energy and, as was demonstrated against Ian Smith in comparable circumstances, South Africa could very quickly effect a change by cutting off supplies. It took only three days to be effective before, and a short sharp ratcheting up may well prove ultimately more effective, and less painful to Zimbabweans.
We have put that directly to the South Africans on many occasions. President Mbeki still appears to think that quiet diplomacy will work in respect of Zimbabwe, but thus far it has paid no dividends at all, and the recent collapse of talks show that it has failed to achieve any progress. Those who called for patience as quiet diplomacy proceeded have been led well and truly up the garden path.
While I naturally have concerns on humanitarian grounds about the short-term impact of an energy cutoff on the Zimbabwean people, here we have a Zimbabwean archbishop calling for it. I believe that it is incumbent on the South African Government to give such ideas urgent consideration. I hope the Minister will encourage the South Africans to consider all options afresh, to persuade them to take a more proactive approach to their northern neighbour. We have told them this before. The economies of southern Africa are dependent in large part upon external investors, who look for stability and security for their investments. The situation in Zimbabwe ultimately puts that confidence at risk. The South African Government should consider all these factors most urgently in the context of their role as a regional power.
In a powerful and, in many ways, impressive speech that the Prime Minister made on 5 March, he said:
"It may well be that under international law as previously constituted, a regime can systematically brutalise and oppress its people and there is nothing anyone can do, when dialogue, diplomacy and even sanctions fail, unless it comes within the definition of a humanitarian catastrophe".
He went on to talk about the values that must surround a doctrine of international community when a country behaves in an utterly irresponsible and wicked way. He spoke about a new arrangement in the world to react to that. He said:
"Britain's role is try to trod a way through this: to construct a consensus behind a broad agenda of justice and security and means of enforcing it."
I very much agree with what the Prime Minister said, but I believe that in the case of Zimbabwe those words need to be translated into more direct action. Sometimes we have to be blunt with our friends whom we admire and with whom we have historic links. We have to tell that they must take action themselves and that we will support them in that. We have never suggested that solving the crisis in Zimbabwe would be easy or could be

399WH
accomplished overnight, but there will certainly not be progress if we do not move the process on more forcefully. A start has been made with targeted sanctions, but it seems to have stopped there. We must ratchet up pressure on Mugabe's regime through the EU, the UN and through close working contacts with the neighbouring states.
I hope the Minister can give us concrete examples of the steps that the Government intend to take to end the suffering of Zimbabwe's people and to bring about free and fair elections. Occasionally, leadership requires a clear public statement. That is now overdue.
3.10 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin):As the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) said, this is the 14th debate about Zimbabwe in the past four years. Much of the Prime Minister is statement reporting back from the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference in December was taken up with questions on our role in maintaining Zimbabwe's suspension, large parts of Foreign Office questions over a long period have been taken up with Zimbabwe, and there have been innumerable speeches about that country in foreign affairs debates on the Floor of the House.
If debates on the Floor of the House were the answer to Zimbabwe's problems, they would have been solved long ago. I can offer hon. Member is a little piece of good news, for which I hope they will be duly grateful, although I am prepared for the possibility that they might not. The Foreign Secretary has agreed to a debate on the subject in the main Chamber. and we will arrange a mutually convenient time for all the main parties through the business managers.
Although one might be forgiven for thinking otherwise when one attends these debates, there is no serious difference between the main parties on the issue of Zimbabwe. The Government's objective for Zimbabwe, like that of the principal Opposition parties, is for the restoration of a democratically accountable Government who respect human rights and the rule of law, and who adopt sound economic policies aimed at alleviating the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe.
I acknowledge the measured and responsible contributions from most hon. Gentlemen, especially the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), and the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), for Carshalton and Wallington (Torn Brake) and for West Suffolk (Mr Spring).
However, I thought that the tone of much of what the hon. Member for East Devon said went a little over the top, to no particular purpose. If he wishes to be taken seriously, he should not try to pretend that what has gone wrong in Zimbabwe is mostly the fault of the British Government, or that there is a long list of things that they could have done years ago that would have made everything different. Most sensible people will acknowledge that it is a complex problem to which there is no perfect solution.
I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point about Kosovo, which he raised last time he participated in one of these debates, unless he is proposing military action, which he told us last time he was not. All sensible
400WH
people would acknowledge that there is no basis for any kind of outside military intervention, not least because none of the surrounding countries would tolerate it.
I will not attempt to outdo the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric, but I shall try to respond to some of his points. Much of his speech was directed against South Africa, and he made points regarding the role of the South African Government. I am sure the South Africans will have heard what hon. Members had to say.
One hon. Member said that the South African Government had been inactive, which I dispute. Whether or not one accepts his tactics, President Mbeki has been extremely active on the issue. He regularly meets representatives of the ruling party and of the Opposition—
Tom Brake:Can the Minister tell us whether Mr. Mbeki will be active on the subject of the UN human rights commissioner, and does he have any information about whether South Africa will again call for no action on that?
Mr. Mullin:I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the UN human rights commission. The UN may consider the issue again later this month. I do not know what South Africa's position is likely to be, but we will, of course, talk to its representatives about that.
I thought I heard the hon. Member for East Devon say—he will forgive me if I am wrong—that our only response to millions starving is rhetoric. That is absolute and obvious nonsense. British taxpayers have spent £62 million on food aid over the past five years to help to feed the hungry, and £26.5 million to help to deal with the huge problem of HIV/AIDS.
We worked hard at the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference. Indeed, we took the lead to ensure the continued suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth, and we worked hard with our European partners in extending the roll-over of EU sanctions. I will say more about sanctions in a moment. Scarcely a day passes without the subject of Zimbabwe crossing my desk, so the Government are perfectly aware of the importance that hon. Members attach to the issue, and of its general importance to Africa and the world. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we remain actively engaged.
Several hon. Members asked whether we had talked to the Libyans about Zimbabwe. given the relationship between the Libyans and Mr. Mugabe. The answer is that we have done so on several occasions and will continue to do so.
On US sanctions and the seven companies to which several hon. Members referred, I should make it clear that all the people who run those companies are among the 95 on the EU sanctions list. Although we may approach the matter from a slightly different angle from that of the Americans, there is quite a large overlap. Hon. Members should be aware of that. We are willing to consider, on a case-by-case basis, extending the sanctions to the companies themselves or to the people connected with those companies, but, as I said, there is already a considerable overlap between ourselves and the Americans. There are more people on the EU list than on the Americans' list.
Tom Brake:I thank the Minister for clarifying the position and the overlap between what has been done by

401WH
the UK and the US. On the specific point about M&S Syndicate, I would be grateful if the Minister could respond now or in writing. Admittedly, the information dates back to January 2001 and therefore may no longer be relevant, but will he confirm whether there is a link between M&S Syndicate and Unicorn Import-Export and, if so, what action, if any, the Government will take?
Mr. Mullin:I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue. As he anticipates, I cannot reply off the top of my head, but I will write to him and ensure that he receives the letter.
Several hon. Members referred to "Playing with Fire", the report published today by a South African non-governmental organisation, a copy of which was given to me and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary this morning by Professor Ncube. I commend it to the House. It documents the horrendous experience that Opposition politicians—Members of Parliament and candidates—and their agents have suffered in trying to mount a democratic opposition to the tyranny in Zimbabwe. It deserves wide circulation.
Sir Nicholas Winterton:I raised the position of Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, and the whole world is watching his trial. I hope the Government will leave the Administration of Mr. Mugabe and ZANU-PF in no doubt that we expect the trial to be transparently fair. The whole world, including all African countries. would take a very dim view if it were a charade, and Morgan Tsvangirai, who is perhaps the country's only chance for pluralistic democracy and freedom, were sentenced on a trumped-up charge.
Mr. Mullin:Every one of us would endorse those sentiments. There are still heart-warming signs that some members of the Zimbabwean judiciary remain committed to administering the rule of law despite the enormous pressure on them. Even recently, there have been cases in which the state's evidence has been dismissed in the most disparaging terms when it has attempted to fit up its political opponents. I therefore retain some faith in Zimbabwe's judicial system, but we shall be watching the outcome of Mr. Tsvangirai's trial very closely.
As hon. Members said, the political, economic and humanitarian crisis remains as acute as ever. We and our partners in the wider international community are doing what we can to increase pressure on the ZANU-PF regime to commence negotiations with the Opposition. We regard that as a prerequisite to finding a solution to the crisis.
On 19 February, the EU agreed to continue its targeted measures against the country's leadership for another year. I am pleased to say that, with our strong support, the list of those targeted by the travel ban and the assets freeze has been extended from 79 to 95 people. Those who have been added to the list include several individuals who bear particular responsibility for the abuse of human rights in Zimbabwe. They include the head of the Media and Information Commission, who was closely associated with the closure of The Daily News and the hounding of other independent media; the
402WH
head of the electoral commission and registrar general, who was closely associated with the fraudulent elections that have become the rule in Zimbabwe; the leader of the so-called war veterans, who is closely associated with the most violent takeovers of commercial farms; all the provincial governors appointed by Mugabe, whose job it is to enforce his writ at local level; and the new set of Ministers whom Mugabe appointed in his last reshuffle on 9 February.

On 23 February, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary attended a meeting of EU Foreign Ministers. It issued a strong statement, deploring the Zimbabwe Government's failure to address EU concerns about the deteriorating situation in the country. It made it clear that there would he no normalisation of the EU's relationship with Zimbabwe until those concerns were addressed. It also underlined the EU's intention to continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Zimbabwe on the basis of need alone.
The UK Government have been a consistent advocate of a robust EU approach to Zimbabwe, so we welcome last month's decision. It sends a clear message that the EU wants Zimbabwe to end repression and economic catastrophe and to return to democratic governance and the rule of law. I hope that that message will be heard not only by Mugabe and his regime, but by the people of Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe's Opposition, the MDC, certainly welcome the EU measures, which they described as
"a clear indication that the international community will not fold its arms while the regime in Zimbabwe continues to trample upon people's basic needs".
Mr. Spring:The Minister's first point, about the commitment to dialogue between ZANU-PF and the MDC, was interesting. We have made it clear for some time that, unless a formal structure was put in place, dialogue would not work, and it has not worked. Indeed, Mr. Mugabe recently denounced the MDC as agents of the west. It is all very well making statements about dialogue, but South Africa has not properly brokered discussions. Everything is informal, and no one knows exactly what is going on. I do not mean to be unkind to the Minister, but I ask him to move away from rhetoric and propose a specific structure for holding a dialogue.
Mr. Mullin:To give President Mbeki his due, he has worked quite hard to establish a dialogue between the two main parties, as has President Obasanjo of Nigeria, but without success. It takes two to tango, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge. I agree that there is no sign of any formal talks between the two sides, and no talks are likely until sufficient pressure is put on the Mugabe regime. Much of the pressure will come from inside the country, given the ruinous state to which it has reduced the economy.
Mr. Swire indicated dissent
Mr. Mulllin:The hon. Member for East Devon shakes his head, but he does not appear to have a better idea, which is what depresses me about his contributions to these discussions. Members of the Government regularly talk to the MDC, and are open to any reasonable suggestions from anyone who has the best interests of the people of Zimbabwe at heart.

403WH
Hon. Members referred to youth training camps. Many of us saw the recent "Panorama" documentary, which drew attention to one of the main pillars of human rights abuses in Zimbabwe— the so-called youth training scheme. The fact that a retired brigadier has been placed in charge of those training camps indicates the type of training that takes place. The United Kingdom and its EU partners have made it clear that the closure of the camps is a prerequisite of any normalisation of relations between the EU and Zimbabwe, and I am pleased to say that past and present Ministers in charge of the training scheme are on the EU's list of banned individuals.
On the subject of humanitarian assistance, I stress, as I have in the past, that the EU measures are targeted, and as such are not intended to harm Zimbabwe's civilian population. The impact that switching off the electricity would have on ordinary people must be carefully calculated. I would not like to make that judgment. It is not unreasonable for the South Africans to expect Zimbabwe to pay for the large amounts of electricity that it receives but, in the end, it will be for South Africa to make that judgment. It should not be made lightly.
The EU remains committed to the Zimbabwean people, and has donated humanitarian assistance worth £184 million in the past year or so. The UK is the EU's largest bilateral donor to Zimbabwe, and the largest donor overall after the United States.
Mr. Spring:The Minister is generous in giving way. I fear that he is not going to address the central point about the role of South Africa in all this. He will know as a Foreign Office Minister that the reason why North Korea was persuaded to come to the table to negotiate
404WH
was that the Chinese threatened to switch off its energy supplies. That got North Korea thinking and acting. I ask the Minister to address the central point about applying pressure to South Africa and inviting the South Africans to take concerted action to move the process on.
Mr. Mullin:I do not rule out increasing the pressure on the Mugabe Government. I agree that the South African Government are better placed than most to do so, but I am not willing to engage in a public slanging match with the South Africans in Westminster Hall, in the Chamber, or anywhere else, nor am I willing to advise them over the airwaves on what they should do. They are in the front line. They have 2 million refugees from Zimbabwe, so they know exactly the scale of the problem. We remain in close dialogue with them, and have had several robust conversations. I shall not, however, address them through a megaphone.
In conclusion, as hon. Members have said, Zimbabwe's economy continues to spiral downwards. Inflation is now running at almost 700 per cent., and unemployment is running at more than 70 per cent. As hon. Members said, as many as 7 million people will need international help with food this winter. We recognise the need to keep up the pressure, but the greatest pressure of all will come from the sheer scale of the catastrophe that Mr. Mugabe and his Government have unleashed on their own people. In the meantime, I hope that African Governments, including South Africa, will speak out as clearly as Governments in Europe do—
Mr. Joe Benton (in the Chair):Order. We now come to the debate on clean water access in developing countries.

Developing Countries (Clean Water Access)
3.30 pm
Norman Baker:I am pleased to have this opportunity to address such an important issue. I knew that clean water access was important when I started researching it, but the more I have looked into it, the more I have become convinced that it is one of the key issues for the century ahead. The debate is not only, I hope. timely, given that 22 March is world water day, but pressing, as I shall outline.
The surface of planet Earth is approximately 70 per cent. water, of which 97.5 per cent. is in the oceans, and therefore salt water, and 2 per cent. is frozen in the polar ice caps. That leaves us with only 0.5 per cent. of the world's water resources on which to live. Water is essential for life. Kofi Annan said:
"Access to safe water is a fundamental human need and, therefore, a basic human right. Contaminated water jeopardizes both the physical and social health of all people. It is an affront to human dignity."
The impressive document "Hitting the Targets", which a number of charities and pressure groups produced, says:
"Access to water and sanitation is a right, a basic need for survival, a requirement for reducing poverty, and, a driver of growth. Much of the suffering from a lack of access to water and sanitation is borne by the poor, those who live in degraded environments, and overwhelmingly by women and girls."
Human beings are so dependent on water that although they can live for a month or more without food they can live only for less than a week without water. Despite that startling dependence, according to the World Health Organisation, in 2000 more than 1 billion people worldwide did not have access to safe water and 2.5 billion people had improper or no access to sanitation. Worryingly, the situation will get worse unless we take drastic action as a planet.
Mr. Don Foster:Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that it is bitterly disappointing that the Government have cut money from the aid budget that directly targets improvements in the supply of fresh, clean water and sanitation? Does he also deprecate the way in which the Department for International Development has axed its public service agreement in respect of that? Does he support WaterAid's "Flush out poverty" campaign, which urges the Department to increase the aid spent directly on such important things?
Norman Baker:I certainly support WaterAid's campaign and I am grateful both for my hon. Friend's intervention and for the early-day motion that he has tabled, to which my signature has been appended. The figures on the Department's contribution, which I hope the Minister will recognise as they are from the Department for International Development's water action plan, suggest that the percentage of the budget spent on water has decreased from 2.6 per cent. in 1998–99 to just 1.9 per cent. today, albeit, to be fair to him, within an increasing budget overall. However, that is a small proportion of the budget for such an essential human need.
By 2025 the situation could be even worse. The projection is that every second person on Earth will be suffering from a lack of drinking water and about two
406WH
thirds of the world's population will live with water shortages, which is double the current number. Some 31 countries face water shortages and a further 17 are likely to be added to that number by 2025.
The situation is serious and has all sorts of unwelcome consequences. One, of course, is the effect on poverty and the grinding standard of living that so many people in our world, predominantly females, have to endure. There are girls and women in Africa who require on average three hours a day to fetch water from a well. The effort involved in that consumes one third of the daily food energy intake, which is a disgraceful statistic. Some 15,000 cu m of water can be used to irrigate one hectare of rice fields, provide 100 nomads and 450 animals with water for three years or put up 100 guests in a luxury hotel for 55 days. We have a very disparate approach to water in our world, where many people struggle to have even the basic requirement for life while others in the UK, America and elsewhere treat it as if it were endlessly replenishable, which it certainly is not.
This is a matter not simply of grinding poverty, but of disease, because 2.5 billion people have no access to proper sanitation. Every second hospital bed in the world is occupied by somebody who became ill because of polluted water. Every day 6,000 children die because of a lack of sanitary facilities—one every 15 seconds. That is a frightening statistic. The situation is getting worse, not simply because of the profligate use of water in the west, but because of population pressure from other countries. Populations in countries such as China and India are soaring, but there is not the water infrastructure to ensure that they have the water they need.
Even in the UK. in my constituency, a planning application is being submitted for a desalination plant because there is simply not enough water in the aquifer in the south-east to deal with demands. Even in this area, with a proper infrastructure by and large, we still have to have a desalination plant.
Africa, one of the world's most water-stressed regions, has experienced a population increase of 27 per cent. in the last 10 years or so. That figure is nearly double the global increase for the same time. Further pressure is coming from that, which also involves another possible unwelcome complication—sadly, that of war.
"If you're short of water, the choices are conservation, technological invention, or the politics of violence".
Those are the words of Marq de Villiers, who has written an excellent book, which I commend to everybody, called "Water Wars". A Friends of the Earth report, "Water Justice for All", states:
"This growing scarcity and demand has led many to believe that water may well have as important a role as oil in the 21st century, with the water market becoming as valuable and politicised as the fossil fuel market."
Or, as Mark Twain put it rather more succinctly:
"Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting".
The wars of the 21st century may be over water rather than oil or territory.

407WH
We are seeing that already in, for example, discussions on the use of the waters in Egypt and, most dramatically perhaps, in Israel, where the so-called security wall is being erected. In my view, that is not about security; it is about stealing Palestinian water.
Dr. Jenny Tonge:Does my hon. Friend also realise that the Israelis are planning to extend the wall down the eastern side, thus cutting the Palestinians off from the Jordan valley and the Sea of Galilee? The Israelis take 80 per cent. of the west bank water for their own use; 40 per cent. of Israeli water comes from the west bank.
While the Israeli settlers in the west bank are splashing around in private swimming pools and have access to hot and cold running water whenever they want it, the Palestinians have water sometimes only once a week. The Israelis are wasting water to such an extent that the average Israeli uses 10 times more water than the average Palestinian in the west bank. Does my hon. Friend not think that that is a major contributory factor in the conflict between those two peoples?
Norman Baker:I certainly do, and I think that it is an affront to human decency that the Israelis are behaving in such a way. I recognise that the Government have criticised the construction of that wall, which is right, but I hope that they will apply more pressure than they appear to have done so far to bring about a change in Israeli policy. That means applying pressure on the United States.
The same applies to water resources and the environment in general. For example, the Prime Minister recognises, I believe, the importance of climate change. He says that it is an important issue, yet his friend in the White House, Mr. Bush, is busy increasing carbon emissions as if there were no tomorrow. We do not hear much about that.
Indeed, when Sir David King, the Government's chief scientist, says how important climate change is, the result is a memo from 10 Downing street to tell him to keep quiet. The Prime Minister and Departments, including DFID, need to follow through what they honestly believe and put pressure where it has to be applied, rather than trying to indulge in a form of kow-towing to the Americans, who are engaged in a process that pays scant or no attention to the environmental needs of the future.
Environmental change is another consequence of the water shortage and of the increased use of water. It is said that forests precede man and deserts follow him. That is certainly so in the Sahara, for example, where, 4,000 years ago, hippos were playing where now there is only stone and scrub.
Forests are decreasing and deserts are increasing. In the past century, more than half the wetlands on earth have been lost to development and conversion, partly due to pressure on water. The underground aquifer that supplies one third of the water for the continental US is being depleted eight times faster than it is being replenished. About 20 per cent. of freshwater fish species have become extinct or are endangered. The Aral sea in Kazakhstan has halved in depth and lost 90 per cent. of its volume in the last 40 years. The statistics are endless, and if I seem slightly irritated and frustrated that is
408WH
because I do not see any action from the Government or the world community to address these issues, which will have catastrophic and irreversible consequences unless they are taken seriously.
I recognise that the Government have signed up to the UN 2000 millennium development goals. The 2002 world summit on sustainable development had a commitment to developing integrated water resources management and water efficiency plans by 2005. I have seen the document released last week by the Government to take matters forward. To be fair, they recognise the issue and pay lip service-sometimes more than that—to the actions that need to be taken, but, given the scale of the problem, we must go much further, much faster.
I want to refer briefly to the controversial issue of the general agreement on trade in services and get the Minister's response on that point. I am sure he knows from his postbag, as I know from mine, that many well-meaning pressure groups and individuals up and down the country are concerned about the suggestion that, as a consequence of GATS, we will end up with water privatisation in developing countries and control of that essential resource will move from those countries elsewhere in a one-way process that, effectively, will be irreversible.
There are also concerns that the European Union is applying pressure for developing countries to go down that road. I have seen such statements, which seem to be well sourced, from those pressure groups, and I have also seen categorical denials from the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments. Frankly, I cannot reconcile the two, so I hope that the Minister provides us with more information that will enable us to take the matter forward. This is an important issue that we must get right. If we get it wrong, there will be no way back. My instinct is not to pressurise developing countries: if they come to that conclusion themselves there are sufficient safeguards, but there should be no pressure from the EU or elsewhere.
On environmental violations, we should consider the Environment Agency report for 1999 to 2001, which shows that the top five polluters include Sirius Vivendi, Thames Water and Wessex Water. The water industry does not have a good record of adhering to environmental legislation in this country, where controls are quite strict, let alone in developing countries where controls are sadly much weaker. It is also worth remembering that the global water and waste industry is estimated to be worth as much as $800 billion. That is a lot of money and, potentially for somebody, a lot of profit.
I ask the Minister to amplify his thoughts on the water action plan, pick up the point quite properly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) in his intervention, set out the Government's response to the question of GATS and assure me and other hon. Members that the Government—although I genuinely believe that they have the right instincts on these issues—are prepared to make the commitments necessary to deliver the changes that are essential if we are to have better water allocation in our world.
It is not sufficient for the Government to think the right thing, nor just to publish documents saying the right thing, nor even to adopt policies and put money in

409WH
budgets hoping that it will be all right. The scale of the problem is such that the Government have to go on a crusade to convert countries such as the United States, which are not playing their role properly, to ensure that there is a big turnaround in how the world deals with water.
The UK, with its position in many international organisations such as the Commonwealth, NATO, the UN Security Council and the Bank for International Settlements, is well positioned to take this matter forward. I want to hear a commitment from the Minister that he will do so.
3.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas):I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on securing the debate. He and I were founder members of the Environmental Audit Committee and I welcome the opportunity to trade blows again on environmental issues. I am also pleased that he has been able to secure the attendance and support of his colleagues, the hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge).
As the hon. Member for Lewes said, getting enough clean water—something we in the UK take for Granted—is a daily challenge for far too many poor people around the world. Disposal of water essential for hygiene and sanitation is just as big a challenge. The number of people who lack access to safe drinking water is 1.2 billion, and 2.4 billion people lack access to basic sanitation. The proportion of Africans with access to safe water and sanitation has hardly changed over the past 10 years. Hundreds of millions of people live in parts of the world where there simply is not enough water to go round. Inevitably, if there is not enough to go round, the poor are the least likely to get access to the water that they need even though their needs are the greatest. Pollution—an issue that the hon. Gentleman also touched on —adds to the problems of access to clean water. When that is combined with poor water management, the health and livelihoods of poor people inevitably suffer.
Water-related diseases are the single largest cause of human sickness and death in the world, and they disproportionately affect poor people. A major issue for children is diarrhoeal disease, which accounts for some 2 million child deaths each year. That number can be reduced through better hygiene practices, safer water supplies, and the provision of basic sanitation. Such measures will also support better maternal health in the home.
If we are going to do more to help poor people to overcome that daily challenge, as the hon. Gentleman and the non-governmental organisations that he quoted made clear, much more must be done by the international community. It is sadly all too clear that the pace of progress for improving access to water, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, is not as fast as I would like. To achieve the millennium development goals, approximately 250,000 people need to be provided with safe water supplies a day, and approximately 320,000 people need to be provided with basic sanitation. That
410WH
is a considerably greater increase than has ever been achieved. It is unusual for a Minister to be accusing the hon. Gentleman of understating the challenge that faces us, but perhaps he is in danger of doing just that.
Investment must double to meet the millennium development goals on water and sanitation. That investment will have to come from the resources of developing country Governments, the international community, international financial institutions and international donors such as the UK. It will also have to come from the private sector.
It is not as though poor people do not consistently say that clean water is one of their top priorities; they definitely do. We know that through the consultation processes that take place when poverty reduction strategy papers are drawn up in country. However, translating that desire into action requires joined-up action across developing country Governments and better international donor co-operation. Joined-up action across Governments is a challenge at the best times; it is a huge challenge for developing country Governments who are faced with the capacity issues involved in dealing with international donors.
Why is joined-up action such a challenge? Well, responsibility for water resource management, water supplies and sanitation is often spread across many parts of developing country Governments. No single part of government takes the lead, and different parts of government often sadly have conflicting views. Solving those problems demands commitment from the Governments of developing countries. They must ensure that there ate clear lines of responsibility and accountability. They need arrangements for resolving differences about competing demands for water in a country. They need to give water and sanitation appropriate priority, and to allocate appropriate long term funding, so that the relevant authorities, which are often local authorities., have the incentives as well as the money that they need to ensure that investment is being made in better water and sanitation for ordinary people.
Clearly, making progress in many developing countries requires support from donors such as the UK. Our approach involves supporting countries in developing plans to eliminate poverty. The poverty reduction strategy papers that I referred to earlier relate to that. We provide advice and support to ensure that the needs of poor people are included in those plans. We then put our support behind those plans and the priorities in those plans and we encourage other donors to do the same. Our experience, which is, I think, generally borne out in the views of NGOs, is that that is the most effective way to achieve rapid progress towards all the millennium development goals.
Water has featured particularly strongly in our discussions with our partners in countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, India, South Africa, Uganda and Nigeria. Uganda, for example, has made safe access to water one of its first priorities for its poverty reduction strategy. The donor community has responded to that prioritisation of water with financing through water sector support, as well as through budget support and through individual projects in rural and urban areas.
Uganda, I am pleased to say, is almost on track to achieve the water millennium development goal by 2015—unlike many other developing countries, sadly.

411WH
As part of our support to the Ugandans in the water sector, we have seconded a water specialist to work in the Ugandan Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development.
Another example concerns Nigeria, where we are working with the federal Government and with UNICEF to focus the federal Ministry of Water Resources on the long-term policy reform necessary to secure the investment and pro-poor reforms needed to ensure good access to water.
Our policy dialogue with the Government in Bangladesh has focused on trying to improve donor collaboration, particularly on the arsenic contamination of ground water—an issue of which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware—as well as on better access generally to water and sanitation. We are also funding a large environmental health programme there, through international and local NGOs, which are working with local government on water supply and sanitation.
Water also forms the basis of a strong partnership with the World Bank in China, where we are promoting reforms across the water sector.
Dr. Tonge:The Minister may not be able to answer this question now, but perhaps his Department could write to me. What progress has there been on the privatisation of the water supply in Accra in Ghana? I know that DFID was, in that case, sponsoring the sort of thing that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) alluded to in his speech.
Mr. Thomas:I will do my best to deal with the hon. Lady's question, but I shall first deal with other comments by the hon. Member for Lewes. The hon. Gentleman asked me specifically what position we have reached on GATS. As he rightly said, that is the framework for WTO negotiations between countries on the liberalisation of trade in services, including, crucially, water supply. It is a bottom-up agreement, meaning that countries themselves decide whether and when to open up their service sectors to foreign competition.
The UK does not insist that countries go to the GATS negotiations with a commitment to privatise their water industries. If they decide, of their own volition, to go down that route, we will consider supporting them, if that is a priority for their poverty reduction strategy. I hope that that reassures the hon, Gentleman to some extent.
I now want to comment on specific issues concerning the role of the private sector. Whether we are referring to international companies or to small-scale local service providers, the private sector has a role in supporting Government and civil society. Crucially, it can bring management and technical expertise, efficiency and service delivery to the table. Effective regulation and communication are essential to ensure that water companies' investment is in the interests of the poor.
412WH
Our approach to private sector involvement is to focus on what is necessary to ensure that investment in water by the private sector delivers better access to safe water supplies.
Mr. Foster:The Minister has rightly been focusing on the important role that the private sector can play, but it is important that he also talks about the Government's role. Does he acknowledge that his Department gives much of its aid through budget support? Will he also acknowledge that it does little to track how much of the budget support is spent on water projects and that the National Audit Office report makes it clear that only a small percentage is spent on them? Given his rightful emphasis on water, surely he should be telling us that it is the Government's intention to increase the proportion of Government aid that is spent on water and sanitation.
Mr. Thomas:If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment, I shall deal first with the point about private sector engagement in Ghana raised by the hon. Member for Richmond Park.
Late in 2003, the Government of Ghana advised us that they had reached a decision on a revised process for involving the private sector in a five-year management contract for the existing water networks. It now seems unlikely that there will be significant private sector participation in that process, partly because of a decline in interest from water companies operating in that part of the world. The World Bank is in the final stages of developing a $120 million project to support it and we expect to co-finance it. If the hon. Lady has further questions about what we might do in that respect, I shall be happy to speak to her privately or to write to her.
The hon. Member for Bath raised the issue of our bilateral spend on water and sanitation and I shall set out the figures: we spent about £29.8 million directly on water and sanitation in 1998–99; £33.4 million in 1999–2000; £34.5 million in 2000–01; £34 million in 2001–02, and £35 million in 2002–03. However, that understates our expenditure in the water sector. Our analysis shows that our total bilateral expenditure, including that with NGOs and multilateral partners was £82 million in 1999–2000; £91 million in 2000–01; and some £87 million in 2001–02. That spending represents about 6 per cent. of our total bilateral aid budget respectively in each of the years quoted. The criticism made by the Clean Water Fund was unfortunate, as it did not take into account the other spending envisaged, although I recognise that it is still campaigning for higher bilateral spending from the Department for International Development.
I confirm that we have published a water action plan setting out what we are hoping to do to renew our effort to increase access to safe water and, as part of that process, we are hoping to meet NGOs to discuss progress. I am happy to have a further discussion with the hon. Member for Lewes on these issues when he has had the chance to digest the water action plan and to hear NGOs' views on the matter.

Mr. Steven Chivers
4 pm
Mr. Eric Insley: I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate about my constituent, Mr. Steven Chivers. I should point out that he is a long-standing friend of mine and I have known him for over 35 years.
To put it mildly, my constituent has been treated very poorly by the Government and by Customs and Excise. Mr. Chivers' case raises several issues, including the losses he suffered at the hands of Customs and Excise, the wider elements of operations carried out by Customs and Excise and the legality of, and confusion surrounding, what are known as indicative levels of tobacco and alcohol imports, which are used by Customs and Excise to make judgments when people import such goods. His case also highlights the actions of Customs and Excise in targeting consumers of tobacco and alcohol in this manner—Mr. Chivers took his motor car to France and brought back alcohol and tobacco—rather than spending more time targeting large—scale smugglers.
Mr. Chivers' case draws attention to the lack of control or supervision of Customs and Excise. You will be aware, Mr. Benton, that, over the past few months and years, there have been numerous press reports on the money that Customs and Excise has wasted on certain trials and other issues. Customs and Excise seems to act without any control or governmental supervision. This case also highlights the confusing advice given to those travelling abroad, particularly to France, by ferry operators and organisations that provide trips to countries such as France specifically to buy alcohol and tobacco.
The decision in this case brings to light the conflict between the actions of Customs and Excise and court judgments. There is clearly a conflict between the Crown court judgment in Mr. Chivers' appeal and the attitude of Customs and Excise to section 144 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. Mr. Chivers was stopped at Dover in May 2001 as he returned from a trip to France to buy alcohol and tobacco for his own consumption. The alcohol and tobacco were seized and his vehicle was impounded. However, the difference between the impounding of Mr. Chivers' vehicle and that of other vehicles is that his was a lease car and a registered taxi. By confiscating that motor vehicle, Customs and Excise deprived him of his means of making a living.
Mr. Chivers successfully appealed that action at Maidstone Crown court:the court overturned the actions of Customs and Excise, but that was in June 2003—some two years after his vehicle and those products were seized. During those two years, Mr. Chivers had to pay for the lease on his motor car at over £300 a month, the hire of radio equipment for his taxi business and insurance and other payments for the vehicle. He also had to find another way to make a living during that period because his taxi had been impounded
When Mr. Chivers appeared a Maidstone Crown court, the judge found in his favour and decided that he should be awarded reasonable costs in respect of the court action, his expenses in pursuing the case and
414WH
compensation. However, Customs and Excise invoked section 144 of the 1979 Act, which required the judge to certificate Customs and Excise as having acted reasonably. It was therefore not liable for any damages case brought by the claimant in respect of a seizure. In other words, Customs and Excise was in a win-win situation. It was found to have acted unlawfully by the court, but invoking section 144 meant that it was not required to make any reparations or pay compensation or damages. Even when it is found to have acted unlawfully, it gets away with it.
At this stage, I should point out that Mr. Chivers is not seeking damages. He is seeking only compensation for the loss of his livelihood and the loss of his vehicle during the two years that it was impounded by Customs and Excise. He is also claiming the amount that he expended on the tobacco and alcohol, which were found to have been seized unlawfully by Customs and Excise.
Mr. Chivers' vehicle was eventually returned to him in 2003. He was also offered limited compensation, which he has disputed, as this no where near covering the costs he has incurred during the past two or three years in pursuing the case and due to the loss of his livelihood and motor vehicle. It is my view that he should now be compensated for the loss of his vehicle and the payments that he had to make on the leased vehicle in the two years.
I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister about the case, and it took four months to receive a reply from the Treasury. In that response, he stated that under section 144 and the terms of the seizure of the vehicle, the Government or Customs and Excise were not liable for any compensation because, at the end of the lease, the vehicle reverts to Mr. Chivers, my constituent. However, that is not the case. At the end of the lease period, the car does not revert to my constituent, although he has the option of purchasing it. As it is a taxi, subject to high mileage and everything that goes with that, he would not purchase it. which is why he went for a leased vehicle in the first instance. Even though Customs and Excise was supplied with a copy of the lease agreement for the vehicle, it chose to give a wrong interpretation of the terms. I hope that my hon. Friend will reconsider that point.
As I have pointed out, the case highlights the considerable confusion over the use of indicative guidelines. My hon. Friend and I have corresponded on several occasions about them. I tend to accept the European Union's view that the indicative guidelines have no place in a single market. Either we have a single market in which we can import tobacco and alcohol in unrestricted quantities or we do not. I appreciate and support the idea of preventing smuggling, but the indicative guidelines are contrary to other Government policy.
On several occasions, my hon. Friend has written to say that any individual in this country may bring in unlimited quantities of tobacco and alcohol, and people are given that advice on cross-channel ferries and trips abroad, particularly to Calais. People travelling abroad tend to think that they have a right to bring in unlimited quantities. However, that is obviously not true because of the indicative guidelines used by Customs and Excise, which many people ire simply unaware of.

415WH
I know about the leaflet issued by my hon. Friend's Department, but he will remember that he was required to triple those indicative guidelines just over a year ago after pressure from the European Union, which found them to be inadequate. I accept that they may be the highest in the EU, but the public are still confused about the reason for them.
Customs is targeting consumers rather than real smugglers. Shops in certain parts of my constituency do not stock some brands of tobacco and cigarettes because they cannot compete with the price of illegal imports circulating in the area. I could take my hon. Friend to certain shops, and the shopkeepers would be able to point out the houses to which large quantities of cigarettes are delivered. From there, they are distributed by runners.
Shopkeepers simply cannot compete with the price of such cigarettes, which are being sold in bulk. We should be targeting those imports, not taking the cigarettes, alcohol and motor cars of genuine consumers who are unaware of the indicative guidelines put out by the Government in respect of the single market. Once again, I refer to the confusion that has been caused.
My constituent brought in two litres of Bacardi. two litres of Campari and 30 litres of beer. He also brought in a substantial quantity of hand-rolling tobacco. For that, he lost his motor vehicle and his livelihood for two years. I compare that to a case in my constituency in which an individual was convicted for avoiding £2.5 million of duty on imported cigarettes—I do not mean cigarettes worth £2.5 million; I mean £2.5 million of duty. Somewhere along the line, Customs and Excise has got its priorities wrong. It attacked a constituent of mine for a few bags of tobacco and a few litres of beer, yet large-scale smuggling is still going on.
Customs and Excise appears to be able to do as it likes and does not appear to be responsible to anyone. It was found to have acted wrongly when Maidstone Crown court decided in favour of my constituent, but it is refusing to compensate him to anywhere near the level of his losses. It is hiding behind section 144, which states that because it acted reasonably—in view of the guidelines, that is obviously questionable—it does not have to pay. Again, I stress that my constituent is not claiming damages; he seeks compensation.
It took my constituent two years to get the case overturned, but Customs and Excise does not want to compensate him for the few thousand pounds that he lost. That is despite the fact that a newspaper article on 26 November 2002 pointed to the fact that Customs and Excise had probably lost £1.25 billion in respect of fraud cases and the monitoring of certain imports in a warehouse case. I compare that to a few litres of beer and a bag of tobacco. Even the Maidstone Crown court judge, who allowed the section 144 order, said that my constituent should not be out of pocket as a result of the actions of Customs and Excise.
There is a clear contradiction between what the judge intended and the attitude of Customs and Excise, and the compensation that it is offering. The judge clearly agreed that the action should not have been taken against my constituent and that he should not be out of pocket. Customs and Excise refuses to offer compensation, thus forcing him to consider other ways of trying to obtain the compensation that is due to him.
416WH
I believe that my constituent has been badly treated by Customs and Excise, which appears to be taking draconian measures against genuine consumers while ignoring large-scale smuggling that results in hundreds of millions of pounds in duty being lost. I ask my hon. Friend to re-examine the case to determine whether he can authorise the payment of proper compensation to my constituent.
4.15 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury(John Healey): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on securing the debate, which has provided an example of the tough way in which he pursues the interests of his constituents. As he said, I have been on the receiving end of his strong and fair, but tough, representations.
This debate is about the compensation and expenses that are properly payable in the case not just of Mr. Chivers but those in similar situations. In discussing any such case it is important to understand not only the facts of the particular case and how the law should be applied, but what the law says about the resolution of differences such as those that my hon. Friend pointed out in this instance.
I will deal with the specific points on compensation but, before doing so, I shall try to set those points in the legal framework in which Customs officers make decisions to seize goods and vehicles, and in which they acted in Mr. Chivers' case.
Mr. Chivers and his wife were stopped by Customs officers at Dover eastern docks on 10 May 2001. At the time of the seizure, the relevant legislation was the Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992, which was enacted by the previous Government in line with EU advice. That order made a presumption of commerciality when hand-rolling tobacco in excess of 1 kg was brought into the UK from another EU member state. After the interview, the officers concluded that they had evidence of commercial use and the 30 kg of hand-rolling tobacco belonging to Mr. Chivers was therefore seized. That amount of hand-rolling tobacco is enough for at least 36,000 cigarettes. It would last a 20a-day smoker five and a half years.
In October 2002 I laid new legislation before Parliament, which repealed the 1992 order. That legislation made it clear that tobacco and alcohol on which tax has been paid elsewhere in the EU and which has been imported to the UK for someone's own use is not liable to duty. It also made it clear that tobacco or alcohol imported for payment in cash or in kind, whether for profit or straight reimbursement—-known as commercial use—is subject to UK duties.
Mr. Illsley:On two occasions, my hon. Friend has mentioned evidence of commercial use. Could he elaborate on that? I have seen nothing in what I have been shown to suggest that Mr. Chivers was involved in the commercial use of those products.
John Healey:We must consider the question whether the case for commercial use was tested in the Court of Appeal; I shall address that point later. I was trying to explain the framework in which Customs officers acted

417WH
at that time—and act now—to make judgments about commercial or personal use, because that framework is different.
I was about to address my hon. Friend's point about minimum indicative levels. Those levels were set, on EU advice, at 800 cigarettes and 1 kg of hand-rolling tobacco. As a result of the changes that I introduced in October 2002, they are now set at 3,200 cigarettes and 3 kg of hand-rolling tobacco—the highest minimum indicative or guideline levels in the EU. That is at least six months' supply for the average smoker.
The new regulations remove the burden of proof on the individual to show that goods are for their own use. Again, that measure was introduced in 1992 under a previous Government and it reflected guidance from the EU. Under the new legislation, it is for Customs to be satisfied that goods are for commercial use. The point for my hon. Friend is that the legislation establishes that on the basis of a series of criteria set out in regulations, including the explanations offered by people importing large quantities. Customs has publicised the criteria widely—indeed, he mentioned a leaflet that refers to them—and it stands ready to explain its reasons for reaching such a view to any court or tribunal as necessary.
The new regulations reflect recent interpretations offered by the courts and represent an overhaul of 10year-old EU-based legislation. They have brought UK legislation fully in line with UK court rulings, EU-based legislation and existing practice.
The old regulations specifically said that a passenger with goods in excess of the minimum indicative levels had to prove that the excise goods were for their own use, but Customs has always had to be satisfied that it can explain and defend decisions and judgments when challenged at a tribunal or in court.
Mr. and Mrs. Chivers' car, which was used to carry the seized goods, was itself seized under the power in section 141 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 to seize vehicles used to carry goods liable to forfeiture. As my hon. Friend said, Mr. and Mrs. Chivers appealed against the seizure on 15 May 2001, and the case was heard at Dover magistrates court on 25 April 2002. The court supported the decision made by the Customs officers, condemned the goods and the car, and awarded costs to Customs. However, Mr. Chivers appealed against the decision on 26 April 2002, and the appeal was heard in Maidstone Crown court on 17 June 2003.
The Crown court concluded that Customs had not proved that the hand-rolling tobacco was not for own use, so it allowed the appeal. However—this is the central point for my hon. Friend—in coming to its conclusion, the court also ruled that there were reasonable grounds for the seizure, if not for the permanent forfeiture of the goods, and it therefore signed a certificate under section 144(1) of the 1979 Act. That was not invoked by Customs, as my hon. Friend argued; the court made the determination, according to the merits of the case. The granting of a certificate is by no means automatic and is often not awarded in such cases.
418WH
It might be helpful if at this point I make clear to my hon. Friend the purpose of the legislation. Section 144 provides limited protection to the Crown in cases in which, although the court requires restoration of something that has been seized, it is satisfied that Customs' decision to seize the goods, and the car if appropriate, was reasonable, given the information available to it at the time. That was the decision taken. Let us say that a certificate is granted. Section 144(2) provides that the claimant cannot recover from Customs any consequential costs arising as a result of the seizure. However, section 144(3) preserves the claimant's right to have the seized item returned and to compensation in respect of any damage caused while it was seized.
That is the significant and central matter in this case and similar cases. In other words, Parliament has seen fit to provide a limit on the costs and expenses that an individual may recover if the courts are satisfied that Customs' actions were reasonable. Had the court refused to grant a certificate, Mr. Chivers would have been entitled not only to compensation for any damage, but to costs and expenses, which is the argument that my hon. Friend made. However, the court issued a section 144 certificate in this case. Therefore, Mr. Chivers is not entitled to recover any damages or costs, such as those incurred in respect of his travel between home and Dover on the day of the seizure, taxi fares while not in possession of the car or the finance costs for the car.
My hon. Friend mentioned my reply of 11 February, in which I explained to him that Customs understood that the agreement in relation to Mr. Chivers' car was a lease purchase agreement in which the title to the vehicle transferred to Mr. Chivers once the final payment was made. That is not uncommon in such an arrangement. However, Customs officials now understand that that is not so in Mr. Chivers' case and the vehicle is subject to a genuine lease. It follows that my argument in the letter regarding the effect of paying Mr. Chivers' lease payments—in other words, that we would be subsidising his purchase—is incorrect. I regret the error and apologise to Mr Chivers and my hon. Friend for that mistake.
I need also to make it clear, however, that it remains the case that the Crown court issued a section 144 certificate restricting the claims that Mr. Chivers can make against Customs for losses arising from the seizure of the goods and the car. As such, lease payments for a car are not recoverable. As a result of the court's ruling, and in accordance with its liability under the terms of the certificate, Customs returned the seized car to Mr. Chivers and offered to pay the purchase price of his goods, which have been disposed of, the cost of the trip and legal costs that he incurred up to and including the Crown court hearing.
In respect of the amount offered for the goods that were destroyed, I have advised Mr. Chivers that he can ask the Department for Constitutional Affairs to appoint an independent referee, who will adjudicate on the amount to be paid by Customs. We are not, as my hon. Friend put it, forcing any option on his constituent. It remains open to Mr. Chivers to seek further legal advice if he wants to pursue a claim on other matters relating to the case.

419WH
My hon. Friend made several wider points about tobacco smuggling and illicit markets, and Customs' response. As he will be aware, tobacco smuggling grew rapidly in the UK from the mid-1990s, so that by 2000 almost one cigarette in five smoked in the UK was illicit, at a cost at that time of more than £2 billion a year to the public purse. Without intervention, the illicit cigarette market was set to hit 34 per cent. last year, but in 2000 we introduced a tough clampdown on tobacco smuggling, so that the scale of the illicit market is on a downward trend. It has been reduced to 18 per cent., and over the three years of the tobacco smuggling strategy receipts to the public purse have risen and more than £3 billion of revenue has so far been protected.
My hon. Friend is concerned that Customs somehow may be targeting shoppers, not smugglers. Part of the purpose of the reforms that I introduced and the next stage of the strategy I launched in October 2002 was to confirm that the Government fully uphold the rights of UK citizens to bring back unlimited amounts of alcohol or tobacco from cross-channel shopping trips, so long as
420WH
they are for their own use. We are, however, determined to crack down on smugglers who bring back alcohol and tobacco to be sold illegally in the UK.
My hon. Friend and I know the scale of the problem. Our own area of South Yorkshire is one of the hot spots for such activity, and he may like to know that Customs has seized about 17 million cigarettes in South Yorkshire in the current financial year alone, often in joint operations with the police.
The new guideline levels are designed to be fair for the honest shopper, tough on criminal smugglers and clearer about the distinction between the two. They help to clear up the confusion about which my hon. Friend is concerned. They help to draw the distinction in the public mind between the honest shopper and the professional smuggler, and they help the Customs officer to make better judgments between the two. The balance between tackling smugglers and upholding the rights of shoppers has been effectively struck.
It being half-past Four o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.